65 gallon Filter Suggestions

[C&P Devlin]

Happy New Years Eve Everyone!
I've just become the proud new owner of a 65 Gallon Aquarium and I
wondered what others might be using for filtration with good success. I
have a 55 Gallon using an Aquaclear 300, but Ive heard alot of horror
stories with that filter...Ive had no real problems with it but I
wouldnt like to change my luck with that model if there is another type
that might work better for my application.
Any suggestions would be appreciated!
Thanks in advance!
Craig

[Toni]

"C&P Devlin" > wrote in message
...
> Happy New Years Eve Everyone!
> I've just become the proud new owner of a 65 Gallon Aquarium and I
> wondered what others might be using for filtration with good success. I
> have a 55 Gallon using an Aquaclear 300, but Ive heard alot of horror
> stories with that filter...Ive had no real problems with it but I
> wouldnt like to change my luck with that model if there is another type
> that might work better for my application.
> Any suggestions would be appreciated!



Planted or not?
Any specific plans for fish species?

If planted I would use an Eheim 2026- they are silent and dependable.
If surface agitation is OK then maybe an Emperor? I really like the
biowheels in high bioload applications.


--
Toni
http://www.cearbhaill.com/discus.htm

[Gail Futoran]

"C&P Devlin" > wrote in message
...
> Happy New Years Eve Everyone!
> I've just become the proud new owner of a 65 Gallon
Aquarium and I
> wondered what others might be using for filtration with
good success. I
> have a 55 Gallon using an Aquaclear 300, but Ive heard
alot of horror
> stories with that filter...Ive had no real problems with
it but I
> wouldnt like to change my luck with that model if there is
another type
> that might work better for my application.
> Any suggestions would be appreciated!
> Thanks in advance!
> Craig

I like the Marineland bio-filters. We get frequent power
outages out here in the country (rural area) and I've never
had a Penguin or Emperor filter fail to re-start promptly
after a power outage, of a few seconds or a few hours.
http://www.marineland.com/products/prod_consumer.asp
The Emperors are pricey but I think you get what you pay
for. They're widely available and prices can vary a bit so
it's worth doing some price comparisons.

Gail
near San Antonio TX (but not in the city)

[Carlos]

With the years (like 15 or so) I have used many power filters with no
problems. Aquaclear is one of my favorites. I would suggest a bigger
model, the 500, due to the increase in water capacity. Also is your 65 gal
a tall tank? I would suggest then having two filters one to get things from
down below and the other from the top.

best of luck and happy new year.




"C&P Devlin" > wrote in message
...
> Happy New Years Eve Everyone!
> I've just become the proud new owner of a 65 Gallon Aquarium and I
> wondered what others might be using for filtration with good success. I
> have a 55 Gallon using an Aquaclear 300, but Ive heard alot of horror
> stories with that filter...Ive had no real problems with it but I
> wouldnt like to change my luck with that model if there is another type
> that might work better for my application.
> Any suggestions would be appreciated!
> Thanks in advance!
> Craig
>

[NetMax]

"C&P Devlin" > wrote in message
...
> Happy New Years Eve Everyone!
> I've just become the proud new owner of a 65 Gallon Aquarium and I
> wondered what others might be using for filtration with good success.
I
> have a 55 Gallon using an Aquaclear 300, but Ive heard alot of horror
> stories with that filter...Ive had no real problems with it but I
> wouldnt like to change my luck with that model if there is another type
> that might work better for my application.
> Any suggestions would be appreciated!
> Thanks in advance!
> Craig

Hey, the AquaClear 300 is my favourite of the AquaClears. Add a small
canister filter and you will have redundancy and a large assortment of
bio-surfaces and compartments for media. I run my AC300s with 2 sponges
and no carbon, alternating the sponge location & servicing.

