"Ich Management"

OP
OP
Jay Hemdal

Jay Hemdal

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Jul 31, 2020
Messages
25,769
Reaction score
25,585
Location
Dundee, MI
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
great question …
@Jay Hemdal any chance of mechanical removal And at what micron size?

Well, it's complicated.

Mechanical filtration will remove a percentage of free swimming theronts. These range in size from 30 to perhaps 70 microns. However, that does not mean that you can put a 25 micron filter on a tank and "cure ich"...it doesn't work like that.

Filters with small pore sizes need to have slow filtration rates, else they clog too fast. That means there is a "dwell time" in the aquarium where the theronts can swim around for some time before being captured by the filter. Theronts emerge from the tomonts in the early morning and rise up and infect fish before ever getting sucked into the filter.

I just advocate for "good mechanical filtration" as one aspect of "ich management", but it is not a cure-all. Even diatom filters have failed to cure active ich infections in most cases...and I'm just hedging my bets, I've tried the old Vortex diatom filters (<10 micron) dozens and dozens of times and never cured an active infection with them.

Jay
 

GARRIGA

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Oct 12, 2021
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
1,701
Location
South Florida
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Well, it's complicated.

Mechanical filtration will remove a percentage of free swimming theronts. These range in size from 30 to perhaps 70 microns. However, that does not mean that you can put a 25 micron filter on a tank and "cure ich"...it doesn't work like that.

Filters with small pore sizes need to have slow filtration rates, else they clog too fast. That means there is a "dwell time" in the aquarium where the theronts can swim around for some time before being captured by the filter. Theronts emerge from the tomonts in the early morning and rise up and infect fish before ever getting sucked into the filter.

I just advocate for "good mechanical filtration" as one aspect of "ich management", but it is not a cure-all. Even diatom filters have failed to cure active ich infections in most cases...and I'm just hedging my bets, I've tried the old Vortex diatom filters (<10 micron) dozens and dozens of times and never cured an active infection with them.

Jay
Wouldn’t several filters from coarse to fine not reduce the clogging by smaller micron? For example. Open any canister and you will find lots of mulm that is trapped though smaller than what the canister traps yet it doesn’t return to the display yet if one then added several downsizing filters getting smaller that would keep capturing larger particles before the final 25 micron or smaller and if applied as I’m planning using a plate similar to an undergravel but drawing water through under tank bulk heads then wouldn’t there be a flow rate where theronts would be unable to swim up and get sucked into the filtration process? At a minimum this I think would work on a smaller QT system although I’m also planning to use it on the main but only run the smaller micron for occasional cleaning or should I spot a white spot. Seems logical to me.

Not seeking to cure ich. Just maintain low numbers.

Your thoughts would appreciated.
 
OP
OP
Jay Hemdal

Jay Hemdal

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Jul 31, 2020
Messages
25,769
Reaction score
25,585
Location
Dundee, MI
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Wouldn’t several filters from coarse to fine not reduce the clogging by smaller micron? For example. Open any canister and fill be will find lots of mulm that s as though smaller than what the csnister traps doesn’t return to the display yet if one then added several downsizing filters getting smaller that would keep capturing larger particles before the final 25 micron or smaller and if applied as I’m planning using a plate similar to an undergravel but drawing water through under tank bulk heads then wouldn’t there be a flow rate where theronts would be unable to swim up and get sucked into the filtration process? At a minimum this I think would work on a smaller QT system although I’m also planning to use it as n the main but only run the smaller micron for occasional cleaning or should I spot a white spot. Seems logical to me.

Your thoughts would appreciated.

Yes - graduated filters (a pre filter followed by a micron filter) does help to keep the filter from clogging, but it still can't capture the theronts as they rise up and attach to the sleeping fish without ever getting near the filter intake. This is the same issue with UV sterilizers.

Both UV and micro filtration work GREAT for treating water moving from one tank in a system to the next. The fish downstream are well protected. Side stream, where the water goes back to the original infected tank, not so much (grin). This isn't a matter of personal opinion - it is commonly understood in fisheries science where they use raceway fish culture.
 

GARRIGA

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Oct 12, 2021
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
1,701
Location
South Florida
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Yes - graduated filters (a pre filter followed by a micron filter) does help to keep the filter from clogging, but it still can't capture the theronts as they rise up and attach to the sleeping fish without ever getting near the filter intake. This is the same issue with UV sterilizers.

