great question …I think 10 microns is much to large to remove ich, but Jay would know that better than me.
< truncated >
@Jay Hemdal any chance of mechanical removal And at what micron size?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
great question …I think 10 microns is much to large to remove ich, but Jay would know that better than me.
< truncated >
great question …
@Jay Hemdal any chance of mechanical removal And at what micron size?
Wouldn’t several filters from coarse to fine not reduce the clogging by smaller micron? For example. Open any canister and you will find lots of mulm that is trapped though smaller than what the canister traps yet it doesn’t return to the display yet if one then added several downsizing filters getting smaller that would keep capturing larger particles before the final 25 micron or smaller and if applied as I’m planning using a plate similar to an undergravel but drawing water through under tank bulk heads then wouldn’t there be a flow rate where theronts would be unable to swim up and get sucked into the filtration process? At a minimum this I think would work on a smaller QT system although I’m also planning to use it on the main but only run the smaller micron for occasional cleaning or should I spot a white spot. Seems logical to me.Well, it's complicated.
Mechanical filtration will remove a percentage of free swimming theronts. These range in size from 30 to perhaps 70 microns. However, that does not mean that you can put a 25 micron filter on a tank and "cure ich"...it doesn't work like that.
Filters with small pore sizes need to have slow filtration rates, else they clog too fast. That means there is a "dwell time" in the aquarium where the theronts can swim around for some time before being captured by the filter. Theronts emerge from the tomonts in the early morning and rise up and infect fish before ever getting sucked into the filter.
I just advocate for "good mechanical filtration" as one aspect of "ich management", but it is not a cure-all. Even diatom filters have failed to cure active ich infections in most cases...and I'm just hedging my bets, I've tried the old Vortex diatom filters (<10 micron) dozens and dozens of times and never cured an active infection with them.
Jay
Wouldn’t several filters from coarse to fine not reduce the clogging by smaller micron? For example. Open any canister and fill be will find lots of mulm that s as though smaller than what the csnister traps doesn’t return to the display yet if one then added several downsizing filters getting smaller that would keep capturing larger particles before the final 25 micron or smaller and if applied as I’m planning using a plate similar to an undergravel but drawing water through under tank bulk heads then wouldn’t there be a flow rate where theronts would be unable to swim up and get sucked into the filtration process? At a minimum this I think would work on a smaller QT system although I’m also planning to use it as n the main but only run the smaller micron for occasional cleaning or should I spot a white spot. Seems logical to me.
Your thoughts would appreciated.
But what about my use of an undergravel plate to draw water from underneath the gravel bed assuming fast enough flow was used? Guessing there's a point where these little boogers can't swim fast enough. Thereby suctioning them out and having them processed by the mechanical filters.Yes - graduated filters (a pre filter followed by a micron filter) does help to keep the filter from clogging, but it still can't capture the theronts as they rise up and attach to the sleeping fish without ever getting near the filter intake. This is the same issue with UV sterilizers.
Both UV and micro filtration work GREAT for treating water moving from one tank in a system to the next. The fish downstream are well protected. Side stream, where the water goes back to the original infected tank, not so much (grin). This isn't a matter of personal opinion - it is commonly understood in fisheries science where they use raceway fish culture.
Maybe. Thinking back, I’ve had old school UG filtered tanks connected to canister filters that got ich anyways, but it certainly was not a controlled study.But what about my use of an undergravel plate to draw water from underneath the gravel bed assuming fast enough flow was used? Guessing there's a point where these little boogers can't swim fast enough. Thereby suctioning them out and having them processed by the mechanical filters.
Guessing those old school canisters likely not post filtered with micron filtration unless using Ocean Clear. Recall they had a 25 micron pleated cartridge if memory serves me right?Maybe. Thinking back, I’ve had old school UG filtered tanks connected to canister filters that got ich anyways, but it certainly was not a controlled study.
Some people say they have found that bare bottom tanks with strong water flow across the bottom will sweep up tomonts and push them into the filter system before they release their theronts.
Guessing those old school canisters likely not post filtered with micron filtration unless using Ocean Clear. Recall they had a 25 micron pleated cartridge if memory serves me right?
