How Long Will External Filter Survive Not In Use?
Posted 09 April 2012 - 08:11 PM
I've bought a complete BW tank setup off someone, and for various reasons, I'm not using the external filter the previous owner was using just yet ( I've had to totally strip and clean tank/remove old sand and things like that plus repair the unit it was on ( got damaged in transit ) and now I've filled the tank with water I'm waiting until the dechlorinator fluid has done it's stuff before I can heat the water, connect and switch on the external filter again ).
How long, in it's unplugged state, and with no warm water flowing through it, will the good bacteria survive in the external filter?
It has water in it still, so it's not dry.
The filter had been running about a year, I've had a peek inside and took the opportunity to clean up the impellor, and add some Seachem carbon matrix between some of the flossy filter media. It's very gunky in there with plenty of beneficial bacteria.
Posted 09 April 2012 - 08:24 PM
Edited by TomShootsPhoto, 11 April 2012 - 10:16 AM.
Posted 09 April 2012 - 08:36 PM
Posted 09 April 2012 - 08:43 PM
As long as it's kept wet you'll lose 10% - 12% every 24 hours. Dechlorinator works instantly, the cooler water won't hurt the bacteria, I'd get it up & running once the tank was filled.
THANKYOU! This is great news! I will get right on it!
Posted 10 April 2012 - 12:56 AM
Tolak- can you please link me to any research that substantiates what you stated?
Posted 10 April 2012 - 02:04 AM
The bacteria will survive a heck of lot longer than has been posted in this thread.
Tolak- can you please link me to any research that substantiates what you stated?
As far as nitrifying bacteria; http://www.fishforum...is-a-power-cut/ Post #4. A more recent article links me to this paper.
Probably a bit heavy for the Your New Freshwater Tank section, but as requested. I generally go with the 10% to 12% when shipping media as a safety margin, most often is is going to a newer aquarist with less experience, most of whom don't want to get involved with reading a research paper concerning their bag of filthy media.
Posted 10 April 2012 - 06:44 PM
So you are citing as proof something the authors themselves say is not proof, merely inference.
Our best estimate for the collective impacts of decay, endogenous metabolism, death, and predation on nitrifiers presently ranges from 0.05 to 0.12 days -1. Correspondingly, these rates imply that resting, non-active nitrifiers will deteriorate at rates of 5 to 12% per day.
However, these values were typically inferred from heterotrophic bacteria rather than specifically measured for nitrifiers. Hence, conclusive data to clarify our understanding of nitrification-related decay and death is lacking.
The link to the Magazine article and the other research paper both support what I say rather than your contention about 10-12% of the bacteria dying daily. They say just the opposite in fact.
Moreover, the second study you link to, while informative, deals with waste water treatment and different strains of bacteria than oxidize ammonia in our tanks. The ones we develop for the long term are a different strain:
Enrichments of the AOB strains were added to newly established aquaria to determine their ability to accelerate the establishment of ammonia oxidation. Enrichments containing the Nitrosomonas marina-like AOB strain were most efficient at accelerating ammonia oxidation in newly established aquaria. Furthermore, if theNitrosomonas marina-like AOB strain was present in the original enrichment, even one with other AOB, only the Nitrosomonas marina-like AOB strain was present in aquaria after nitrification was established.
What I did take away from the article (which I have read before) are the following two tidbits:
1. "This indicates that the recovery process of Nitrosomonas europaea is complex and might depend on external factors such as
growth conditions and the physiological state of the cell prior to starvation"
This would imply that there are no hard and fast rules for time as the condition of the bacteria at the outset etc. can greatly effect this.
2. "Although the recovery after short-term starvation for other AOB strains, for example members of the Nitrosomonas oligotropha cluster or Nitrosospira briensis, is very fast as well, there are considerable differences among AOB strains in recovery after long periods of starvation."
This would imply that one would have to look at each strain to know what the relative recovery rate factor might be for that specific strain.
So this study does look at the different recovery times for a variety of strains and shows they can differ greatly, but it did not look at the specific strain that seems to dominate in our tanks. I saw nothing in this article to support your contention.
