Chemical Filtration: a necessity?

Every tank I have setup only has mechanical and biological filtration.
I dont like the added hassle or expense of the chemical filtration that is only needed to remove meds or tanins.

I look at it this way, without the chemical filtration, there is more room for biological filtration

It will hold some bacteria like any other bio-media, but you'll lose that when it's time to replace it. I would add some Biomax or something like that instead of the chemical filtration.

I have 2 of the 3 trays in my XP3 full of biomax, and use the bottom tray for the prefilters.

What about bio-chem stars or the ceramic rings made for the rena filters? The stars are supposed to be the better of the 2. Could I use a mix of both?

Click to expand...

either or is fine, any high surface area media will work well for bio-filtration. The true micro pore medias like Efhisubstrat (Sintered Glass) do eventually clog up and need replacing, but the "mechanicle " ceramic medias will last indefinately. Whatever fits your budget and your media well. people use everything from toy plastic soldiers to high dollar sintered glass media.

I'll second the no chemical media idea. I have a carton of Activated carbon that is over 10 years old and is still within an inch of being full. Good maintenance will take away any "need" for Ac except those rare instances mentioned above.

I read an article in a fish magazine where the expert recommends the use of acticvated carbon.
his explanation makes sense , particularly for those with unplanted tanks and who do small weekly water changes(read as less than 20% per week)
while the author advocates weekly water changes his explanation is that activated carbon removes unwanted waste material from that tank.he did recommend changing the carbon twice a month.

if carbon can remove meds it surely can remove toxins from the water also.

while I don't use carbon , i do 30% min water changes weekly,it does makes. sense.

On the rena website, they say that their ceramic cylinders have to be replaced after a few months, but the stars never have to be replaced. But you're saying that the cylinders don't ever have to be replaced either?

Click to expand...

Essentially the "cylinders" would fall into the category of True Micro pore media, and would plug up eventually and need replacement. The "stars" are high surface area but not micropore so they would never need replacement. IMO the stars are the better option for that reason, but they will definately have a smaller surface area for bacteria colonization.

Either one will rpovide adequate space for a good bio-filter.

I read an article in a fish magazine where the expert recommends the use of acticvated carbon.his explanation makes sense , particularly for those with unplanted tanks and who do small weekly water changes(read as less than 20% per week)
while the author advocates weekly water changes his explanation is that activated carbon removes unwanted waste material from that tank.he did recommend changing the carbon twice a month

Click to expand...

AC will remove most chemical compunds from our water. this would include many of the pheremones secreted by fish as well as anything else that brews up in the system. The problem with the above reccomendation is two fold.
1st. is that tanks with small water changes will develope their own problems eventually and with or without activated carbon problems will manifest.
2nd. In a highly polluted tank such as the poorly maintained tank mentioned, carbion would have to be changed far more frequently than every two weeks to really be effective. It fills up very rapidly when presented with high levels of chemical pollution. In the very best of situations it's useful life doesn't go beyond a couple of weeks, so in the worst of situations it is far far less.

Of course the frequency of change out and the effectiveness has a lot of variables, the largest of which is quantity of carbon verses quantity of tank, but in most of our systems we cannot or do not run high volumes of AC so the volumes we use would need to be changed more frequently. Either way the amount of carbon needed to removea specified amount of chemical is close to constant, so cost is the same whether we run 25# or 3 oz. it's just the frewquency of change that differs.