# Going filterless?



## Regent (30 Apr 2021)

So following a bit of a discussion with @Zeus. in another thread I thought I'd start a topic here and see what people thoughts are.

Do we actually need a big leaky expensive fault-prone canister filter to run our tanks? Reading the threads here people have issues with every make all the time..
I have a 400l peninsular with two aquael UltraMax 2000s and a powerhead. I can't help but feel that if that circulation was provided by a gyre pump in a densely planted tank the filters might be, for the most part redundant. The bacterial we rely on are legion and do not just live in the filter, I suspect there are enough on the plants and on the hardscape/substrate.

The functions I'd miss would be out of tank heating and co2 injection and removal of large particulate matter, but that's nothing a simple pump on a loop/ intank devices and some fine sponge can't fix...
What are your thoughts?


----------



## Tom Michael (30 Apr 2021)

Yes I saw this. My initial thought is if I don’t clean my filter for say three months (which is basically all the time!) it’s pretty fully of I guess mulm and degraded plant matter. So without it being ‘caught’ in the filter it will be trapped in the plants and may cause more algae?

would be an interesting experiment!


----------



## Regent (30 Apr 2021)

Tom Michael said:


> Yes I saw this. My initial thought is if I don’t clean my filter for say three months (which is basically all the time!) it’s pretty fully of I guess mulm and degraded plant matter. So without it being ‘caught’ in the filter it will be trapped in the plants and may cause more algae?
> 
> would be an interesting experiment!


I often go 3 months as well, cleaning the filters is a pain and there is always a risk of breakage/leakage/seals air entrainment etc.
I think if I tried I'd be looking at putting a small powerhead driven fine sponge filter in a hidden position to catch all that rubbish. I use modified aquael mini pat filters with a chunk of matten filter material in my smaller tanks already so I could try those. I have added a simple sponge prefilter to my main tank and I'm pretty good at cleaning them whenever they look dirty as they offend me, they also collect most of the rubbish that used to get into the main filter!


----------



## dw1305 (30 Apr 2021)

Hi all,


Regent said:


> I have added a simple sponge prefilter to my main tank and I'm pretty good at cleaning them whenever they look dirty as they offend me, they also collect most of the rubbish that used to get into the main filter!


I'm naturally cautious and I'd go down that route as well. Keep a filter, but with a pre-filter sponge, <"ideally a pretty large one">.  You don't need the turnover of a huge filter, if you a gyre etc., so the canister filter can be relatively moderately sized.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Regent (30 Apr 2021)

Yes I think i'd start by stepping down to one filter and keeping the other for spare parts -I already own them anyway.
I'm thinking that using one of these hmf foams might do the trick in a heavily planted tank.


----------



## John q (30 Apr 2021)

I think Diana walstad showed its possible to ballance a tank with fish and plants, without the need for a filter. The answer as I see it would be dependant on your planned bio load from fish in relation to mass of plants.

Personally I suspect in a moderately stocked tank a percentage of the nitrogen cycle will be done by the filter, just what that percentage is would be unknown, even then the question that  still remains would be "if the filter was slowly taken out of the equation, could the plants and substrate bacteria fill the potential void".


Like others have said, the only way to find out is to try it.


----------



## Zeus. (30 Apr 2021)

Regent said:


> So following a bit of a discussion with @Zeus. in another thread I thought I'd start a topic here and see what people thoughts are.


You saved me a post as was going to started the debate . I think much will depend on how many fish you have got. Low fish load heavy planted and good flow in tank wont be an issue. After all in nature there is no filters, however a large body of water which will dilute the levels of any say 'nitrites' etc whilst the natural micro organisms and plants mop up the 'nitrites'.
Most commercial fishing ponds have added pumps to crease the flow in the ponds lakes which am sure help prevent any excessive build-up in the water esp when there is no wind on the waters surface which creates a flow of water on the body of water.


----------



## Andy Pierce (30 Apr 2021)

I have a 45L Oase biOrb which comes with a "built in" filter but essentially is a substrate-based filter primarily and I couldn't see that the actual foam filter was useful, never actually looked dirty and it's a hassle (and expensive) to change so I stopped changing it what is probably going on for a year now - I stopped testing the water regularly as well.  I'm satisfied with water quality and I haven't heard complaints from the critters or plants.   They all look healthy to me.  I do injected CO2 and EI dosing with 50% weekly water changes with good flow from a powerhead and I would say the tank is reasonably heavily planted for its size.  I try to vac up the mulm and other debris from the substrate surface, but I don't actually notice that there is very much of that at all generally.  I might be nervous without the "under gravel" filter concept, but I'd say it's worth a cautious go.  My impression is that filters filter (go figure) and aren't very useful at providing flow but the flow might well be the important piece here, particularly since if you're doing effective water changes that's probably more useful than continuous filtration anyway.


----------



## sparkyweasel (30 Apr 2021)

Tom Michael said:


> Yes I saw this. My initial thought is if I don’t clean my filter for say three months (which is basically all the time!) it’s pretty fully of I guess mulm and degraded plant matter. So without it being ‘caught’ in the filter it will be trapped in the plants and may cause more algae?
> 
> would be an interesting experiment!


Without the filter, perhaps you would have syphoned it out. Then it might cause _less _algae. If it decomposes in the filter it pollutes the tank water a lot more than if it's in the bin.


----------



## milla (1 May 2021)

These guys appear to manage without filters.


