• You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up

Dilemma

M

MelodySalad

New Member
Joined
23 Apr 2023
Messages
6
Location
North Norfolk, UK
I'm wondering if I need to upgrade my filter. I opted for an Oase FiltoSmart Thermo 100 for my 90L tank but now think even though it's meant to be suitable for up to 100L tanks I don't think it's big enough! I abandoned the heater early on as it wasn't getting above 22 despite being maxed out on 32. I filled the space with the left over ceramic hola hoops it came with. I've subsequently added the hola hoops from the Fluval Flex 32L which I've decided to sell as trying to manage two tanks is really too much for me at the moment. I'd like to start using entry level CO2 which is another reason I think I will need to go for a bigger filter. Any advice hugely welcomed!
 
Yes I would think it’s a bit undersized for a 90l. I have a 60 liter aquarium (60p sized) and I have a eheim classic 2217 on there although I do think I could get away with a 2213. A 2217 would probably work well for your tank. It’s always better to have more filtration and lower the flow than not have enough.
 
if this is a planted tank, you need more flow but not more filtration capacity because in UKAPS we say that plants are the filter :)
Therefore, instead of buying a brand new canister filter, you could simply strategically place a $5 usb pump in one of the dead spots in the tank and that will improve flow greatly.

regarding how to find dead spots in the tank, I find that is easiest once you use CO2. In a darkened room, use a laser pointer/narrow beam flashlight and shine it vertically downwards into the tank. You will be able to see the "CO2 bubble density" in the narrow beam of light. Some parts of the tank will have higher CO2 bubble density, and some parts may have significantly lower CO2 bubble density - those could be the 'dead spots' where a strategically placed usb pump may help the most.
 
erwin123 said:
in UKAPS we say that plants are the filter :)
Click to expand...
I'd prefer if we say the substrate is the filter. That said, I readily confirm that substrate's filtration capacity is greatly enhanced by rooting plants.:)
 
Hi all,
_Maq_ said:
I'd prefer if we say the substrate is the filter. That said, I readily confirm that substrate's filtration capacity is greatly enhanced by rooting plants.
Click to expand...
erwin123 said:
because in UKAPS we say that plants are the filter
Click to expand...
I just call it <"Plant / microbe biofiltration"> and it is <"much more efficient at nitrification"> than <"microbe only"> nitrification. This is definitely one of the reasons why, <"radial oxygen loss"> from plant roots (TS section through stem of Cyperus sp., oxygen is permeating through the lacunae and aerenchyma during photosynthesis, and diffusing down into the substrate.)

aerenchyma2-jpg.jpg

and rhizome of Nelumbo
Lotus_root.jpg


@_Maq_ and I are both interested <"primarily in dissolved oxygen">.

cheers Darrel
 
Last edited:
Hi all,
MelodySalad said:
I filled the space with the left over ceramic hola hoops it came with. I've subsequently added the hola hoops from the Fluval Flex 32L
Click to expand...
MelodySalad said:
yes it is a heavily planted tank.
Click to expand...
Take a <"few of them out">, your filter is only really providing <"belt and braces">. Like @_Maq_ and @erwin123 say the plants and substrate offer additional volume for nitrification to occur in.
MelodySalad said:
I've just tested the water parameters and they're still higher than they should be
Click to expand...
Andy Pierce said:
Which parameters are these, how are you testing them, and what do you think they should be?
Click to expand...
That is the <"million dollar question">. It isn't that the chemical parameters of the tank water aren't important, they are, but the <"problem comes"> in <"measuring them accurately"> and <"interpreting what those values mean">.

My personal opinion is that a lot of the aquarium literature, and advertising by the vendors of various products, is either wrong or designed to make <"you buy a product"> of <"no practical value what so ever">.

cheers Darrel
 
Last edited:
Hi.
Just for reference. I use that filter and heater on a 35 litre setup. I am running it at 90% power I guess.
 
Thank you all for your input here which is greatly appreciated and I will spend my evening reading - SO much to learn! Fascinating photographs of the plant stem cross sections - nature is incredible. I used the API Freshwater Master Test Kit. The water looks completely clear and the inhabitants seem 'happy' and I am sure everything will settle soon. I'll do a water change tomorrow and test again on Friday. I've decided to swith to the Fluval 207 as instinctively this feels like it will be easier for me to manage and will also be sure to keep the water in good shape. However, I have no idea how to go about making the switch - run both for a while? Photo of tank attached FYI.
 

Attachments

  • 000 - 1 (3).jpeg
    000 - 1 (3).jpeg
    160.4 KB · Views: 70
dw1305 said:
Personally milk is my weapon of choice, mainly because <"I use old 6 pint milk cartons"> to store my water change water in, and accidents can (and will eventually) happen.

cheers Darrel
Click to expand...
ahhh... so this is how we balance chemistry in white waters these days, must admit it's pretty energy effective - no need to throw tons of oxygen, using milk instead.
 
Hi all,
MelodySalad said:
I used the API Freshwater Master Test Kit. The water looks completely clear and the inhabitants seem 'happy' and I am sure everything will settle soon.
Click to expand...
I think the "inhabitants seem happy" is the <"important bit of that">, my basic tenet would be that you can use plant, fish and shrimp health as <"an indication of water quality">.

I'm <"not anti-testing">, but I want people to be aware <"that the numbers they get"> don't necessarily reflect the actual water chemistry, and that <"certain test kits and meters"> are likely to be <"more accurate than others">.

<"Watch the tank"> doesn't seem as <"scientific"> as water testing, but <"bioassay"> and biotic indices are actually the approach freshwater biologists take.

cheers Darrel
 
Hi all,
Witcher said:
ahhh... so this is how we balance chemistry in white waters these days, must admit it's pretty energy effective - no need to throw tons of oxygen, using milk instead
Click to expand...
The problem was that it <"was the morning">, before work, and I didn't know how much I'd tipped in.

I know that <"milk is incredibly polluting">, <"Dairy Crest given record fine for Davidstow environmental offences"> so I ended up changing as much water as possible, as rapidly as possible. I didn't have warm rainwater so eventually I decided that cool water from the butt was probably a better option than warmed tap water, but it was <"Hobson's Choice">.

I then spent all day <"agonising over the inevitable fish kill">, but despite a slight milky haze everything had survived both milk and temperature drop.

cheers Darrel
 
If you want a more planted tank oriented pigment for seeing the flow, you can use Fe EDDHA! When I was using it at a higher concentration, it was a delight to see it spread. I add the powder directly at the filter inlet through the surface skimmer and just watched the red cloud exit the lily pipe into the open waters.

Of course, after that the tank would look like tea for the whole week.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top