# Unfiltered Water Movement???



## mudboots (Jun 24, 2009)

So at the risk of embarrasment I am off to learn something else the hard way. Uhgh:retard:.

I set my main npt tank up quite a while back now (really recently compared to most folks here) and things have finally started to heal from all of my irresistable malproductive interventions, but I have, alas, something else to share with confusion. Lots of you are using water movement in your El Natural set ups and I never hear anything negative. 

Being slow to learn not to make mistakes, I had waited a long time, until LOTS and LOTS of organic goop had built up before I finally decided to add water movement. I bought a beautiful, wonderful, awesome, powerful Koralia 2 to push what I thought would be a modest 600 gph (modest being the key word). I realized immediately that 600 gph in a tank that has been sitting with Zero movement equal a debris cloud that rivals, almost, pea soup. As time went on (a few weeks) the debris began to degrade, but the tank to this day (yesterday actually) remains full of tiny debris drifting along in the current. All of my leaves required nightly dusting to allow for photosynthesis (and pics), as the dust build up was quite impressive. Thinking of mechanical filtration, I couldn't help but think that I'd be changing a filter out every two hours for 27 decades (I tried a pantyhose filter on the outlet for a week - terrible, horrible, no good, very bad...) before it quit clogging up, so last night I simply unplugged my investment.

This morning the tank, while still just a bit hazey, looks fantastic. Even some of the debris that had been collecting and sticking to the leaves has diminished (not sure how, but I'm not complaining). The leaves look like they used to before the water movement, all tilted upward as the lights began to turn on and gently opening to the morning. It just looked healthy again. I should mention that yesterday I also started using the Siesta regimen that D.Walstad posted numbers about.

Goodness, I really rambled on there. Sorry about that. I guess I just want to know if anyone else has anything to say about water movement in their tanks and the experience...did you start it from day one, add it later...filtered...unfiltered...

Later,

Darren


----------



## brenmuk (Oct 7, 2008)

IME you need good water circulation especially on tanks are either quite large or quite deep or both.
If not, as you found you get a build up of detritus. You also tend to get poor circulation of gases and nutrients and most of the plant growth then takes place at the surface.


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

In tanks with low flow, I try to suction before raising the filtration, and I do it slowly. Plenty of filter media cleaning. 

I find high flow isn't so necessary in simple tanks with a rich substrate; CO2 saturation is easily accomplished with low light, dense growth happens naturally. In all honesty, I don't like high light setups for any other purpose than growing more plants for use in other places, and the odd bit of aesthetics. Medium light levels are quite acceptable even in higher end tanks so long as there's good spread, which is partly accomplished in NPT's through sunlight.

Most of my tanks wind up being pretty high flow/filtration because of fine ground cover. I wouldn't toss HC or glosso into a tank that's going to build up a ton of mulm on the bottom. Without these plants or high light, I don't really see the point in a well set up tank.


----------



## bartoli (May 8, 2006)

mudboots said:


> I bought a beautiful, wonderful, awesome, powerful Koralia 2 to push what I thought would be a modest 600 gph (modest being the key word). I realized immediately that 600 gph in a tank that has been sitting with Zero movement equal a debris cloud that rivals, almost, pea soup.


Have you considered placing at one end of the tank bottom a powerhead and then attach a flexible tube extending all the way to the other end, connected to an elbow tilting up at an angle? That way does not blow a strong current at the plants or stir up debris but still increases water movement.

The type of pump that I had in mind was this:

http://www.drsfostersmith.com/product/prod_display.cfm?pcatid=18989


----------



## mudboots (Jun 24, 2009)

> Have you considered placing at one end of the tank bottom a powerhead and then attach a flexible tube extending all the way to the other end, connected to an elbow tilting up at an angle? That way does not blow a strong current at the plants or stir up debris but still increases water movement.