NetMax

[NetMax]

"Popeye" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 09:11:47 -0500, "NetMax"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >Hey, the AquaClear 300 is my favourite of the AquaClears. Add a small
> >canister filter and you will have redundancy and a large assortment of
> >bio-surfaces and compartments for media. I run my AC300s with 2
sponges
> >and no carbon, alternating the sponge location & servicing.
> >
> >NetMax
> >
>
>
> A question for NetMax: Why no carbon? I understand the sponges and
> the biological aspect, but the lack of carbon puzzles me. I've been
> away from the hobby for almost 14 years, just recently (4 months) set
> up my tank (50usgal) again. Do you use the carbon in your canister
> filter, or just no carbon at all? I was always under the impression
> that the cabon was a necessary thing to remove certain toxins.
>
> My current filtration consists of an undergravel plate at each end,
> and an AQ300. I was using a Whisper2, but decided to try the AQ for a
> bit. Media consists of a sponge on the bottom, filter floss, and a bag
> with carbon/ammo chips in it.
>
> Brian

The use of carbon tends to be a personal decision. There is consensus
that it's uses should include new tank set-ups (remove any inorganics
which might be on new manufactured materials), and for removal of many
exhausted medications. Additionally, if there are sources of pollution
(smokers, incense etc) there can be a strong argument for the continued
use of carbon. There is also somewhat of a consensus that carbon will
remove some materials which plants use. There is also an understanding
that carbon's ability to adsorb the nasties is not infinite and depending
on the amount of nasties, carbon will saturate anywhere from a week to
several weeks. After carbon is saturated, it has no value (other than
providing some hidey-holes for nitrifying bacteria). At some point,
saturated carbon begins releasing the nasties back into the water, so the
convention is to replace carbon at 2 month intervals if continued use is
desired.

Beyond those 'facts', the continued use of carbon tends to be a personal
decision. Generally, those with planted tanks are not big fans of
carbon, while those with large fish & no plants, or small office tanks
with minimal maintenance, will be more receptive.

My personal choice is to use the carbon which comes with a new filter and
after 2 months, I simply discard it. If I was running high fish loads,
or had any extreme type conditions, I might reconsider it, but I tend to
have high filtration, low fish-loads, natural plants (and I'm cheap), so
I've never been a regular carbon user. Sorry I didn't explain myself
better. Whether you decide to use carbon or not is really up to your
perspective and application. As far as I know, there is no negative
effects to the fish (from regularly using carbon), and there might be
many positive effects we can't see (but my knowledge is only from simple
observation and minimal research, so ymmv).

NetMax

[Carlos]

another question for Netmax:

I have a setup with three discus fish (mature) 5 or 6 neons, 2 gouramis, an
algae eater and one betta, lots of plants, the tank is full to capacity with
plants no more room to plant even at the surface I have water lettuce. My
filter is a 350 magnum and an aquaclear 300. I use carbon in the magnum
filter, the question is do I have to keep on using it?

thanks for your time.


