10x Turnover For Planted Tanks

[JustKia]

Just curious why is the turnover for a planted tank higher than a non-lanted tank?
I'd have thought it was the other way round as the plants help with water quality.
I've got 10x turnover on my 125L which has quite a bit of planting in it now and figured it was "overfiltered", but if 10x is recommended for planted tanks then I'm probably not overfiltered at all.

 

[Mikaila31]

I've never heard of 10x filtration for planted tanks. Mine are always filtered less.

 

[Truck]

if you have CO2 injection it can linger near the diffuser, so the bonus flow means it is more equally distributed over the tank.

 

[SuperColey1]

Not so much to do with CO2 more to do with distribution.

In a non planted tank you only have to worry about removing fish waste.

In a planted tank the plants also produce waste. They do remove CO2 and produce Oxygen but that is nothing to do with filtration.

The 10x turnover is because plants need food provided by nutrients of which CO2 provide the C they need.

Therefore if you had a still tank the nutrients remain in one area, the plant consumes them and then runs defficient even though there is more within the tank.

So we add more turnover, not necessarily with filters to 'deliver' these nutrients around the tank to all the plants so that if there is enough nutrient within the tank then no plant runs defficient.

The next part is that in a fish only tank even with ornaments there will not be as many obstacles to flow, therefore circulation is quite good for the purpose of moving wastes to the filter intake. In a planted tank there are many more obstacles - The plants themselves - and therefore you need more circulation to match an empty tanks circulation.

Think of it like a filter where if it is empty of media and has the recommended hoses it will have a certain lph rating. Put media in, lengthen the hoses and add equipment inline and you reduce the flow significantly.

Therefore we suggest 10x to allow for the reduced flows and to transport nutrient around the tank whilst still removing maximum amounts of waste.

Although we suggest 10x you will probably notice that most of us are actually use far more than 10x (In my case 17.6x)

AC

 

[limerickbandit]

Although we suggest 10x you will probably notice that most of us are actually use far more than 10x (In my case 17.6x)

AC

No way could you know that you have a 17.6x turnover

LB

 

[SuperColey1]

I never said that my physical actual turnover was 17.6 x

I said that we suggest 10x and that I USE 17.6.

On paper I have a 700lph filter and a 1500lph circulation pump on a 125Ltr tank = 2200/125 = 17.6x.

If you read my previous post again you will see:

Therefore we suggest 10x to allow for the reduced flows and to transport nutrient around the tank whilst still removing maximum amounts of waste.

I have 17.6x rather than 10x!!! The 10x is to allow for flow reductions which in each tank would be different dependent on many factors including hardscape positioning and plantmass.

AC

 

[JustKia]

Makes sense thanks

 

[limerickbandit]

And all good points you made AC
So it just goes to show that the 10x turnover is rubbish because you can not know the amount of water a filter is pumping


LB

 

[Truck]

a simple experiment can solve that issue

 

[SuperColey1]

And all good points you made AC
So it just goes to show that the 10x turnover is rubbish because you can not know the amount of water a filter is pumping
LB

Quite the opposite.

We know that on average filters complete with media and the recommended attachments actually only give in the region of 40-55% of their stated lph.

We know that the recommended 2-3x turnover for a non planted tank is not sufficient enough for a planted tank.

Because we know that filters 'actual' performance is 40-55% (Use 50% for ease) then we up the 2-3x to 5x to add some circulation. Therefore if 5x is 50% then you need on paper 10x.

In reality someone who gets a filter that is going to do 2-3x then once they set it up they will be getting nearer to 1.5x the turnover.

What I read between the lines in your statements is that the 10x in not a proven measurement which indeed it isn't. It is just a case of you need more circulation in a planted tank so you need more circulation. Some in the planted scene are using over 30x turnover (in paper)

The results speak for themselves.

The people who are on top of their fert dosing and CO2 who add more circulation see better results both in water clarity and algae minimisation. 10x is a theoretical figure but it gets the message across.

If it were possible to get a filter to match it's 'stated' lph then in theory you could say that you didn't need 10x filtration, but then someone else would try and do the same, not get the 'stated' lph and fail. They would then blame something else for their failure thinking they had the same circulation as the person who did get the 'stated' lph.

AC

 

[SuperColey1]

a simple experiment can solve that issue

There is only 1 way I can think of to test and that is to setup a seperate container and position the outlet at the same height in the seperate container as it was in the tank and then measure how much was pumped over a set time. then equate that to lph.

Any other way that alters the height etc can change the lph etc.

AC

 

[limerickbandit]

a simple experiment can solve that issue

Not exactly, a simple experiment can tell me the amount of water that is being pumped
If i was to turnover the volume of my tank (300L X 10) thats 3000L per hour hour, i would have a nice whirlpool in my tank


LB

 

[limerickbandit]

a simple experiment can solve that issue

There is only 1 way I can think of to test and that is to setup a seperate container and position the outlet at the same height in the seperate container as it was in the tank and then measure how much was pumped over a set time. then equate that to lph.

Any other way that alters the height etc can change the lph etc.

AC

I have done that and my hydro 30 is rated for 900L per hour In fact it pumps 460L per hour
I could not get a 10X turnover on this tank

LB

 

[SuperColey1]

You just proved my 40-55% correct. You can get 10 x but by putting loads more circulation in there. And the chap with 32x on paper doesn't have a whirlpool. If we go by the 40% then he would still have 12.8x turnover per hour so he is above 10

1500lph of mine is an internal powerhead which means there should be almost no loss as there are no hoses, media etc. This on paper is 12x my tank volume!!! Add to that 40% of my 700 = 280 = 1780lph 'estimated' actual lph = 14.24x!!!!

Check out the Marine forums. they are using massive circulation. circulation doesn't necessarily mean strong currents!!! It means good circulation. Although Circulation may make people think 'circle' it doesn't mean that. Circulation can be in all manner of directions.

Many planters have started to use the Hydor Koralia circulation pumps that are aimed at the reef market and they link several to wave makers. We buy 1 and use 1 but the flow is very wide and well spread and therefore my Otos (Otos are not the strongest swimmers) don't get blown about all over the place.

My Shrimp are fine in there too.

AC

 

[SexyFishKeeper]

Andy has said why the suggested 10x turnover is made for planted tanks.
Its only a rule of thumb and when you get into the problems that a planted tank can have such as nutrient and co2 deficiencies somewhere in the tank (due to bad flow). Then you'll increase the suggested 10x turnover even more.

It is done to deliver the nutrients and co2 to all areas of the tank and when you have a very heavily planted tank or high maintenance plants for carpets such as HC, then flow is even more important.

To be honest, I only have a 8.33x on paper, so I need to be careful more than most for flow. As I have a jungle type setup, I would like to add another filter but space does not permit.

If you ignore flow in a planted tank, you are leaving yourself to an algae time bomb; I've learnt the hard way.