I feel like air driven sponge filters be revisited.

[snowballs99]

I do notice a lot of people are able to grow HC carpets and mini dwarf hair grass carpets with just a good aquasoil using a sponge filter. In theory, it should degass a lot more co2 which aquasoil bioactivity generates. This should be bad, but it doesn't seem to actually matter in the end.


Hell, here's an even better example.

It seems the commonality is FRESH SUBSTRATE.

I like sponge filters because it also has some other benefits.
-Can't accidentily gas your fish with an airstone running if your also injecting.
-0 Surface film.
-Livestock notably more active.
-Tank seems more stable, bacteria probably works better with more oxygen.
-Cheap too.

I remember on some of my co2 tanks would always get dust algae on the glass that comes back no matter what. Everytime I added airstone etc it would pretty much never come back after you removed it.

 

[ElleDee]

Sponge filters have a lot of value in shrimp tanks for the reasons you've listed, but I think success with low tech carpeting doesn't depend on a particular filter type as much as the usual factors of success (active substrate, controlling organics, appropriate lighting, etc.). But IMO one of the delights of giving up CO2 is being able to get away with incredibly basic equipment, including the humble sponge filter.

I will say that while I understand the issue with CO2 outgassing conceptually, I only run non-CO2 injected tanks and yet I've never seen a negative outcome from increasing gas exchange. I'm not totally sure why that is - am I not really losing that much CO2 to the air compared to how much the tank is generating? Do the benefits of the increased oxygen outweigh the lost CO2, or is the oxygen directly contributing to the generation of CO2? I imagine the answer is one of those, but I'm not sure which exactly. My current thinking is that it's an overplayed fear based in older thinking that's due for a revisiting.

 

[snowballs99]

Sponge filters have a lot of value in shrimp tanks for the reasons you've listed, but I think success with low tech carpeting doesn't depend on a particular filter type as much as the usual factors of success (active substrate, controlling organics, appropriate lighting, etc.). But IMO one of the delights of giving up CO2 is being able to get away with incredibly basic equipment, including the humble sponge filter.

I will say that while I understand the issue with CO2 outgassing conceptually, I only run non-CO2 injected tanks and yet I've never seen a negative outcome from increasing gas exchange. I'm not totally sure why that is - am I not really losing that much CO2 to the air compared to how much the tank is generating? Do the benefits of the increased oxygen outweigh the lost CO2, or is the oxygen directly contributing to the generation of CO2? I imagine the answer is one of those, but I'm not sure which exactly. My current thinking is that it's an overplayed fear based in older thinking that's due for a revisiting.

My thoughts as well.
Effect of Extra oxygen/surface exchange seems to be bit under explored at least in CO2 tanks.

The focus is heavily on retaining CO2, but Im not sure if a lot of pickier species require anything more than say 15ppm which is pretty easy to achieve with a basic diffuser.

 

[hamfist]

I am a huge fan of air-driven sponge filters for all these reasons. I generally run at least 2 per 15g tank.

I do wonder whether the CO2 produced by a fresh organic-containing substrate that is of use to plants in these situations is that which is still retained largely within the substrate zone (which aeration will clearly affect much less), so it may well be plant roots that are taking it up ?? Can plants take up CO2 via their roots and transport it around the plant ? I don't know. If so, this would account for the fact that extra tankwater aeration seems to have little effect on this.

 

[Pepere]

I use Easy Flow kits from the Aquarium Co op as air lift risers to my UGF plates. I have 4 of them on my 75 gallon. The 4 of them combined when the air collars are new gives 240 gallons per hour flow..

I played around with putting the air pumps for these on wifi timers. I shut them off when the co2 came on until the solenoid shut off at night. I have canister filters in addition to my ugf filtration.

I took multiple ph samples throughout the day in half hour intervals on days I ran the air pumps non stop and the days I shut them off during the time co2 was running.

My results were no difference in ph levels were discernible with liquid drop testing. I could never discern a difference in any way at all between running the air pumps 24/7 or shutting them off while co2 was running.

I am not saying that running air driven filtration doesnt lower co2 levels at all. But I am saying running 4 air driven filtration with a curved uplift tube where most of the air bubbles come out parallel to the water surface along with the water flow in a 75 gallon tank does not provide enough surface disruption to show up in liquid ph test. I still reached ph drop of 1 from a degassed sample that was shaken vigorously for 3 minutes, and it did not take noticeably longer to achieve when air driven filtration ve Easy Flow air lift was being used and if they were shut off…. The co2 rate entering the horizontal reactor was the same . No adjustment was made.

I did not test with standard uplift tubes that might cause more surface disruption.

My conclusion was that any savings of co2 in my 75 gallon tank from turning off the air pumps would never be enough to notice in terms of how much I was spending on co2 gas in the course of a year.