Hey bartoli;

Yes, I thought about that and almost purchased one before going with the Koralia. But I just couldn't stand the idea of more stuff in the tank. All that plastic et cetera just doesn't sit well with me. On top of that, my plants were never really suffering to begin with. Plant growth was fine, though I admit that changing the light schedule is going to be a tremendous improvement. Basically, I never noticed the plants suffering from lack of water movement. The water had started to clear nicely from the pea soup (I rescaped it a while back - big time no-no in a new npt) and the plants started to look really nice. I simply gave in to a tremendous amount of advice that a tank that size really needed some movement, so I gave it some.

While I'm out of town for the week I'll leave it out of the tank and see what happens. If everything is back to normal or better, I'll probably never use it again...


----------



## Tex Gal (Nov 1, 2007)

Sounds like you have fixed something that isn't broken. If things have been fine why bother it?

On the other hand the amount of debris that you describe sounds like WAY TOO MUCH. I think I'd so a surface vacuum every now and then and leave things as they have been.... ;D


----------



## mudboots (Jun 24, 2009)

Tex Gal said:


> Sounds like you have fixed something that isn't broken. If things have been fine why bother it?
> 
> On the other hand the amount of debris that you describe sounds like WAY TOO MUCH. I think I'd so a surface vacuum every now and then and leave things as they have been.... ;D


The funny thing is that from day 1 davemonkey gave me the following advice: "If you go with El Natural, set it up and don't touch it for 6 months other than a water change as needed in the first few weeks."

So what did I do? I got in there every chance I had since day 1!!! lol!!![-X Oh well, I still have plenty of patience left, and now that I realize WHY I was given certain advice, I can now sit back and let the tank do it's thing. Regarding the debris, I'll consider vacuuming some (but not all) of it when I get back next Saturday or maybe later that week, but I'll definitely chill out on the over-feeding.


----------



## davemonkey (Mar 29, 2008)

[-X Stop touching that! (It's like talking to our kids, right? ) 

Seriously, your tank will adjust itself to whatever system you give, in my humble opinion (within reason). It was doing fine without water movement, but the detritus was slow to breakdown (which I think would have corrected as time passed...and temp may have something to do with is as well).

If you like having the flow, or you need it for a heater or for water column dosing, then keep the koralia. Eventually things will settle down. 

I mentioned temp being a possible culprit. I wonder if lower temps keep down biological activity the same way it does in nature (I'm sure it does). If so, that would explain why the detritus is not breaking down right now (cooler temps during the winter without a heater). Later in the summer, you may notice a sudden dissappearance of the particles as your tank temp rises.

-Dave


----------



## Dustymac (Apr 26, 2008)

Darren,
My 55 is the only NPT which has had detritus problems and I attribute it to lots of life taking place within. Lots of fish and lots of snails need lots of food and the end result has to end up somewhere. Some of it feeds algae which dies and adds onto the accumulation. Eventually biological processes will consume the detritus unless constant tinkering disturbs those processes. As Dave suggests, step away from the tank. 

It could be you're feeding the tank too much. Even if you have no uneaten food laying about, it doesn't mean you couldn't get by quite nicely by feeding a lot less. It's one of the reasons I like automatic feeders in that you can easily quantify and adjust nutrient input.

Finally, 600 GPH is way too much unless you have vast expanses of empty water which need pushing around. NPTs don't require that kind of circulation. Personally I like a little water movement and without it, my larger tanks tend to develop pockets of hair algae. Nothing serious but a little current definitely helps.

For your 125, I would suggest two smaller pumps, one in each corner with their output aimed at each other so you get circulation without a big whirlpool effect. I like Mini-jet 606s but Bartoli's suggestion would work as well. Both brands weigh in about 100 GPH which is plenty. Of course, when you get back, if the tank seems OK without circulation, then why bother?

Keep us posted!
Jim


----------



## mudboots (Jun 24, 2009)

Hey Dave and Jim,

Thank you both for the replies. Just FYI I have added heaters as of last night, so that may help with the biological activity while I'm away. I appreciate all the advice I'm getting on water movement. 

