Using Canister filter

[CKW]

Agree! Not sure about the weekly cleaning part, but when you do need to it's more of a hassle. The other issue with certain canisters (check reviews) is leaking over time - which can be a hassle

I’ve used canister filters for years and like them a lot. I have a 45 g Fowler and some inverts. All are doing great.
I a
Grew that going with a larger filer is best. You can cut down flow with a larger filter but not increase it.

 

[CKW]

I’ve used canister filters for years and like them a lot. I have a 45 g Fowler and some inverts. All are doing great.
I a
Grew that going with a larger filer is best. You can cut down flow with a larger filter but not increase it.

One other comment. I clean the filter and change media once a month.

 

[FUNGI]

I use an oase canister with a built in heater. I fill three trays with seachem matrix for biological filtration and the top tray with activated carbon or any other media or floss I need. It has 4 prefilter sponges to trap incoming goop and easily clean. I think it’s calked a biomaster thermo 250 and I have a 120 L (30G) rimless tank. So yes, it does work.

My experience cautions you you these pain points I experience with the canister filter method:
1) surface circulation/skim preventing proper aeration and causing pH swings. Because there is no top overflow (the filter inlet is a tube low in the tank) surface film develops. Adding a protein skimmer doesn’t solve this, either, because it also draws from below the surface. It does, however, aerate the water and help with pH control. I think the surface skum also changes light intensity and spectrum. Skum prevents some of my fish food from falling into the water column.
2) it is a mess to maintain. I flood an area every time I maintain my filter (once per month). This seems worse with saltwater than it was with freshwater.
3) introduces bubbles at maintenance. Possible a problem if you keep certain corals, like SPS.
4) related to #2, the inlet and outlet pipes are a pain to maintain and clean. Can be an issue with tight rockwork or coral. It also kinda looks messy on the tank.
5) i have had a few issues with smaller inhabitants getting stuck in the inlet pipe, or stuck to the side of the pipe. Rare, but sad.
6) biology may be too aerobic with fast flow to do much good reducing nitrates out to nitrogen gas. It does well with ammonia reduction, but no further.
7) limited as to what you can run in the tank for other equipment. You can’t plumb in a UV sterilizer, for example. All other equipment, like auto top off, UV, skimmer, etc. all have to hang off your DT. No refugium option, but you can grow macroalgae in your DT.

I just wanted to look at addressing your concerns....not to be confrontational, but just as FYI for someone looking at using a canister only system:
1)Surface circulation/skimmer: easily taken care of by this: https://fluvalaquatics.com/us/shop/product/surface-skimmer
2) If you are flooding during maintenance,(I assume disconnecting the in/out hose's at filter side). Most canisters have ball valves/flow control. Shut off IN, wait about 10 seconds, shut off OUT and turn filter off. This relieves internal pressure. disconnect, and there should be zero spill.
3) Bubbles. These are large bubbles, usually only during initial power turn on and goes away after system is running. (The FX's I use have autoshutoff for 1 minute that gets rid of built up air). If you have small/micro bubbles, then you have a leak somewhere in your lines.......
4). I have yet to remove to clean.....all my pipes are i) Hidden behind rock, are black (to match my background), and / or covered in coraline.
5) Agree that this danger is present, the only fix for this would be a screen.
6) Agree, but thats the only job of canisters....convert everything into nitrate....
7). Not 100% accurate. I have a UV and Refugium plumbed into the OUT of one of my FX6 lines. Ball valves and PVC T's are you friends.....my ATO is under the tank and my skimmer is HOB.

 

[osisris]

I would say a canister filters filled with bio media helps the "berlin method". Bacteria don't care if the hotel(bio-media) has a 1 or 5 star review. Once the conditions are right, which they are in the canister. DON'T FALL FOR THE MARKETING HYPE OF SUMP MAKERS.

You would have to change the filter floss (which is dirty cheap, even cheaper if you buy teddy bear filling). You also have to change the mechanical fitler on ALL FILTERS. Sumps: the socks or rolling sheets. HOB: the cartridges. Canisters: the filter floss.

Canister filters hold more bio media than a hang on the back filter. I would even argue Canister filters are just a better built Sump (definitionally: A sumps is a low-lying place, such as a pit, that receives drainage. Like a Canister filter). Canister filters has less evarportaion, cheaper mechanical fitler replacement and cost less to run (eletricity wise). Sumps need an auto top up or more regular top up, the socks cost a lot more and they use so much POWER. A Canister filter like most things in the hobby require maintaince and your pets will thrive.