Furthermore, if you search my posts you will find links to research showing soil based AOB that survived for decades in a dry environment. Granted it was a small amount, but it was still found to be viable after all that time.
What the PFK article does is say the very same things I have been posting on this site for some time now which is in direct contradiction to what many members here state and most of what is posted in the site's cycling "sticky". I have contended for a while that the article on this site re fishless cycling is perhaps one of the most misinformed ones I have seen on any fish site. I can also say that there are more threads here on problems with fishless cycles than I have seen anywhere else (relative to membership numbers). I have cycled over 50 tank fishlessly and not a one ever stalled. I have never seen so many threads about stalled cycles as I have here. It is almost a first for me.
I believe that until that article is rewritten or replaced, these problems will continue to occur for new fish keepers who try to follow the advice. If you read the final part of the PFK article you linked us to, you will read this:
Anecdotally speaking, much of what the research tells me strikes a chord with practices that I've engaged in for years. As someone who values the biological benefits of old media and substrates, even after several weeks, and as someone who never has issues with ammonia in any new set up, I'm forced to wonder – just what is it that so many new fishkeepers are doing to get ammonia through the roof?
Maybe they are reading and following the fishless cycling article here, among other thing?
Members here should understand that I am stating my opinions which I believe are based on the published scientific facts. These are the facts which I often quote and to which I provide links. I am more than willing to alter those opinions whenever presented with scientific evidence to the contrary.
Edited by TwoTankAmin, 10 April 2012 - 06:45 PM.
Posted 10 April 2012 - 09:53 PM
Probably a bit heavy for the Your New Freshwater Tank section, but as requested.
Cut to the chase.
I can see condensing that reply to more easily understood terms here for newer aquarists, as well as starting a topic on cycling & so on, including the sticky you mentioned, in the Scientific section. The question posed by the OP concerned how long the nitrifying bacteria will survive without a source of food & O2. Honestly, by reviewing information available on this you could come to the conclusion, or inference if you will, that it can be anywhere from a few hours to a few years. This in no way helps the OP, or probably many members in the Your New Freshwater Tank section.
I've cycled a few tanks fishless, the rest are cloned. My individual results, and fishroom experiences with this are in no way basis for a scientific study, due to the small sample used, as well as lack of the proper scientific equipment. They sure are nothing to use as a basis for a new aquarist starting out either, some of what I do might fall into the "you gotta be nuts" category. This being the case, from my personal experiences I do agree with some of your statements on cycling, bacteria, and that sticky, but as always what works for me may or may not work for someone else. Preferring to err on the side of caution for the benefit of the newer aquarist, I did state what I did here in the Your New Freshwater Tank section.
Posted 11 April 2012 - 02:01 AM
The bacteria are much hardier than most people believe. So, a couple of days easily as long as you open the filter so it doesn't stay "sealed" up. If it is just for just a few hours, don't worry at all. You might want to take the down time as an opportunity to rinse the media and to replace dirty floss (if any).
If you believe you need to have the filter off the tank for more than a a day or two, or to be super safe, you can always put it on a bucket/rubbermaid of dechlorinated water and run it for many days and preserve almost all the bacteria.
The 10-12% is not accurate. It is not scientifically valid. There really is science behind most of what goes on in tanks. There is microbiology, chemistry, genetics etc. etc. Most fish keepers don't need to know the science, but they do need accurate facts to make informed decisions.
Posted 11 April 2012 - 10:12 AM
I really do like the highlighted reply, and totally agree that there is much more to what happens in out tanks than most realize, and can be covered in a section devoted to newer members that are just starting out. As science advances there will always be new discoveries brought to light, newer studies that make previous conclusions thought to be solid invalid, and personal experiences that do merit further scientific evaluation.
That is material for our Scientific section, and as I stated you are more than welcome to bring this, as well as our cycling sticky to the table in that section, as due to the advances in science it may well be time for a revision to that pinned topic.
Posted 14 April 2012 - 04:02 AM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users