Bare bottom with high flow going from left side to right side then filtered and returned to left side another idea I’ve had for QT. Thinking a peninsula with to end sumps. Cartridge filtration underneath. Can add baffles with new life placed in first baffle. Gotta believe flow high enough will pull everything into the filter keeping it closed loop. Obviously add some schedule 80 90 degree elbows for hides and can scrub each baffle occasionally. Not sure if tomonts can attach to those elbows but easy enough to replace every other day and bleach them. My idea of TTM. No way I’m cleaning tanks every other day. I think this along with hydrogen baths might work except instead of pulling fish out. Just dose the entire system then run UV-C to neutralize the hydrogen peroxide. Assuming I understand everything involved. I’m trying. Lol
Plus now trying to figure out how to feed ozone and combine that with UV-C. Beats bleaching ten gallon tanks
This is true. UV and Ozone have the same problem. Diatoms are only if you want to reduce the number of parasites. As I said I stir up my gravel with them (as I did last night) and even after running all night, it is still pumping a lot of water.Even diatom filters have failed to cure active ich infections in most cases...and I'm just hedging my bets, I've tried the old Vortex diatom filters (<10 micron) dozens and dozens of times and never cured an active infection with them.
Ran Eheim in the 90s as well. Odd thing. Due to life taking most of my time I left the canister unserviced with only removing floss as needed. Nitrates initially hovered around 80 then stayed at 20 ppm. Denitrification was obviously happening. They were slow by design but got slower as they clogged with mulm. Guessing that mulm what you describe as creating that finer filtration. Recall my water was crystal clear. Clear than any Berlin setup I recall seeing those days. Undergravel filters in the 80s were also crystal clear best I remember. Why I’m currently using a modified version and looking to incorporate into my main as well QT/Observation.So - the surprising thing is that the huge amount of media in those Eheim and Sicce filters actually worked in combination to create finer filtration than a single layer of the media would suggest that they would. Same sort of thing takes place with diatom filters - their advertising was based on water flowing through the pores of the diatom shells. Of course, in reality, the water flows around, not through each diatom. In a thick enough layer though, it then can filter out very small particles.
Stickiness of tomonts is a wild card. We know they are sticky to some degree, but we also know that siphoning the substrate will remove many of them.
So - the surprising thing is that the huge amount of media in those Eheim and Sicce filters actually worked in combination to create finer filtration than a single layer of the media would suggest that they would. Same sort of thing takes place with diatom filters - their advertising was based on water flowing through the pores of the diatom shells. Of course, in reality, the water flows around, not through each diatom. In a thick enough layer though, it then can filter out very small particles.
Stickiness of tomonts is a wild card. We know they are sticky to some degree, but we also know that siphoning the substrate will remove many of them.
What do you feel then being more pragmatic considering extended use between cleaning? Pleated or dual density? Seems you prefer pleatedGarriga, I use that 1 micron cartridge in my smaller filter.
The large filter I use the pleated cartridge as they should last for years and are cheap. I can't find the 5 micron pleated cartridge for the small unit. If I could I would use it with diatom powder.
I use my small filter a lot now just because it is fun to use and I stir my gravel and powerwash my rock just for the heck of it.
After many hours with that cartridge you posted, I had to bleach it in regular Clorox. Now it is as good as new.
I tried using these years ago to “cold sterilize” batches of water - they still clogged too fast for my use.
Have you considered dual density instead of pleated cartridge. Outer layer traps larger particles yet inner traps nominally down to one micron or larger depending on size. Continuously ran as you do they will likely trap everything down to micron rating as the filter clogs. Much cheaper than pleated.
I’m guessing they can be cleaned using 35% hydrogen peroxide. Not sure if they can be bleached. Do to the dual density. Might last longer than pleated having just the one micron rating.
But did you use a series of filters from coarse to fine. Say 100 micron down to 10 micron and if flow can be fast enough because of several filters capturing larger particles then wouldn’t that help reduce the pathogens? Not seeking sterilization. Seeking reduced contact to build and maintain immunity/resistance.I tried using these years ago to “cold sterilize” batches of water - they still clogged too fast for my use.
Again, unless the water is going from these filters to a separate system, you won’t get good disease control because the infective theronts can get to the fish before ever being trapped by the filter - especially with Amyloodinium.
I’m going to be using the big blue 20” and several of them and why I don’t think I should clog quickly considering it’s literally a bare tank with elbows and just a few fish. Mostly observation but I’m also aiming to reduce pathogen load.Jay, that is why I prefer the 5 micron pleated filter with the powder. That should filter down to less than one micron and I can use them all night without clogging. If I needed it to work longer, I would make a 5 gallon unit.
Yes - I tried staged filters, still didn’t like how fast they clogged. I was going down to <2 microns, smaller than you really need to go think.But did you use a series of filters from coarse to fine. Say 100 micron down to 10 micron and if flow can be fast enough because of several filters capturing larger particles then wouldn’t that help reduce the pathogens? Not seeking sterilization. Seeking reduced contact to build and maintain immunity/resistance.
There has to be a speed of flow where these pathogens can’t overcome thereby reducing the numbers that make contact with fish.