"NetMax" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Popeye" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 09:11:47 -0500, "NetMax"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> > >Hey, the AquaClear 300 is my favourite of the AquaClears. Add a small
> > >canister filter and you will have redundancy and a large assortment of
> > >bio-surfaces and compartments for media. I run my AC300s with 2
> sponges
> > >and no carbon, alternating the sponge location & servicing.
> > >
> > >NetMax
> > >
> >
> >
> > A question for NetMax: Why no carbon? I understand the sponges and
> > the biological aspect, but the lack of carbon puzzles me. I've been
> > away from the hobby for almost 14 years, just recently (4 months) set
> > up my tank (50usgal) again. Do you use the carbon in your canister
> > filter, or just no carbon at all? I was always under the impression
> > that the cabon was a necessary thing to remove certain toxins.
> >
> > My current filtration consists of an undergravel plate at each end,
> > and an AQ300. I was using a Whisper2, but decided to try the AQ for a
> > bit. Media consists of a sponge on the bottom, filter floss, and a bag
> > with carbon/ammo chips in it.
> >
> > Brian
>
> The use of carbon tends to be a personal decision. There is consensus
> that it's uses should include new tank set-ups (remove any inorganics
> which might be on new manufactured materials), and for removal of many
> exhausted medications. Additionally, if there are sources of pollution
> (smokers, incense etc) there can be a strong argument for the continued
> use of carbon. There is also somewhat of a consensus that carbon will
> remove some materials which plants use. There is also an understanding
> that carbon's ability to adsorb the nasties is not infinite and depending
> on the amount of nasties, carbon will saturate anywhere from a week to
> several weeks. After carbon is saturated, it has no value (other than
> providing some hidey-holes for nitrifying bacteria). At some point,
> saturated carbon begins releasing the nasties back into the water, so the
> convention is to replace carbon at 2 month intervals if continued use is
> desired.
>
> Beyond those 'facts', the continued use of carbon tends to be a personal
> decision. Generally, those with planted tanks are not big fans of
> carbon, while those with large fish & no plants, or small office tanks
> with minimal maintenance, will be more receptive.
>
> My personal choice is to use the carbon which comes with a new filter and
> after 2 months, I simply discard it. If I was running high fish loads,
> or had any extreme type conditions, I might reconsider it, but I tend to
> have high filtration, low fish-loads, natural plants (and I'm cheap), so
> I've never been a regular carbon user. Sorry I didn't explain myself
> better. Whether you decide to use carbon or not is really up to your
> perspective and application. As far as I know, there is no negative
> effects to the fish (from regularly using carbon), and there might be
> many positive effects we can't see (but my knowledge is only from simple
> observation and minimal research, so ymmv).
>
> NetMax
>
>

[NetMax]

Look at it this way. Every aquarium is like a fine recipe. When your
recipe is working, you don't want to make big changes (or any changes at
all). Before doing something someone said worked for them, keep in mind
that their recipe was different from yours to start with, so their
changes might not work the same way in your tank. Their water parameters
are different, the maintenance and filtration are different. Always
beware of people who are 100% certain of their recommendations ;~)

Having said that, if you want to take a scientific approach, discontinue
the use of carbon and keep everything else as identical as possible.
Gauge the difference yourself. As changes go, stopping using carbon is
probably a small enough change that you might not notice any difference
at all, but if you are observant, you might spot something, and if you
do, post your observations.