Jim, it seems that pretty much most folks I talk to (here and in person) agree with you and Dan (Philosophos) in that a little dab will do, if needed. I actually look forward to coming back home just to see how everything is doing.

Hey Dave, I'm assuming you've started taking your own advice???ound:

BTW - I'm sure this belongs on another post somewhere, but whatever...I learned something about banded pygmy sunfish. While they are a modest size, smaller than some guppies I've seen, they like space. I had some in one of the picos but tossed them in the 125 last night because they just hide in the vegetation in one corner. This morning they were still in the vegetation, somewhat hidden, but they were actually moving around, eating stuff out of the substrate. This is the first time I've ever seen them move without me poking them, and the first time I've ever seen them eat. They are pretty cool.


----------



## Diana K (Dec 20, 2007)

Instead of a nylon stocking put a very coarse sponge over the intake. A thin layer can be wrapped around the back half of the Koralia and it will act as a filter, trapping the stuff that otherwise would be flying around the tank. 

Gentler water movement: Set the heater low in the tank. The rising warm water will create some water movement. 

Air bubbler: same idea. As the bubbles rise they move some water. 

Put the Koralia up higher so the force is dissipated by the time it gets close to the floor of the tank, so disturbs less debris. 

Eheim canister filters are very slow moving and poor mechanical filters, but might add enough water movement without needing much cleaning.


----------



## mudboots (Jun 24, 2009)

Howdy Diana K. For now (still out of town) I am going with the gentler water movement of a heater, one positioned horizontally on each end of the tank. By the time I get home it will have been a solid 8 days, so hopefullly that will be long enough to see if anything good or bad happened.


----------



## Diana K (Dec 20, 2007)

Looking forward to seeing what happens. 
IME I get that diffuse brownish sort of algae, not diatoms, when there is not enough water movement. Looks sort of like dust bunnies hanging around the bottom of the tank.


----------



## mudboots (Jun 24, 2009)

I've got dust bunnies as well, but I figured it was because of too much waste compared to what the plants were able to utilize. It never occured to me that it might be algae...will anything eat it?

Anyway, I'm back in town, and while the plant growth was awesome, I also have a little bit of green in the water. It's not pea soup or anything that thick, but green is green, so it's not good. I usually keep the light fixtures resting on the top, very close to the water surface. I've just given them a lift by using the legs they came with. I did a 10% water change and will do another tomorrow and see what happens over the next week or two. 

Side note - going from a constant lights-on photoperiod to the "siesta" (4.5 on, 4 off, 4.5 on) showed tremendous results over the 8 days I tried it out compared to the previous 3 weeks. Nice...except I have to do something about the water algae that seems to have appreciated this as well.


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Diatoms disappear pretty quick with current/mechanical filtration or light increase.

I'm not so sure it's the siesta as much as possibly the after effects of blowing a bunch of organics into the column that would probably go right along side an NH4 dump. I'm sure the water change blows things around some as well.


----------



## Dustymac (Apr 26, 2008)

Philosophos said:


> Diatoms disappear pretty quick with current/mechanical filtration or light increase.


Phil,
I'd be interested to know your source for this belief. From what I know, diatoms are pretty sticky and can resist being dislodged by current unless the current is very strong. And they love light as well. Are you talking about saltwater diatoms?

Jim


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Take a glance at the lack of pigment in classic brown diatom algae. How is that going to compete under high light? Is it advantageous to compete? Have you ever seen diatom algae outcompete Audouinella? Have you ever seen it shift pigment to compete? All I can comment on is the complete lack of evidence that it thrives in high light settings, save for ones with abnormally high silicates. Drop a micron filter in, find a better water source and the frustules fail to form properly while being pulled out of the column, causing diatoms to fade.