Now I also run co2 and air driven filtration in a 20 high quarantine tank. Ihave UGF and a Lees triple flow box filter in that tank, all three air lifts run by Easy Flow kits. There is no canister filter on this tank. Co2 is supplied using 3 co2 bells in one corner of the tank fed by sugar fermentation reactors. There is a small 80 gph powerhead circulating water below the co2 bells.

On this tank, the co2 loss is definitely noticeable depending how much flow is being tun by the air driven filtration.. I have not done serial liquid ph testing over time to quantify it, but I do have an air blead through an airstone adjusted by a ziss microadjustable air valve that I can bleed off air from a manifold to modulate the amount of flow going through the 3 airlifts. There is indeed a discernible difference in how green the drop checker gets is dependent of the flow through the easy flow kits.

I have the flow set so that I somewhere around 12 ppm ish co2 in this quarantine tank to maintain plant healthduring tomes there is no livestock in the tank.

So, 3 airlifts lift kits in a 20 high tank yields noticeable increase in CO2 offgassing. Adjusting the rate of flow makes a discernible difference.

4 airlifts lift kits kits in a 75 gallon tank, no discernible difference.

“For a difference to be a difference, it has to make a difference..”. Gill Carson.

 

[snowballs99]

I use Easy Flow kits from the Aquarium Co op as air lift risers to my UGF plates. I have 4 of them on my 75 gallon. The 4 of them combined when the air collars are new gives 240 gallons per hour flow..

I played around with putting the air pumps for these on wifi timers. I shut them off when the co2 came on until the solenoid shut off at night. I have canister filters in addition to my ugf filtration.

I took multiple ph samples throughout the day in half hour intervals on days I ran the air pumps non stop and the days I shut them off during the time co2 was running.

My results were no difference in ph levels were discernible with liquid drop testing. I could never discern a difference in any way at all between running the air pumps 24/7 or shutting them off while co2 was running.

I am not saying that running air driven filtration doesnt lower co2 levels at all. But I am saying running 4 air driven filtration with a curved uplift tube where most of the air bubbles come out parallel to the water surface along with the water flow in a 75 gallon tank does not provide enough surface disruption to show up in liquid ph test. I still reached ph drop of 1 from a degassed sample that was shaken vigorously for 3 minutes, and it did not take noticeably longer to achieve when air driven filtration ve Easy Flow air lift was being used and if they were shut off…. The co2 rate entering the horizontal reactor was the same . No adjustment was made.

I did not test with standard uplift tubes that might cause more surface disruption.

My conclusion was that any savings of co2 in my 75 gallon tank from turning off the air pumps would never be enough to notice in terms of how much I was spending on co2 gas in the course of a year.

Now I also run co2 and air driven filtration in a 20 high quarantine tank. Ihave UGF and a Lees triple flow box filter in that tank, all three air lifts run by Easy Flow kits. There is no canister filter on this tank. Co2 is supplied using 3 co2 bells in one corner of the tank fed by sugar fermentation reactors. There is a small 80 gph powerhead circulating water below the co2 bells.

On this tank, the co2 loss is definitely noticeable depending how much flow is being tun by the air driven filtration.. I have not done serial liquid ph testing over time to quantify it, but I do have an air blead through an airstone adjusted by a ziss microadjustable air valve that I can bleed off air from a manifold to modulate the amount of flow going through the 3 airlifts. There is indeed a discernible difference in how green the drop checker gets is dependent of the flow through the easy flow kits.

I have the flow set so that I somewhere around 12 ppm ish co2 in this quarantine tank to maintain plant healthduring tomes there is no livestock in the tank.

So, 3 airlifts lift kits in a 20 high tank yields noticeable increase in CO2 offgassing. Adjusting the rate of flow makes a discernible difference.

4 airlifts lift kits kits in a 75 gallon tank, no discernible difference.

“For a difference to be a difference, it has to make a difference..”. Gill Carson.

I'm currently only using sponge filters for filtration and a small pump to help disperse co2.
I think this gives the best of both worlds and should be the cheapest option while still keeping maintenance extremely quick and easily.

I actually prefer this over my oase canister filter I used to have on them.
For some reason I do notice algae types in the tank will also change once I used a sponge filter.
They also change based on how much nutrients im dosing as well.

 

[hamfist]

For some reason I do notice algae types in the tank will also change once I used a sponge filter.

Interesting, thats an unexpected observation.

 

[JacksonL]

For some reason I do notice algae types in the tank will also change once I used a sponge filter.

How so? Which types?

 

[snowballs99]

How so? Which types?

You go from stuff like black beard, darker algae etc to more stringy hair algae.
Algae on glass was also significantly reduced.

 

[hamfist]

You go from stuff like black beard, darker algae etc to more stringy hair algae.
Algae on glass was also significantly reduced.

Do you suspect it was flow-related due to changing filter types ?