NetMax

"Carlos" > wrote in message
...
> another question for Netmax:
>
> I have a setup with three discus fish (mature) 5 or 6 neons, 2
gouramis, an
> algae eater and one betta, lots of plants, the tank is full to capacity
with
> plants no more room to plant even at the surface I have water lettuce.
My
> filter is a 350 magnum and an aquaclear 300. I use carbon in the
magnum
> filter, the question is do I have to keep on using it?
>
> thanks for your time.
>
>
> "NetMax" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Popeye" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 09:11:47 -0500, "NetMax"
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >Hey, the AquaClear 300 is my favourite of the AquaClears. Add a
small
> > > >canister filter and you will have redundancy and a large
assortment of
> > > >bio-surfaces and compartments for media. I run my AC300s with 2
> > sponges
> > > >and no carbon, alternating the sponge location & servicing.
> > > >
> > > >NetMax
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > A question for NetMax: Why no carbon? I understand the sponges and
> > > the biological aspect, but the lack of carbon puzzles me. I've been
> > > away from the hobby for almost 14 years, just recently (4 months)
set
> > > up my tank (50usgal) again. Do you use the carbon in your canister
> > > filter, or just no carbon at all? I was always under the
impression
> > > that the cabon was a necessary thing to remove certain toxins.
> > >
> > > My current filtration consists of an undergravel plate at each end,
> > > and an AQ300. I was using a Whisper2, but decided to try the AQ for
a
> > > bit. Media consists of a sponge on the bottom, filter floss, and a
bag
> > > with carbon/ammo chips in it.
> > >
> > > Brian
> >
> > The use of carbon tends to be a personal decision. There is
consensus
> > that it's uses should include new tank set-ups (remove any inorganics
> > which might be on new manufactured materials), and for removal of
many
> > exhausted medications. Additionally, if there are sources of
pollution
> > (smokers, incense etc) there can be a strong argument for the
continued
> > use of carbon. There is also somewhat of a consensus that carbon
will
> > remove some materials which plants use. There is also an
understanding
> > that carbon's ability to adsorb the nasties is not infinite and
depending
> > on the amount of nasties, carbon will saturate anywhere from a week
to
> > several weeks. After carbon is saturated, it has no value (other
than
> > providing some hidey-holes for nitrifying bacteria). At some point,
> > saturated carbon begins releasing the nasties back into the water, so
the
> > convention is to replace carbon at 2 month intervals if continued use
is
> > desired.
> >
> > Beyond those 'facts', the continued use of carbon tends to be a
personal
> > decision. Generally, those with planted tanks are not big fans of
> > carbon, while those with large fish & no plants, or small office
tanks
> > with minimal maintenance, will be more receptive.
> >
> > My personal choice is to use the carbon which comes with a new filter
and
> > after 2 months, I simply discard it. If I was running high fish
loads,
> > or had any extreme type conditions, I might reconsider it, but I tend
to
> > have high filtration, low fish-loads, natural plants (and I'm cheap),
so
> > I've never been a regular carbon user. Sorry I didn't explain myself
> > better. Whether you decide to use carbon or not is really up to your
> > perspective and application. As far as I know, there is no negative
> > effects to the fish (from regularly using carbon), and there might be
> > many positive effects we can't see (but my knowledge is only from
simple
> > observation and minimal research, so ymmv).
> >
> > NetMax

[Carlos]

tks.