As for flow and diatoms:
https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/1811/23198/1/V087N3_072.pdf


----------



## mudboots (Jun 24, 2009)

Pretty interesting read Dan; it's always nice to see some good studies in hard copy, especially when they help with aquarium keeping. As a side note, while I had the water movement the fluff was still looking healthy, but it was being blown all over the leaves and less dense in the substrate. With it off it is now all on the substrate and the leaves are clean. I vacuumed just a little of it up with my 10% water change yesterday and will repeat today to see what happens.

I'm also going to take a bit of it to the office and check it out under a scope just to make sure it's diatom and not fish "sludge". If I can manage a pic through the eye piece I'll share it, but the lighting doesn't always allow for such.


----------



## Dustymac (Apr 26, 2008)

Philosophos said:


> Take a glance at the lack of pigment in classic brown diatom algae. How is that going to compete under high light? Is it advantageous to compete?


Unless you're saying the diatoms are blinded by the light, I don't see it as a matter of competing. If you have enough light, CO2 and nutrients in the water, the diatoms will grow, perhaps right along side with everything else.



> Have you ever seen diatom algae outcompete Audouinella? Have you ever seen it shift pigment to compete? All I can comment on is the complete lack of evidence that it thrives in high light settings, save for ones with abnormally high silicates. Drop a micron filter in, find a better water source and the frustules fail to form properly while being pulled out of the column, causing diatoms to fade.


Well, that explains it. I do have high silicates in my water but haven't had a diatom problem for a long time. There must be some other limiting nutrient. The worst diatoms I ever had was back in the hi-tech days when BBA (Audouinella) swallowed up both my larger tanks and interestingly, under the microscope you could see a what a great strainer the BBA proved for anchoring sticky, wayward diatoms. That was the last time I ever saw diatoms in such numbers; they were all over everything, although I do have a few in the new NPT.



> As for flow and diatoms:
> https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/1811/23198/1/V087N3_072.pdf


That's why I asked about the saltwater since SW tanks typically have much more water movement. As to your link, 15+ cm/sec is pretty fast. I get that on the outflow of my mini-jets when they're clean and operating at 100%. That flow dissipates quickly and I suspect the lower reaches, which get the least amount of light, see an average around 1-2 cm/sec. No diatoms down there, either. 

Jim


----------



## Diana K (Dec 20, 2007)

When one of my tanks grew diatoms I noticed a couple of things:
1) Diatoms grew in the 'less light' areas (compared to one end of the tank where direct sun hit for an hour or so each day)
2) They grew in every water movement, including the inside of the hoses for the filter (slightly smoky colored vinyl tubing). 

This was a low end brackish tank, and Mollies ate it. They did not get it all, but as the silica disappeared so did the diatoms. 

As for the 'dust bunny' algae (if it really is algae) I tried a 4-part approach:
Tank was a hard water set up with small fish from Lake Tanganyika. 
a) remove whatever is possible to remove (maybe 50% of what was in the tank- it tangles with everything)
b) Add UV sterilizer
c) Add a molly relative called Liberty Mollies. 
d) Clean up the filter and powerhead intakes and improve the water movement. 

The stuff went away, for a while, but as the water movement slowed down it came back. 
This tank has since crashed due to a power outage, so I cannot follow the 'dust bunny saga' any further.


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Dustymac said:


> Unless you're saying the diatoms are blinded by the light, I don't see it as a matter of competing. If you have enough light, CO2 and nutrients in the water, the diatoms will grow, perhaps right along side with everything else.


Quite frankly, I've never seen evidence that non-limiting nutrients and CO2 for a given light level induces algae in any way. You've never offered concrete evidence for your conjecture that it does, and I'd like you to do so before you continue on with this concept. So far, Diana's book and Tom Barr's work both disagree with you, along side a vast quantity of aquariums. With the exception of PO4, even Paul Sears work doesn't agree with you. It really would be nice to see some real evidence here.