----------



## Regent (1 May 2021)

Zeus. said:


> You saved me a post as was going to started the debate . I think much will depend on how many fish you have got. Low fish load heavy planted and good flow in tank wont be an issue. After all in nature there is no filters, however a large body of water which will dilute the levels of any say 'nitrites' etc whilst the natural micro organisms and plants mop up the 'nitrites'.
> Most commercial fishing ponds have added pumps to crease the flow in the ponds lakes which am sure help prevent any excessive build-up in the water esp when there is no wind on the waters surface which creates a flow of water on the body of water.



I think this is the key, balanced stocking and dense planting. I don't like heavily stocked tanks so I suspect it'd work well for me. I also change 80-100% of the water weekly so I doubt there's much accumulation of toxic metabolites.
Filter bacteria are almost entirely aerobic so a tank with fast growth, good flow and pearling plants (supersaturated O2) should give plenty of surface area to mop up anything that's left...



milla said:


> These guys appear to manage without filters.



Again dense planting and low stock. I'm a big fan of MD. I do wonder if with co2 and fertz it'd be possible to stock more heavily as the O2 levels growth and thus nutrient use also rise.


----------



## milla (1 May 2021)

I ran a high tech planted tank filterless for 3 months some years back which would be considered heavily stocked,, hundreds of endlers not just a school of 5 tetras and some shrimp. Was waiting on warranty replacement. 
I just carried on with regular ei routine. 
The only issues i had was  particles in water column from the wavemaker thing i was using for flow.  Water changes took more time with gravel vac but parameters and fish all ok.  Just means more work keeping tank and plants clean.


----------



## Zeus. (1 May 2021)

Regent said:


> I do wonder if with co2 and fertz it'd be possible to stock more heavily


Maybe, esp with the increase flow and surface agitation there should be and increase in [O2] at night and during photo period as plants growing faster so more O2 again which in turn help with the detox processes and conversion of potentially toxic Nitrogen compounds concentrations to the safer Nitrate (NO3) compound.

I personally prefer a well planted tank which has fish levels that when you look sometimes you see no fish al all, feels more natural, plus don't stock anything over 3cm except Amanos


----------



## Regent (1 May 2021)

milla said:


> I ran a high tech planted tank filterless for 3 months some years back which would be considered heavily stocked,, hundreds of endlers not just a school of 5 tetras and some shrimp. Was waiting on warranty replacement.
> I just carried on with regular ei routine.
> The only issues i had was  particles in water column from the wavemaker thing i was using for flow.  Water changes took more time with gravel vac but parameters and fish all ok.  Just means more work keeping tank and plants clean.



That's interesting, thank-you.
I don't mind clearing out the mulm, though I suspect a simple sponge filter or even a fine mesh filter would deal with much of that and be easy to hide.




Zeus. said:


> Maybe, esp with the increase flow and surface agitation there should be and increase in [O2] at night and during photo period as plants growing faster so more O2 again which in turn help with the detox processes and conversion of potentially toxic Nitrogen compounds concentrations to the safer Nitrate (NO3) compound.
> 
> I personally prefer a well planted tank which has fish levels that when you look sometimes you see no fish al all, feels more natural, plus don't stock anything over 3cm except Amanos



I agree, then seeing the fish is a real treat. Though I do like the personality of some of the small ciclids. I've currently got 8 small danios and 6 barbs in 400l you don't really see them during the day, but in the evening when it's dark outside the tank I could watch for hours.
Prehaps just decrease the nitrogen content of macros to account for lack of filter?


----------



## Easternlethal (1 May 2021)

The only chemicals we need to worry about in the immediate term in a filterless aquarium is ammonia and nitrites. In nature these are converted in the substrate, which is why plenums and deep sand beds are used especially in ponds which are the ultimate filterless environment. An active substrate is way more effective and should be relied on instead of internal sponge filters because internal filters can never provide sufficient bacterial activity to fully process these chemicals especially in a heavily stocked tank. However since it takes months for substrates to become fully active, internal filters are often used as a band aid (along with water changes) - along with regular testing. Plants are also used but are inconsistent because they too need time to establish with proper lights, co2 etc.

Over the longer term the goal in such a tank is also to get the substrate to also fixate phosphates and all the other chemicals so water is as clean as possible and also provide co2. Under those conditions even heavy stocking is possible and plants / frequent cleaning /  water changes are not necessary.

So substrate control is the key to going filterless for the long term.


----------



## Regent (3 May 2021)

I think there are two competing ways of looking at this the low tech, filterless, 'traditional low tech' way and what we're considering here, which is a high energy filterless system with regular vac and water change. I do wonder if a more open substrate system might help with ammonia breakdown even in such a tank?


----------



## Easternlethal (3 May 2021)

Yes I agree it's so important to be clear about one's objectives and to actually do the things necessary to carry them out.

For example, some decide they want filterless because they hate all the cleaning but then don't design or implement their aquarium system well enough and end up having to do more water changes / gravel cleaning and reducing livestock, then trying to rationalise where they end up.

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk


----------



## dw1305 (3 May 2021)

Hi all, 


John q said:


> I think Diana walstad showed its possible to ballance a tank with fish and plants, without the need for a filter. The answer as I see it would be dependant on your planned bio load from fish in relation to mass of plants.


We have a threads from @Bart Hazes, a <"Dutch / Canadian scientist"> who tried <"strict Walstad no filter tanks">.  Unfortunately he doesn't post on the forum any more  (and his blog pages have disappeared) so I don't know how he got on long term. 


Zeus. said:


> I personally prefer a well planted tank which has fish levels that when you look sometimes you see no fish al all, feels more natural, plus don't stock anything over 3cm except Amanos


Same for me. 

cheers Darrel


----------