Both UV and micro filtration work GREAT for treating water moving from one tank in a system to the next. The fish downstream are well protected. Side stream, where the water goes back to the original infected tank, not so much (grin). This isn't a matter of personal opinion - it is commonly understood in fisheries science where they use raceway fish culture.
But what about my use of an undergravel plate to draw water from underneath the gravel bed assuming fast enough flow was used? Guessing there's a point where these little boogers can't swim fast enough. Thereby suctioning them out and having them processed by the mechanical filters.
 
OP
OP
Jay Hemdal

Jay Hemdal

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Jul 31, 2020
Messages
25,769
Reaction score
25,585
Location
Dundee, MI
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
But what about my use of an undergravel plate to draw water from underneath the gravel bed assuming fast enough flow was used? Guessing there's a point where these little boogers can't swim fast enough. Thereby suctioning them out and having them processed by the mechanical filters.
Maybe. Thinking back, I’ve had old school UG filtered tanks connected to canister filters that got ich anyways, but it certainly was not a controlled study.

Some people say they have found that bare bottom tanks with strong water flow across the bottom will sweep up tomonts and push them into the filter system before they release their theronts.
 

GARRIGA

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Oct 12, 2021
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
1,701
Location
South Florida
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Maybe. Thinking back, I’ve had old school UG filtered tanks connected to canister filters that got ich anyways, but it certainly was not a controlled study.

Some people say they have found that bare bottom tanks with strong water flow across the bottom will sweep up tomonts and push them into the filter system before they release their theronts.
Guessing those old school canisters likely not post filtered with micron filtration unless using Ocean Clear. Recall they had a 25 micron pleated cartridge if memory serves me right?

Bare bottom with high flow going from left side to right side then filtered and returned to left side another idea I’ve had for QT. Thinking a peninsula with to end sumps. Cartridge filtration underneath. Can add baffles with new life placed in last baffle downstream from healthier. Gotta believe flow high enough will pull everything into the filter keeping it closed loop. Obviously add some schedule 80 90 degree elbows for hides and can scrub each baffle occasionally. Not sure if tomonts can attach to those elbows but easy enough to replace every other day and bleach them. My idea of TTM. No way I’m cleaning tanks every other day. I think this along with hydrogen baths might work except instead of pulling fish out. Just dose the entire system then run UV-C to neutralize the hydrogen peroxide. Assuming I understand everything involved. I’m trying. Lol

Plus now trying to figure out how to feed ozone and combine that with UV-C. Beats bleaching ten gallon tanks
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
Jay Hemdal

Jay Hemdal

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Jul 31, 2020
Messages
25,769
Reaction score
25,585
Location
Dundee, MI
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Guessing those old school canisters likely not post filtered with micron filtration unless using Ocean Clear. Recall they had a 25 micron pleated cartridge if memory serves me right?

Bare bottom with high flow going from left side to right side then filtered and returned to left side another idea I’ve had for QT. Thinking a peninsula with to end sumps. Cartridge filtration underneath. Can add baffles with new life placed in first baffle. Gotta believe flow high enough will pull everything into the filter keeping it closed loop. Obviously add some schedule 80 90 degree elbows for hides and can scrub each baffle occasionally. Not sure if tomonts can attach to those elbows but easy enough to replace every other day and bleach them. My idea of TTM. No way I’m cleaning tanks every other day. I think this along with hydrogen baths might work except instead of pulling fish out. Just dose the entire system then run UV-C to neutralize the hydrogen peroxide. Assuming I understand everything involved. I’m trying. Lol

Plus now trying to figure out how to feed ozone and combine that with UV-C. Beats bleaching ten gallon tanks

So - the surprising thing is that the huge amount of media in those Eheim and Sicce filters actually worked in combination to create finer filtration than a single layer of the media would suggest that they would. Same sort of thing takes place with diatom filters - their advertising was based on water flowing through the pores of the diatom shells. Of course, in reality, the water flows around, not through each diatom. In a thick enough layer though, it then can filter out very small particles.

Stickiness of tomonts is a wild card. We know they are sticky to some degree, but we also know that siphoning the substrate will remove many of them.
 