"NetMax" > wrote in message
...
> Look at it this way. Every aquarium is like a fine recipe. When your
> recipe is working, you don't want to make big changes (or any changes at
> all). Before doing something someone said worked for them, keep in mind
> that their recipe was different from yours to start with, so their
> changes might not work the same way in your tank. Their water parameters
> are different, the maintenance and filtration are different. Always
> beware of people who are 100% certain of their recommendations ;~)
>
> Having said that, if you want to take a scientific approach, discontinue
> the use of carbon and keep everything else as identical as possible.
> Gauge the difference yourself. As changes go, stopping using carbon is
> probably a small enough change that you might not notice any difference
> at all, but if you are observant, you might spot something, and if you
> do, post your observations.
>
> NetMax
>
> "Carlos" > wrote in message
> ...
> > another question for Netmax:
> >
> > I have a setup with three discus fish (mature) 5 or 6 neons, 2
> gouramis, an
> > algae eater and one betta, lots of plants, the tank is full to capacity
> with
> > plants no more room to plant even at the surface I have water lettuce.
> My
> > filter is a 350 magnum and an aquaclear 300. I use carbon in the
> magnum
> > filter, the question is do I have to keep on using it?
> >
> > thanks for your time.
> >
> >
> > "NetMax" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Popeye" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 09:11:47 -0500, "NetMax"
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >Hey, the AquaClear 300 is my favourite of the AquaClears. Add a
> small
> > > > >canister filter and you will have redundancy and a large
> assortment of
> > > > >bio-surfaces and compartments for media. I run my AC300s with 2
> > > sponges
> > > > >and no carbon, alternating the sponge location & servicing.
> > > > >
> > > > >NetMax
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > A question for NetMax: Why no carbon? I understand the sponges and
> > > > the biological aspect, but the lack of carbon puzzles me. I've been
> > > > away from the hobby for almost 14 years, just recently (4 months)
> set
> > > > up my tank (50usgal) again. Do you use the carbon in your canister
> > > > filter, or just no carbon at all? I was always under the
> impression
> > > > that the cabon was a necessary thing to remove certain toxins.
> > > >
> > > > My current filtration consists of an undergravel plate at each end,
> > > > and an AQ300. I was using a Whisper2, but decided to try the AQ for
> a
> > > > bit. Media consists of a sponge on the bottom, filter floss, and a
> bag
> > > > with carbon/ammo chips in it.
> > > >
> > > > Brian
> > >
> > > The use of carbon tends to be a personal decision. There is
> consensus
> > > that it's uses should include new tank set-ups (remove any inorganics
> > > which might be on new manufactured materials), and for removal of
> many
> > > exhausted medications. Additionally, if there are sources of
> pollution
> > > (smokers, incense etc) there can be a strong argument for the
> continued
> > > use of carbon. There is also somewhat of a consensus that carbon
> will
> > > remove some materials which plants use. There is also an
> understanding
> > > that carbon's ability to adsorb the nasties is not infinite and
> depending
> > > on the amount of nasties, carbon will saturate anywhere from a week
> to
> > > several weeks. After carbon is saturated, it has no value (other
> than
> > > providing some hidey-holes for nitrifying bacteria). At some point,
> > > saturated carbon begins releasing the nasties back into the water, so
> the
> > > convention is to replace carbon at 2 month intervals if continued use
> is
> > > desired.
> > >
> > > Beyond those 'facts', the continued use of carbon tends to be a
> personal
> > > decision. Generally, those with planted tanks are not big fans of
> > > carbon, while those with large fish & no plants, or small office
> tanks
> > > with minimal maintenance, will be more receptive.
> > >
> > > My personal choice is to use the carbon which comes with a new filter
> and
> > > after 2 months, I simply discard it. If I was running high fish
> loads,
> > > or had any extreme type conditions, I might reconsider it, but I tend
> to
> > > have high filtration, low fish-loads, natural plants (and I'm cheap),
> so
> > > I've never been a regular carbon user. Sorry I didn't explain myself
> > > better. Whether you decide to use carbon or not is really up to your
> > > perspective and application. As far as I know, there is no negative
> > > effects to the fish (from regularly using carbon), and there might be
> > > many positive effects we can't see (but my knowledge is only from
> simple
> > > observation and minimal research, so ymmv).
> > >
> > > NetMax
>
>

[NetMax]

"Popeye" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 16:17:27 -0500, "NetMax"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >The use of carbon tends to be a personal decision.
<snip>> >
> >NetMax
> >
>
> I'm trying the live plant method, (again) and not having much luck
> right now. I've removed the carbon and will hope for the best. That
> might explain why I can't seem to get the plants to grow.
>
> Not sure what the heck I am doing wrong this time around. The last
> time I was into this hobby, I bought one bunch of Hygrophilia and
> poplulated at least 50 tanks from it. (No, not all mine) It just grew
> like a weed. Now, the hornswort is growing great, but not much else.
>
> Thanks for the response.
> Brian

I take a fairly passive approach to plants. If they like the conditions,
I'll trim and putter little pieces around the tank. If they don't like
the conditions, tough. Having said that, I do try to provide adequate
plant conditions (reasonable substrate, lots of light, lower turbulence
and fish to provide fertilizer), and I'm very patient (I have hard water
at home, so patience and lower expectations are key). Using or not using
carbon would not be IMO a major factor for plant growth. Light intensity
would be #1, and if you really have no luck, cheat and add a CO2
dispenser ;~)

Also experiment with various plants. I recently introduced a Madagascar
lace ($$) and surprisingly, it's doing great, almost as big as a year-old
Amazon sword. Easy plants like Corkscrew I've been killing off lately,
but they have done well for me in the past (different city). Also note
that there are many types of Corkscrew (Valesneria) from around the world
living in very different conditions, so one might do poorly and another
grows great. Experiment :o)

NetMax