Setting up my second loach tank.

[MultipleTankSyndrome]

I just found an aspect of this tank which would make Martin Thoene proud. On the Loach Forum of Loaches Online, he very often emphasized the importance of 'overfiltration', high flow, and high overall turnover, such as here: https://forums.loaches.com/viewtopic.php?p=57919#p57919

You absolutely need lots of filtration and water movement, plus excellent maintenance. Since writing the article I have added to the pumps in my tank. It's shifting about 3000 gph now. Such equipment must be considered in the total cost of a suitable setup.

For the water movement in this tank, I will have the Sicce XStream 8000 plus the Sicce Voyager 4 for water movement (8000 l/hr each). That adds up to 16000 l/hr, giving a water movement turnover rate of nearly 34 times/hour for this 473 liter tank.

For filtration, there's going to be 2 Aquaclear 70's (1135 l/hr each) and 2 Aqueon 70's (1514 l/hr each). That adds up to 5298 l/hr, giving a filtration turnover rate of over 11 times/hour for this 473 liter tank.

The overall turnover is 21298 l/hr, equating to 45 times/hour. Martin Thoene's turnover was 'only' 11356 l/hr for 30 times/hour in his 473 liter tank, so this tank has a full 50% more turnover than his (which he already considered well off in terms of turnover).

This is something I'm quite happy with. If only Martin could see this thread......

 

[MultipleTankSyndrome]

Update. I found a thread where he details all the equipment he used, which allows for more in depth comparison to this setup.

How to best recreate river flow? - Loaches Online Forum

Aquaclear 802 and 402, 2 Rena XP3's, a Seio 1500 pump and an Aquaclear 500 HOB......IRO 3000gph in total.

Aquaclear 802=1514 l/hr
Aquaclear 402=1022 l/hr
Seio 1500=5678 l/hr
Total 8214 l/hr of flow and a bit over 17 times/hour flow turnover rate.

Rena XP3=1325 l/hr, x2=2650 l/hr
Aquaclear 500=1893 l/hr
Total 4543 l/hr of filtration and a bit over 9.5 times/hour filtration turnover rate.

Overall turnover=12757 l/hr for 27 times/hour (a bit more than Martin thought).

Compared to this setup's 16000 l/hr of flow turnover, 5298 l/hr of filtration turnover, and overall turnover of 21298 l/hr, it will have 95% more flow, 16.6% more filtration, and 67% more overall turnover (looks like my previous comment of 50% more was in error).

I'm even prouder at the 67%! ?
That will have the fish doing great!

 

[jjohnwm]

I must assume that Martin Thoene is the head fishkeeper to the Royal Court of Asgard, or equivalent...so naturally one would aspire to re-create the same conditions as he has in his tanks.

But I think you are taking the math a little too far, with respect to how much it means to the health of an aquarium. You refer to the "water movement turnover rate", and arrive at this figure by adding together the advertised flow rates of the current generators in the tank, but surely there is more to it than this. In your tank, you have the two circulating pumps creating a WMTR (not typing that over and over...) of 16000l/hr. Okay, fine...but what does that number really tell you? Even if you accept that it is merely a comparative figure...what is it being compared to? If you had 16 individual 1000l/hr pumps, would the effect be the same? No!...but the number would, so...what exactly is the point? Or say you had a single 16000l/hr pump; again, the WMTR would be identical, but the effect on the tank would be quite different. What is that number telling you? Not much.

Doing the same thing with filtration, while a much more commonly seen practice, still has an element of "huh?" attached to it. You slap on an Aquclear500 and it tells you that you now have 500gph filtration, so if your tank is 100gallons you have a 5x turnover rate, right? But what if you had a sump with a 500gph pump in it, but with a filtration media volume 10x larger than that dinky little HOB filter. That's an entirely different scenario...but it's still a 5x turnover rate...so what is that number doing for you? Or what if you took that same 500gph pump and attached it to a tiny sponge filter, much smaller than the filtration chamber on the Aquaclear; you don't still believe that it will do the same job, do you? Again, they are just arbitrary numbers.

If filters and sumps provided some indication of flow rate divided by filtration media volume, i.e. gallons per hour per unit volume of media, it would be a more instructive piece of data. But, of course, nobody does that, neither manufacturers nor DIY sump builders. Even if they did, it still wouldn't take into account the varying effectiveness of assorted different types of biological and mechanical media.

Incidentally, your calculation of WMTR, in order to be as accurate as possible, must also include the turnover rate of your filtration pumps. So, when you add in the flow rates of all those filters...after transposing them to metric, of course...your WMTR will be much higher than the measly 16000lph you are now claiming for it. Martin Thoene will be absolutely green...

All this mathematical blather does is give you a very, very vague indication of how one tank set-up roughly compares to another. You can't believe that these numbers are engraved in stone and explain everything...well, it seems as though you can believe that...but you shouldn't...

Edit: Whoops! Your newest update takes into account all the flow; bravo!

You know, you could pick up a 1hp pump that flows about 3600gph...which works out to 13627.48lph all by itself. That's gotta be better...right?

 

[MultipleTankSyndrome]

My gosh, all the effort you must have spent typing that! Bravo!

You know, you could pick up a 1hp pump that flows about 3600gph...which works out to 13627.48lph all by itself. That's gotta be better...right?

I find multiple pumps is generally a better choice. If one fails or needs maintenance, there are others.
Not to mention the variety you can have with multiples. I can have in this case both a fast, narrow flow and a slower, wider flow by having the 2 different kinds of Sicce pumps (XStream and Voyager).

 

[jjohnwm]

My gosh, all the effort you must have spent typing that! Bravo!

It's easy without all those numbers...

 

[Midwater]

the head fishkeeper to the Royal Court of Asgard

+1 for quote of the month.

 

[MultipleTankSyndrome]

You know, I forgot to respond to that!
Martin Thoene is the head fishkeeper (or should I say the headwater?) of river tanks, actually. So yes, the conditions he had in his are indeed something to be recreated and outdone.

 

[Midwater]

Dear M MultipleTankSyndrome

You know, I forgot to respond to that!
Martin Thoene is the head fishkeeper (or should I say the headwater?) of river tanks, actually. So yes, the conditions he had in his are indeed something to be recreated and outdone.

Dare To Differ

 

[MultipleTankSyndrome]

Not sure what you meant? I'm curious what you did mean though, please do elaborate.

 

[Midwater]

Not sure what you meant? I'm curious what you did mean though, please do elaborate.

You seem to believe that he, with his site, is the end all authority about loaches. Well I dunno about that. You yourself might know as much as him now.

If you ever have the chance to come to the land of loaches (worth it for many reasons) and put your hands in the water, you might discover that the landscape of loaches is not what you have come to believe.

The more you rely on one (third hand) source of loach information, the more you are bound to get things wrong.

It is quite obvious that you love loaches, so I would rather you got things right.