Paul B

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
18,079
Reaction score
61,618
Location
Long Island NY
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Even diatom filters have failed to cure active ich infections in most cases...and I'm just hedging my bets, I've tried the old Vortex diatom filters (<10 micron) dozens and dozens of times and never cured an active infection with them.
This is true. UV and Ozone have the same problem. Diatoms are only if you want to reduce the number of parasites. As I said I stir up my gravel with them (as I did last night) and even after running all night, it is still pumping a lot of water.
But they are easy to change the powder, especially on the ones I just designed. About 2 minutes. :beaming-face-with-smiling-eyes:
 

GARRIGA

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Oct 12, 2021
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
1,701
Location
South Florida
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
So - the surprising thing is that the huge amount of media in those Eheim and Sicce filters actually worked in combination to create finer filtration than a single layer of the media would suggest that they would. Same sort of thing takes place with diatom filters - their advertising was based on water flowing through the pores of the diatom shells. Of course, in reality, the water flows around, not through each diatom. In a thick enough layer though, it then can filter out very small particles.

Stickiness of tomonts is a wild card. We know they are sticky to some degree, but we also know that siphoning the substrate will remove many of them.
Ran Eheim in the 90s as well. Odd thing. Due to life taking most of my time I left the canister unserviced with only removing floss as needed. Nitrates initially hovered around 80 then stayed at 20 ppm. Denitrification was obviously happening. They were slow by design but got slower as they clogged with mulm. Guessing that mulm what you describe as creating that finer filtration. Recall my water was crystal clear. Clear than any Berlin setup I recall seeing those days. Undergravel filters in the 80s were also crystal clear best I remember. Why I’m currently using a modified version and looking to incorporate into my main as well QT/Observation.

Used API Bio Stars which are similar to todays ceramic media with internal surface for bacterial growth along with the media that came with the canister. Honestly don’t recall what that was.

I get your point in the shells not actually doing the filtration but the space reduced between each shell. Always get permeable and porosity confused but that’s the approach I’m taking yet using several filters to reduce clogging of mulm or larger particles yet still capturing finer than mulm effectively removing anything larger than bacteria yet small enough to cause harm. I’m sure it will take trial and error to get this combination right to allow proper flow and prolong maintenance. Not going to be changing any filter as frequently as would be the case with DE. Great media but that clogged quickly.

Just believe there’s a more efficient method than TTM and I’d rather not use copper or other medications if I can avoid it. Why hydrogen peroxide is intriguing. Really believe in building immunity through inoculation.
 

GARRIGA

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Oct 12, 2021
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
1,701
Location
South Florida
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
So - the surprising thing is that the huge amount of media in those Eheim and Sicce filters actually worked in combination to create finer filtration than a single layer of the media would suggest that they would. Same sort of thing takes place with diatom filters - their advertising was based on water flowing through the pores of the diatom shells. Of course, in reality, the water flows around, not through each diatom. In a thick enough layer though, it then can filter out very small particles.

Stickiness of tomonts is a wild card. We know they are sticky to some degree, but we also know that siphoning the substrate will remove many of them.
IMG_2871.png


Have you considered dual density instead of pleated cartridge. Outer layer traps larger particles yet inner traps nominally down to one micron or larger depending on size. Continuously ran as you do they will likely trap everything down to micron rating as the filter clogs. Much cheaper than pleated.

I’m guessing they can be cleaned using 35% hydrogen peroxide. Not sure if they can be bleached. Do to the dual density. Might last longer than pleated having just the one micron rating.
 

Paul B

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
18,079
Reaction score
61,618
Location
Long Island NY
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Garriga, I use that 1 micron cartridge in my smaller filter.



The large filter I use the pleated cartridge as they should last for years and are cheap. I can't find the 5 micron pleated cartridge for the small unit. If I could I would use it with diatom powder.

I use my small filter a lot now just because it is fun to use and I stir my gravel and powerwash my rock just for the heck of it.

After many hours with that cartridge you posted, I had to bleach it in regular Clorox. Now it is as good as new.
 

Doctorgori

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 18, 2019
Messages
4,280
Reaction score
5,726
Location
Myrtle Beach
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
is there a optimal configuration (pluming order, et)
for UV + Ozone ?
I’m asking. anyone as I have a Posiedon UV I am considering implementing on a ”ich managed” 160g Peninsula
- will the Ozone have ANY added benefits combined with UV?
- is there any evidence ozone has any sterilization effects ? (I thought not but asking anyway)
- should or could I inject directly inline before the UV w/o carbon ( but run the carbon in a separate reactor)
OR just implement Ozone via skimmer with carbon bag catching outgassed ozone
 

GARRIGA

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Oct 12, 2021
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
1,701
Location
South Florida
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Garriga, I use that 1 micron cartridge in my smaller filter.



The large filter I use the pleated cartridge as they should last for years and are cheap. I can't find the 5 micron pleated cartridge for the small unit. If I could I would use it with diatom powder.

