Cyanobacteria Questions & White Spores

If you have ceramic rings or these plastic balls in your Cayman, you could also transfer them. Many people are either 'seeding' (transferring mature media to another filter) or running 2 filters alongside each other.

I wouldn't worry too much with getting a new cycle if you are properly planted; the plants will take up all the excess nutrients before it can be converted into ammonia. For that reason you can instantly stock your tank if you have it heavily planted.

I planted heavily and immediately put in fish, and haven't had any problems.

I do have the ceramic rings but they are permanently locked in a large black casing designed to slot down into a Cayman05 filter. From my limited experience of 'seeding' it seems to me that in some circumstances it isn't an ideal thing to rely on.

I'd appreciate a response from anybody (particularly Supercoley) to post #57! Thanks.
 
Lol The others are singing from the same hymn sheet as me. They can advise just as well as I can ;)

Well I was wanting to use 2 filters to avoid having to remove the current inadequate filtration (Cayman 05 filter) as I'm not so sure the Cayman filter media will fit inside another branded filter system. I'm sure some of the beneficial bacteria is actually on the inner walls of the filtration system too.

In other words, I don't want to disrupt and don't have the time to correct a disruption to a perfectly working nitrogen cycle.

Biulu says exactly what I would say above. What cycle. You are planted aren't you. The cycle (if any) in a planted tank is minimal. Nothing like that of a non planted tank. In a very heavily planted aquarium there will be zero cycle!!!

In yours there may be a small cycle if you were to put a brand new filter, brand new media and ditch the old but you're not. I think you're overplaying the bacteria colony a little here. If there are sponges they can be aqueezed into the new filter. Forget the rest. Forget the walls and components of the filter. that will be 0.001% of the bacteria colony. there will be 100x more in the substrate.

Are you saying this Interpet filter would be an ideal option?

That filter is only 400-650lph so not sufficient on its own. I would bet the 400 is the realistic with media in it. Not much better than the Cayman. Looking at the Interpet range their top internal is only 800 lph.

Something like this is what you want:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Tetra-Tec-TetraTec-IN1000-Plus-Internal-Aquarium-Filter-/220688998374?pt=UK_Pet_Supplies_Fish&hash=item336216dfe6

So I should be dosing now as though the fluorescent lights are on, with exception of any c02-related things?

Are your lights still off? They should have been back on straight after the blackout. Maybe 5-6 hours to start and build back up weekly but tehy should be on.

AC
 
As an eBay Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Are your lights still off? They should have been back on straight after the blackout. Maybe 5-6 hours to start and build back up weekly but tehy should be on.

They have only been switched off for 48 hours. I'll be at the end of the blackout in the afternoon tomorrow. I went ahead and bought this internal filter as its the only one to have a decent LPH coupled with a UV. I hadn't come across the filter you recommended so I'll keep an eye on it if I'm not completely satisfied with the one I ordered.

Mark.
 
As an eBay Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
the LED UV diodes within the impeller look more like a gimmick than anything in my opinion :/ and it's max output is still only 750 litres p/hr! The last 40 or so posts have advised you about getting a decent filter that outputs more like 1000 litres p/hr. Not one with a UV lamp! :S

I would seriously consider having a UV sterilizer as a separate unit. Concentrate solely on your filtration and flow now.

I can more than recommend a Fluval 4 PLUS. You can find them cheaper these days because Hagen have redesigned them to the U4 or whatever. Sorry, there's no UV lamp, but it does output 1000 litres p/hr.....
 
If you're happy to wait for a bit Mark I have a Fluval 4+ which I'll be replacing with an external soon (hopefully soon, apparently customs is randomly inspecting the shipment?) so I'll be selling the Fluval and I'll give you first refusal if you'd like?
 
I went ahead and bought this internal filter as its the only one to have a decent LPH coupled with a UV. I hadn't come across the filter you recommended so I'll keep an eye on it if I'm not completely satisfied with the one I ordered.

A review of the filter (Its a Google translation from Hungarian but you can understand most of it.:

http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=hu&u=http://www.gote.hu/cikkek/aquael_unifilter_1000_uv.html&ei=nd3wTKWMEtGGhQf4yZn1Cw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBwQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.gote.hu/cikkek/aquael_unifilter_1000_uv.html%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

From the review the LED UV does work. the only complaints were that flow was severly diminished by the time it was due its weekly cleaning. Thats pretty common for an internal filter anyway. They also say that the sponges aren't fine enough to trap small particles. Again thats something common with internals. Even in externals many people tend to use different media to that supplied after a while. Cheaper than buying the stock media etc.

I think it should be OK. Only you'll see its effect. Run it alongside the Cayman and the Koralia for a week or 2 and then the Cayman can come out.