The concept of light stimulating various forms of algae is nothing new. Various forms of algae are better photosynthesizers than others; they can pump out more effective pigments and sometimes adapt to match even a specific spectrum better. I use BBA as an example because it is the best one available; it will change between various forms of chlorophyll and phycoerythrin (use wikipedia if you want sources, or any basic resource for red algae) to match more efficient methods of uptake. It will thrive under higher levels of light than other algae common to the home aquarium.

How is it advantageous for a class of algae that includes heterotrophs often relying on more obscure pigments to actually compete in high light, when both those factors push towards low light? Germination signaling is a concept that shows promise under these conditions. If you look at the life cycle of many diatoms, high light actually induces a suspended stage of growth under high current; the algae dwells in the column where it is more easily removed by mechanical filtration. Mucilage production would be pointless at this stage; it would cause the algae to clump and fall rather than taking advantage of the high light in a suspended state. No mucilage means no attachment.



Dustymac said:


> Well, that explains it. I do have high silicates in my water but haven't had a diatom problem for a long time. There must be some other limiting nutrient. The worst diatoms I ever had was back in the hi-tech days when BBA (Audouinella) swallowed up both my larger tanks and interestingly, under the microscope you could see a what a great strainer the BBA proved for anchoring sticky, wayward diatoms. That was the last time I ever saw diatoms in such numbers; they were all over everything, although I do have a few in the new NPT.


Audouinella is a red algae; no relation to brown diatomacious algae.



> That's why I asked about the saltwater since SW tanks typically have much more water movement. As to your link, 15+ cm/sec is pretty fast. I get that on the outflow of my mini-jets when they're clean and operating at 100%. That flow dissipates quickly and I suspect the lower reaches, which get the least amount of light, see an average around 1-2 cm/sec. No diatoms down there, either.


Read the paper again; this was a study for a freshwater species, it has nothing to do with the hobby.

Reefs run no higher than what I do on CO2 tanks; 10-15x turnover per hour. Sometimes a bit more.


----------



## mudboots (Jun 24, 2009)

Just to update, the tank turned green while I was out so there went my reason for removing the water movement. I put it back on and the fish are happy again. I'm guessing the main issue with the onset of green water and other algae was that in my absence, with an increase in CO2 (no water movement plus changed light schedule to allow build up in afternoon) the plants went through the available nutrients in no time, leaving the algae to outcompete it in CO2 utilization. I have started EI dosing potassium and phosphate (K2SO4 and KH2PO4) at half the recommended dose (.25 tsp 3x per week in a 125 of each). So far this plus feeding the fish seems to be having a positve impact in the aquarium. I think that if I ever move I'm going to do things quite differently.


----------



## prBrianpr (Nov 18, 2007)

Well I dont read all of the replies. i only can say that if you use a powerhead with a prefilter in a Day you can catch all the debris. Then take it out and use the Koralia. Problem Solved.


----------



## mudboots (Jun 24, 2009)

prBrianpr said:


> Well I dont read all of the replies. i only can say that if you use a powerhead with a prefilter in a Day you can catch all the debris. Then take it out and use the Koralia. Problem Solved.


I thought about that, but with the onset of the green water that filter would clog every hour or less (tried it last time I had an outbreak). Just as much a pain, but less expense, will be water changes. I'm going to do 50% every day or two until it clears back up. It was there recently, so no reason it can't go back. Poor Melinda said if I dont get it cleared in two weeks she's going to buy a CO2 system herself, replace the lights I just removed, start dosing fertz and turn it into a high-tech propagation tank...over my Pea Soup!!! Hah!