 

[jft]

I have used 5 2217 Eheim Classic filters on different reef tanks WITH GREAT SUCCESS for 25 years. NO Issues, Knowledge AS Always is the KEY>Good Luck

 

[Sleeping Giant]

I would suggest that an FX2 is not big enough - I would consider a 5. First it's more flow, second its better filtration. Especially if you are skipping a protein skimmer. Good luck with your tank. !! EDIT - I agree with the others that the rock etc in a reef tank is more important - my comment related more to the lack of a skimmer.

there is no such thing as an fx5 available for new purchase, they are fx4 and fx6. the fx5 was taken off the market. with that said an fx4 or fx6 would be more than enough. if possible, maybe get a hob skimmer, aquamaxx 1.5 is a great option, which I use in conjunction with an Fx4 on my 75 gallon. You could use a hob filter, but the size of them is not as good as a canister filter.

 

[brandon429]

curious about this measurement: if everyone here unhooked their canister instantly from the reef and instead put in place a common powerhead to move water, what measurable parameter would change in the tank

what deficit is the canister filter addressing

 

[FUNGI]

there is no such thing as an fx5 available for new purchase, they are fx4 and fx6. the fx5 was taken off the market. with that said an fx4 or fx6 would be more than enough. if possible, maybe get a hob skimmer, aquamaxx 1.5 is a great option, which I use in conjunction with an Fx4 on my 75 gallon. You could use a hob filter, but the size of them is not as good as a canister filter.

seems like they got rid of the Fx5....the price difference wasnt much between 5 & 6. Must not have sold aswell I guess.

 

[MnFish1]

curious about this measurement: if everyone here unhooked their canister instantly from the reef and instead put in place a common powerhead to move water, what measurable parameter would change in the tank

what deficit is the canister filter addressing

This is a good point - and it's already answered - vis a vis the "Berlin method". However, the filter offers an extra polishing function. The rock (given enough flow) - would be the key

 

[shwareefer]

what deficit is the canister filter addressing

The deficit of no sump. A properly chosen canister like an Oase biomaster has an easily maintained prefilter and a contained heater and provides the flow of the return pump.

A better question is why is the canister conistently bashed as a harmful tool because of nitrate production and oxygen consumption when both these things are easily mitigated in a reef system?

 

[brandon429]

because it's a strapped-on extra liability in a reef tank, whereas not having one is slightly safer

power outage when you're not home/the reef itself can last longer than the enclosed canister before rot crash due to several factors

but that canister is mega high surface area/which no reef whatsoever runs low on/ packed into low volume water plus it's sealed

a few hours can crash, restoration of power pumps true danger water into the tank


so we risk that solely for the gain of surface area and a place to use gfo/two things not required in reefing? what if a tank had no sump and no canister/that's thousands of currently running tanks

agreed fully if it's determined to put nitrate or phosphate in a canister that of itself isn't immediately harmful

but reefing without needing those additives: saves money, less weak point risk for neutral benefit.

in the end I don't actually think a canister can't run a reef but if we remove one, no measurable parameter changes for oxygen and ammonia control. they do command much extra oxygen from a system (nitrification is o2 loading) but it's not going to be measurable by us or impactful to creatures.

they're +1 risk and neutral benefit items to buy. they do make current, that's helpful in reefing but also a powerhead does that.

 

[shwareefer]

You speak the truth. But..

Power outages are a liability for every aquarium and anyone who cares likely has backup power in place. A fluval fx6 ( A very large canister with very high flow rate) only draws 41w which will run over 3 hours on a standard 1500w UPS as just an example of minimum preparedness.

 

[strich]

Wouldn't an optimal solution be to have a sump, albeit a smaller one, alongside a canister?
Tank -> Sump (refugium/skimmer/airstone/etc) -> Canister -> Tank.
The flow and surface area of the canister would maximise bio and mechanical filtration, reduce the need for additional powerheads in the sump (for flow), reduce evaporation, etc.
Key cons listed in this thread would then just amount to:
- Maintenance - But some only touch their canister every 6 months, so seems easy to manage?
- Someone mentioned a serious crash with a power outage, but its not clear to me how much that'd change with a similarly setup sump anywho.

 

[brandon429]

Because a sump is open topped when stilled by a power outage and a canister is all sealed up plus orders more bacteria per unit of water measure.

 

[brandon429]

A key detail to remember when planning extra surface area in the reef tank beyond the live rocks in the display is no benefit is gained by doing so, and no deficit was addressed when doing so, and as long as the surface area is designed to remain aerated it will remain a neutral impact. To make it a positive impact, a tank would require bioloading in excess of any reef on the site.