I use my small filter a lot now just because it is fun to use and I stir my gravel and powerwash my rock just for the heck of it.

After many hours with that cartridge you posted, I had to bleach it in regular Clorox. Now it is as good as new.
What do you feel then being more pragmatic considering extended use between cleaning? Pleated or dual density? Seems you prefer pleated
 

Paul B

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
18,079
Reaction score
61,618
Location
Long Island NY
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I do prefer pleated but not because I think it filters better. But in the pleated one, the powder does the filtering and the pleated "paper" is just there to hold the powder. When you replace the powder, you end up with a new filter. with the dual density, the "dirt" goes all through the filter and is hard to clean completely. The bleach does a good job, but I am sure every time you clean it, it doesn't last as long because you will never get the solid particles out.

The bleach will just dissolve the organic stuff.
 
OP
OP
Jay Hemdal

Jay Hemdal

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Jul 31, 2020
Messages
25,769
Reaction score
25,585
Location
Dundee, MI
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
IMG_2871.png


Have you considered dual density instead of pleated cartridge. Outer layer traps larger particles yet inner traps nominally down to one micron or larger depending on size. Continuously ran as you do they will likely trap everything down to micron rating as the filter clogs. Much cheaper than pleated.

I’m guessing they can be cleaned using 35% hydrogen peroxide. Not sure if they can be bleached. Do to the dual density. Might last longer than pleated having just the one micron rating.
I tried using these years ago to “cold sterilize” batches of water - they still clogged too fast for my use.

Again, unless the water is going from these filters to a separate system, you won’t get good disease control because the infective theronts can get to the fish before ever being trapped by the filter - especially with Amyloodinium.
 

GARRIGA

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Oct 12, 2021
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
1,701
Location
South Florida
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I tried using these years ago to “cold sterilize” batches of water - they still clogged too fast for my use.

Again, unless the water is going from these filters to a separate system, you won’t get good disease control because the infective theronts can get to the fish before ever being trapped by the filter - especially with Amyloodinium.
But did you use a series of filters from coarse to fine. Say 100 micron down to 10 micron and if flow can be fast enough because of several filters capturing larger particles then wouldn’t that help reduce the pathogens? Not seeking sterilization. Seeking reduced contact to build and maintain immunity/resistance.

There has to be a speed of flow where these pathogens can’t overcome thereby reducing the numbers that make contact with fish.
 

Paul B

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
18,079
Reaction score
61,618
Location
Long Island NY
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Jay, that is why I prefer the 5 micron pleated filter with the powder. That should filter down to less than one micron and I can use them all night without clogging. If I needed it to work longer, I would make a 5 gallon unit.
 

GARRIGA

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Oct 12, 2021
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
1,701
Location
South Florida
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Jay, that is why I prefer the 5 micron pleated filter with the powder. That should filter down to less than one micron and I can use them all night without clogging. If I needed it to work longer, I would make a 5 gallon unit.
I’m going to be using the big blue 20” and several of them and why I don’t think I should clog quickly considering it’s literally a bare tank with elbows and just a few fish. Mostly observation but I’m also aiming to reduce pathogen load.

If you’re going next day with all the fish and gunk inside the undergravel then I don’t see me having an issue plus those filters will be prefiltered by a canister that should collect everything the size of mulm or larger.

My only concern is having enough flow to grab that suspended seeking a host or at a minimum most of its buddies
 
OP
OP
Jay Hemdal

Jay Hemdal

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Jul 31, 2020
Messages
25,769
Reaction score
25,585
Location
Dundee, MI
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
But did you use a series of filters from coarse to fine. Say 100 micron down to 10 micron and if flow can be fast enough because of several filters capturing larger particles then wouldn’t that help reduce the pathogens? Not seeking sterilization. Seeking reduced contact to build and maintain immunity/resistance.

There has to be a speed of flow where these pathogens can’t overcome thereby reducing the numbers that make contact with fish.
Yes - I tried staged filters, still didn’t like how fast they clogged. I was going down to <2 microns, smaller than you really need to go think.
 

Rock solid aquascape: Does the weight of the rocks in your aquascape matter?

  • The weight of the rocks is a key factor.

    Votes: 10 8.1%
  • The weight of the rocks is one of many factors.

    Votes: 43 34.7%
  • The weight of the rocks is a minor factor.

    Votes: 39 31.5%
  • The weight of the rocks is not a factor.

    Votes: 31 25.0%
  • Other.

    Votes: 1 0.8%
Back
Top