Ascensive Posted July 24, 2003 Share Posted July 24, 2003 as far as the filter is concerned, should i keep that in, and how often should i clean it, and when should i replace it? or would any of you recommend using something else as filter media? i have a penguin 125. jAy Link to comment
SLOreefer Posted July 25, 2003 Share Posted July 25, 2003 yes take out th ebio-wheel. this has xome up many many mnay times and it has been said that many times...take it out. with wil compete with your live rock for food and will starve your rock to death. Link to comment
Physh1 Posted July 25, 2003 Share Posted July 25, 2003 Take it out. If you do a search for "biowheel" you'll see a ton of info on them and why to remove them. Cameron Link to comment
SaltyDawg Posted July 25, 2003 Share Posted July 25, 2003 yeah take it out. it's is a Nitrate factory. Unless you have a larger tank it will do nothing but create a high nitrate rpoblem for you. Just make sure to change your media bi-weekly on the dot. This will ensure that nothing's skin from a shed will be sucked on to the filter pad and left to decompose. If it does this you will have the same problem as a biowheel only now you will be rapidly spreading that nice goo(poison) from what ever has shed through out the water colum. Link to comment
chufa Posted July 25, 2003 Share Posted July 25, 2003 I disagree. Not everybody tankes theirs out. I have kept mine from my Eclipse filter, and have zero nitrates, along with very healthy live rock. This is a controversial topic, with different opinions and different results. Link to comment
Siejuban Posted July 25, 2003 Share Posted July 25, 2003 Any filter media like, activated carbon, needed? How the filtration should be set up? I am still getting information from this site before I start my nano reef. Link to comment
NepTuNe-UsD Posted July 25, 2003 Share Posted July 25, 2003 I posted a very similar discussion about a year ago regarding keeping or ditching the bio-wheel. After some debate I ended up ditching the wheel and keeping my tank as 'natural' as possible. The outcome was definately positive as I noticed nitrate levels dropped and I finally got to sleep at night without hearing that annoying wheel revolve. Now, A year later, my tank is super healthy and does not run any HOB filters or skimmers. Good Luck! Link to comment
Siejuban Posted July 25, 2003 Share Posted July 25, 2003 I am wondering, if we don't need any chemical filtration for nano-reef, so do we have to keep the HOB? But one of my planning is to use the HOB for the iceprobe to cool the water, I have seen someone in this site, drill a hole on the HOB filter cover and install the iceprobe for cooling use Link to comment
SLOreefer Posted July 25, 2003 Share Posted July 25, 2003 many of us only use the hob as a means of extra water capacity and as circulation. this is the only means of circulation for my tank and it also gives the the possibility of running carbon if i need to. Link to comment
MrConclusion Posted July 25, 2003 Share Posted July 25, 2003 A HOBF is good place to add things like phosphate absorbers, slow-dissolving additives, and even carbon or other absorbative media like Chemi-Pure if and when you need them. Your HOBF may spend most or all of the time empty, but that's OK. They also move water cheaply from down low in the tank out into brief contact with fresh, cool air outside the tank, so if you leave the lid off you can get some cooling benefits. I run with a bio-wheel in place, and there's abslolutely no starvation of my live rock. That would depend on how much you feed. My fish are planktonic feeders so I am adding minced frozen food daily, and marine snow for my filter feeders 4 or 5 times a week. There's plenty of nutrition to go around! (the bio wheel is also a small cooling influence. By infrared thermometer, the water temperature on the bio wheel is 1-2 degrees cooler than the surface in the aquarium. This is due to increased evaporation and requires that you leave the lid off of the bio wheel, so it will increase top-off demand.) The bio-wheel does not support a massive amount of bacteria. You can verify this by weighing a new, wet wheel, then weighing it after it's had time to coat with biofilm. My wheel has less than 5 grams of biofilm, which is a joke compared to a couple pounds of live rock. IMHO, claiming that the biowheel will "starve" live rock is tantamount to claiming, in a theoretical 10 gallon tank, that adding 2 more pounds of live rock would "starve" an already existing 10 pounds! I think we'd agree that this is either a gross oversimplification or just disingenuous. There are successful tanks with everything from 1/2 up to 2 or more pounds of rock per gallon, so I would dispute the existence of a biological "sweet-spot." Biomass naturally seeks equilibrium. I have a feeling, and I may be wrong, that many of the people who eventually remove their biowheel and see improvement in their tank are actually seeing a natural improvement in a maturing tank. For example, if Mr. Noobie has a 3 month old tank, maybe he's spending time reading old threads and decides to remove his bio-wheel. 3 months later, the tank looks even better with growth in coralline and visible biodiversity! But it's very likely that this improvement is due to many factors, of which the bio wheel is perhaps not the most imprtant. Link to comment
SaltyDawg Posted July 26, 2003 Share Posted July 26, 2003 I agree with Mr. Conclusion as well. BTW that whole starve the live rock thing? WHEW! Live rock is basicaly on big arse bacteria farm. But only the good kind. It is prety much impossible to starve it unless your ph, calcium, gravity and a whole slew of other things are way off the chart on the low range. I removed my bio-wheel after about 2 months into my new nano. SO it may have been just as you stated a maturing benefit of my tank's live rock and it's natural bacteria build up. Link to comment
OpenBrain Posted July 26, 2003 Share Posted July 26, 2003 is not the issue. Nitrogen cycle basics does not support notion that additional surface area for bacteria other than LR is a problem. Link to comment
OpenBrain Posted July 26, 2003 Share Posted July 26, 2003 Sorry, my posts are bleary this morning. See this link: http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/...Denitrification Link to comment
tinyreef Posted July 26, 2003 Share Posted July 26, 2003 i think the 'starving' statement was just a misinterpretation of slo's meaning. which is (ASSuME'ing here), the bio-wheel will outcompete the LR/LS for denitrifying wastes. the wheel breaks down NH3 & NO2 much easier than LR/LS due to its exposure/proximity to O2. this is marineland's whole basis for its technology. they were going after the fish end of the market and so weren't too concerned about NO3. the fish end is the monster profit end afterall, something like 20:1 compared to the reef end. LR/LS are able to complete the nitrogen cycle by having anaerobic bacteria finish off the NO3 where this is next to impossible on a oxygen-rich biowheel. hence, the preference for porous rock and deep sandbeds. (that's another headache tho, um, i mean discussion X) ) biowheels are great filters, an ingenious adaptation of the wet/dry method and perfect imo for FO or FOWLR. the competition of LR/LS makes it inappropriate for reefs which typically seek a low/zero NO3 reading. you can still start a system with a biowheel and just migrate off later ime. (if i misunderstood you slo, my apologies. that was my interpretation of what you meant but i can see how it was misconstrued) edit: openb, that's a good definition link. Link to comment
OpenBrain Posted July 26, 2003 Share Posted July 26, 2003 Thanks - I had the same question about bioballs when setting up my 15 g. I am doing just as you say i.e. slowly decreasing amount of bioballs and will eventually switch over to macroalgae + light on my HOB Amiracle SL-5 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.