@Dan_P i hope to be spot checked on this one day:

If we hook up six canister filters to a typical running reef tank (or any scaled comparison test surface area) and let them all cycle, they can be instantly removed and never put back and a calibrated seneye meter won't show a downgrade in waste handling ability for a given set of fish and animals.


If the extra surface area mattered, waste processing ability would drop until that surface area was restored or the false claim that stacks of bacteria have to build up on current surface area in the tank completed.

When the seneye shows no drop from removed test surface area, neither bacteria are building up on the remaining surfaces nor were they in deficit before the test surface area (or six canister filters full of material) were added and removed from the biosystem. The old adages are wrong is my bet.

The neutrality-of- benefit from canister filters to reef tanks I believe can be charted by plots of data built from seneye tests that reduce surface area in test reef tanks until a measured tilt occurs badly for a given running bioload

Its just something we're trained to spend money on in reefing: more surface area is better is the best buyers training.

A seneye owner could write a rather uncontestable discourse on surface area dynamics in a reef tank that's for sure

 

[brandon429]

One more idea for measuring the inverse

If a person could take a running reef tank on seneye and add extra cycled surface area over and over until a clear sustained increase in nitrification rates occurred, we'd have at least a cursory estimate of how far beyond live rock % surface area we need to stack in to get a more efficient bioload carry

Also in consideration stated by Randy in other posts, driving ammonia down this far likely isn't beneficial for ammonia- consuming organisms we like to keep (corals)

But I'd one day like to know the true breakpoints of surface area in display reef tanking. A lot of purchases have been made based on those estimations

Given this is the no live rock forum I can see, if there was going to be a beach in ammonia control it'd be here for sure.

 

[Roatan Reef]

I clean mine every 6 months...granted its full of LR rubble...10 minutes quick rinse out and done

As far as I'm concerned it's a full on myth that canisters won't work in salt water.
Bacteria don't give a dang if they live in/on rocks or in bio media in a canister.

I even have my sump packed with Sera Siporax and Siporax Nitrat-Minus media. It has reduced nitrate levels considerably. To the point where I don't even have to do water changes in my fish only system. Nitrates never go above 10ppm.

The downside of canisters is that you have to clean them at least every week.
With a sump, you can just remove and replace filter floss with minimal effort.

The fluval filters have biologic filtration as well - agree they can be a pain with regards to cleaning, etc.

I feel like this is the common argument against canister filters:
Not they don't work,,, just the maintenance aspect.
*that's what steered me away when I was starting/researching, anyway

3 FX6's (filled with LR rubble, no sponges) on a 120G.....seems to work for me,

This is all correct, don't let the @REEF2REEF Cannister Filter police raid your home!

I've been running 1 for over 2 years on my 40GB. No issues. I came from Freshwater over 20 years. Never had a leak.

I clean my canister once every 3 months, not because it's super dirty, just to replace bio and mechanical filtration.

I run Carbon, GFO, Chemi Pure Elite, bio media, Filter Floss and Poly Pads in mine. Mixed reef, 8 fish, lots of corals.. 0 issues.

 

[Naekuh]

The only time i ran a canister for a reef tank is to run a dedicated chiller and have the canister as a prefilter so my heat exchanger inside my chiller doesn't get all nasty.

Othewise, they require constant maintance, because a canister is also a nitrate factory.

Id much rather run a HOB like a seachem tidal over a canister any day of the week, as the maintance on a Tidal is several magnitudes eaiser then a canister, and can also double as a refugium for some people.

But i have several canisters on my planted fresh tanks.
Dont get me wrong, i love canisters, but i don't really see them for reefing, as there are other solutions which can do the same result, with a lot less effort and time in maintance.

As others stated, in a freshwater tank, you do not have all that live rock.
Even Iwagumi setups using seiyu stones can't complete with the area a reef rock has.
This is why canisters are so effective in freshwater.

But in Reef, with also the introduction of ceramic media which can fit in a HOB, canisters i feel don't really have a purpose other then polishing the water from being loaded with filter floss and carbon.

 

[alohamaid808]

what do you plan to stock your tank with?

 

[strich]

This is all correct, don't let the @REEF2REEF Cannister Filter police raid your home!

I've been running 1 for over 2 years on my 40GB. No issues. I came from Freshwater over 20 years. Never had a leak.

I clean my canister once every 3 months, not because it's super dirty, just to replace bio and mechanical filtration.

I run Carbon, GFO, Chemi Pure Elite, bio media, Filter Floss and Poly Pads in mine. Mixed reef, 8 fish, lots of corals.. 0 issues.

What do you think about running a decent amount of dead coral in there to help (slowly) add calcium as well? I imagine the increased flow compared to a sump over that material would create a minor calcium dose.