----------



## mudboots (Jun 24, 2009)

Philosophos said:


> In tanks with low flow, I try to suction before raising the filtration, and I do it slowly. Plenty of filter media cleaning.
> 
> I find high flow isn't so necessary in simple tanks with a rich substrate; CO2 saturation is easily accomplished with low light, dense growth happens naturally. In all honesty, I don't like high light setups for any other purpose than growing more plants for use in other places, and the odd bit of aesthetics. Medium light levels are quite acceptable even in higher end tanks so long as there's good spread, which is partly accomplished in NPT's through sunlight.
> 
> Most of my tanks wind up being pretty high flow/filtration because of fine ground cover. I wouldn't toss HC or glosso into a tank that's going to build up a ton of mulm on the bottom. Without these plants or high light, I don't really see the point in a well set up tank.


I realize this post has gotten dusty and served its purpose (for me anyway), but I thought I ought to mention something based on Dan's comment above. After an incident where I took a bit of sarcastic humor as solid advice (details are in the journals forum "Mudboots' 125 NPT" thread), I got back to the basics out of necessity. I decided to go back to what had always worked to begin with, before I started trying to figure everything out, and Ta-Dah...it's a happy day. What I had originally started with on day one was (I just realized this after reviewing this post to see where I've been, so to speak) exactly what Dan had mentioned above. I never had problems until I started messing with things. Now that I've gone back to low-to-no flow, lower light for CO2 saturation, no ANYTHING other than heaters and feeding the fish, the plants are, you guessed it, growing, and very well at that. While I lack enough light for super-fast growth, I have sufficient light for what I'm willing to add as inputs to get my plants to grow well, and the water is finally clear (latest pics on my journals thread do not yet reflect this as those are a few days old already), and the fish seem happy, so all good as far as I can tell.

What does all this mean to anyone else? Probably very little. All of our systems are so unique that it's nearly impossible to replicate another one in a different area (water parameters, temperatures, plant species, fish species, you name it...) mostly because we all have differing goals. My goal has been to have a large NPT with nothing plugged in but the lights. I had to learn that plants tend to like it warmer than the 50-60's, so I'm cool with adding heaters to my list of appliances. But I had to give Dan props for offering on more than one occasion some solid advice that I pretty much ignored. I think the most challenging issue was trying to figure out how much T5-HO light was too much or too little on a 125 gallon tank (turns out that you can get by with surprisingly low watts per gallon and still get sufficient PAR values on a low-med light El Natural set up).

'preciate it,

Darren


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Thanks Darren, your post means a lot to me.

I think your experience is quite valuable, because others have shared it in general principle. Nutrients are relatively easy to nail down, but the nuances of light/CO2/flow interactions are something that the whole hobby is struggling with to one extent or other.

I'm glad things are recovering for you. I'm at the opposite end of the spectrum with one tank right now; everything is as you and I have tried, but a new bulb is putting out its early life excessive burst. Needless to say there's algae everywhere, but if the principles hold then 100 hours or so of running the bulb should get rid of the problem.


----------



## mudboots (Jun 24, 2009)

Philosophos said:


> Thanks Darren, your post means a lot to me.
> 
> I think your experience is quite valuable, because others have shared it in general principle. Nutrients are relatively easy to nail down, but the nuances of light/CO2/flow interactions are something that the whole hobby is struggling with to one extent or other.
> 
> I'm glad things are recovering for you. I'm at the opposite end of the spectrum with one tank right now; everything is as you and I have tried, but a new bulb is putting out its early life excessive burst. Needless to say there's algae everywhere, but if the principles hold then 100 hours or so of running the bulb should get rid of the problem.


My pleasure. BTW - it's funny you mention the new light. Davemonkey and I had a conversation about this because he had a similar issue. He found a cure by placing thin cardboard strips across the top of his tank to block out about 30% of the light until his floaters fill in a little bit. He said the results were noticeable pretty quick.


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Thanks, I may try that out. It sounds a little more simple than getting shade cloth and making a frame.

One trick I use for the problem when possible is rotating the bulb through an emersed fixture of the same type for the first couple weeks when possible. Since there's no CO2 limitation, I just get faster emersed growth. In this case though, I've got no 18'' T8 tray


----------