One thing to know before looking into filters is not just the lph. That is purely the max turnover of the pump and quite often is measure with no media in the filter. The other thing is the capacity of the filter. Meaning how much media can it hold. This is where External cannisters have the advantage. Not only does it mean it can trap more without becoming clogged (thus not needing to clean weekly) but it also means that there is more in there to trap the dirt in the first place.

the LED UV diodes within the impeller look more like a gimmick than anything in my opinion :/ and it's max output is still only 750 litres p/hr! The last 40 or so posts have advised you about getting a decent filter that outputs more like 1000 litres p/hr. Not one with a UV lamp!

A little harsh. lol. I was just suggesting more flow than the Cayman. The Koralia Nano will pick up the slack in terms of turnover. Its more improving the filtration so 750 is a decent jump from 350.

I think many of us who went on to cannisters still have a Fluval ?+. I still have a 3+ that came with the tank and I keep it to use when I rescape. Just fill it with filter wool to trap the cloudy water in the first few days, then back in the 'spares' box for a few months/years. lol

In summary I think the filter you bought looks OK, The review and test suggests the UV does work. Seems a bit tricky to put together so follow the instructions well and be careful. Modern day plastic goods aren't that robust and bits snap off here and there quite easily :)

AC
 
As an eBay Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
the LED UV diodes within the impeller look more like a gimmick than anything in my opinion :/ and it's max output is still only 750 litres p/hr! The last 40 or so posts have advised you about getting a decent filter that outputs more like 1000 litres p/hr. Not one with a UV lamp! :S

I would seriously consider having a UV sterilizer as a separate unit. Concentrate solely on your filtration and flow now.

I can more than recommend a Fluval 4 PLUS. You can find them cheaper these days because Hagen have redesigned them to the U4 or whatever. Sorry, there's no UV lamp, but it does output 1000 litres p/hr.....

The advice given to me here is outstanding but, without intending to sound arrogant, I am free to use that advice along with my own ideas. UV lights are very good at removing bacteria and pathogens which are two things I don't want in my tank (the blue-green algae, I'm told, is a bacteria). Also, the reason I've avoided the 1000 LPH internals is the fact that they take up a lot of room. The 700-750 LPH internals are just the right size and the fact that the particular 750 LPH internal I bought also integrates a UV is a brilliant addition in my opinion.

I've seen quite a few reviews that state that UV has completely removed algae and cyanobacteria in peoples aquariums; just search 'cyanobacteria UV' on google and see for yourself. I don't mind spending £40 on the filter I've bought; I need to buy it and try it out before judging it to be a load of rubbish.
 
cool.. and sorry, i must have been cranky at 2.30 in the morning! :blush: Hopefully you'll tell us the new filter works out great.. and in turn, even tempt me to get one myself!

Would a high turnover filter with a small(ish) amount of media be close to pointless? i don't know -_-

In a medium to heavily planted tank, i'm guessing the amount of flow is more important than the bacterial filtration? And so a smaller filter with high flow, and maybe additional powerheads is best?
 
If you're happy to wait for a bit Mark I have a Fluval 4+ which I'll be replacing with an external soon (hopefully soon, apparently customs is randomly inspecting the shipment?) so I'll be selling the Fluval and I'll give you first refusal if you'd like?

If you don't mind dispatching it to me I'd be more than happy to take it. How much are you wanting to sell it for? Is it a good condition? (i.e. no damage or missing parts). I think the Fluval 4+ is my second choice over the internal I ordered purely because of the additional output nozzles on it.

Out of curiousity, can I ask what you think is causing your cyanobacteria? Reason I ask is because I have a fairly useless filter with a low LPH output rate (as mentioned above) and when the internal filter I've ordered has arrived, I will have a combined LPH rate of around 1100 LPH between my Cayman 05 filter and the filter still on it's way to me in the post. This increased LPH rate will supposedly help to remove the cyanobacteria both physically (it seems to have a free-floating stage) and also in terms of depriving nutrients from it. Given that your Fluval 04 ought to be removing cyanobacteria in this way now, but it clearly isn't, what other thing do you think has caused your cyanobacteria?

- Do you have a planted aquarium?
- Are you injecting c02?
- How frequently and how much nutrients are you dosing?
- Do you have any kind of UV light appliance?
 
As an eBay Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
If you're happy to wait for a bit Mark I have a Fluval 4+ which I'll be replacing with an external soon (hopefully soon, apparently customs is randomly inspecting the shipment?) so I'll be selling the Fluval and I'll give you first refusal if you'd like?

If you don't mind dispatching it to me I'd be more than happy to take it. How much are you wanting to sell it for? Is it a good condition? (i.e. no damage or missing parts). I think the Fluval 4+ is my second choice over the internal I ordered purely because of the additional output nozzles on it.

Out of curiousity, can I ask what you think is causing your cyanobacteria? Reason I ask is because I have a fairly useless filter with a low LPH output rate (as mentioned above) and when the internal filter I've ordered has arrived, I will have a combined LPH rate of around 1100 LPH between my Cayman 05 filter and the filter still on it's way to me in the post. This increased LPH rate will supposedly help to remove the cyanobacteria both physically (it seems to have a free-floating stage) and also in terms of depriving nutrients from it. Given that your Fluval 04 ought to be removing cyanobacteria in this way now, but it clearly isn't, what other thing do you think has caused your cyanobacteria?

- Do you have a planted aquarium?
- Are you injecting c02?
- How frequently and how much nutrients are you dosing?
- Do you have any kind of UV light appliance?

It is planted, but not heavily. Dose 30ppm nitrate, 2ppm phosphate and trace twice weekly. No co2. Don't currently have UV but will have once my new external arrives. I think cyanobacteria was caused by low nitrates in my case. Also, I believe I have a bigger tank than you - mine is 4 foot, and I think the Fluval is not really cutting it in terms of the amount of turnover that is needed for a planted tank.

The Fluval has done me really well, I bought it off Dave Oddballs a while ago because I wanted more turnover than the juwel internal was giving me, then it took over as my main filter when the juwel internal died over the summer. The bit of plastic that you use to adjust flow rate is snapped slightly, but it was like that when I got it and is still useable. Other than that it's in perfect working order. The only reason I'm looking to replace it is because the turnover is not enough for the size tank I have (although even the external I have is only going to give me about 5x turnover, but with much more media, so I think I'll probably also buy a koralia to up the turnover).

How does £15 posted sound? If not then no worries - it'll go on eBay :) let me know if you need it or not once your new filter arrives. Bear in mind though that I can't even consider getting rid until my external arrives, and I've no idea when that'll be.
 
As an eBay Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
I think I will buy the Fluval U4 filter if necessary in new condition at some point, but thanks for your offer :).

Do you know the dimensions of the U4 because this information is ommitted everywhere I look on the internet? :blink:
 
The advice given to me here is outstanding but, without intending to sound arrogant, I am free to use that advice along with my own ideas. UV lights are very good at removing bacteria and pathogens which are two things I don't want in my tank (the blue-green algae, I'm told, is a bacteria). Also, the reason I've avoided the 1000 LPH internals is the fact that they take up a lot of room. The 700-750 LPH internals are just the right size and the fact that the particular 750 LPH internal I bought also integrates a UV is a brilliant addition in my opinion.

I've seen quite a few reviews that state that UV has completely removed algae and cyanobacteria in peoples aquariums; just search 'cyanobacteria UV' on google and see for yourself. I don't mind spending £40 on the filter I've bought; I need to buy it and try it out before judging it to be a load of rubbish.

I don't think anyone was questioning the abilities of UV light. It was the LED UV that they were questioning. LED is pretty ambiguous in that you can get 3/5mm LEDsw chih are nigh on display only lights then there are the high power LEDs which are usable as direct replacements for flouro etc.

With your unit only consuming 8.5V including the LEDs I'm not so sure they are high power LEDs but the review I posted earlier did have succesful results.

At the end of the day not many of us use UV. I used to have an external one and of course I expect it did its job but then I can't confirm as I had no problem before, with or after selling it. I no longer have UV since mid 2007.

This increased LPH rate will supposedly help to remove the cyanobacteria both physically (it seems to have a free-floating stage) and also in terms of depriving nutrients from it.

You're still talking about removing nutrients ;) Try to pull yourself away from that way of thinking.

With a filter in the planted tank you have to see things slightly different.

It will be doing minimal work in removing nutrient in terms of ammonia. Plants will do that.

In a planted tank we need turnover to circulate nutrient, not remove it. so the filter provides circulation. Some may say 'why not just use a circaultion pump?' Well we use externals mostly and glass pipes or minimalistic outputs rather than equipment in the tank, so if we can avoid extra equipment in the tank we do.

The second are of a filter being incredibly useful in the planted tank is that with the aesthetics in mind the filter will remove all those particles and make the water much clearer. If it looks even the slightest bit 'foggier' (and I mean the very teeniest bit foggier) it bugs me. I want plants and fish at the back to be as crystal clear as those at the front. I want to look and see it as if there was no water in the tank. That is how clear I want the water to be and therefore the filter has to remove any teeny tiny particles that are not distinguishable to the naked eye but are obviously there if you can tell there is water in the tank.

So with that in mine the filter's media capacity is a very real factor. The more capacity the more media and therefore the more particles will be removed. That is why a high turnover filter with smaller media capacity isn't really what we look for, nor a high turnover filter with no media. If we were to consider look the latter then we may as well just use a powerhead without the media container on the bottom.

Saying that there are some that do not use filters. They often say their water is crystal clear however I would lay money that if they came and saw my tank they would walk away disappointed with what they considered crystal clear.

So all we are talking about in terms of the filtration improving conditions and making them unfavourable for the Cyano is the actual filtration capacity of the Cyaman versus a better filter. The larger turnover will draw more water in through the filter media and 'hopefully' remove more detritus. Keep the water clearer, let les settle on the substrate and surfaces etc. Its nothing to do with removing nutrient, just improving the water conditions via cleaning it better.

AC
 

Most reactions

Back
Top