[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Trickle Filters

"Dixon, Steven T. (Exchange)" wrote:

>Ivo Bushko wrote:  "I believe an overflow box is not necessary nor desirable
>in a planted aquarium.  Overflows such as the one in all-glass aquariums
>don't seem appropriate either, due to the amount of water splashing they
>Just can't agree with you there, Ivo.  Overflow boxes (trickle filters) are
>wonderful and quite appropriate in planted aquaria.  There are many points
>to praise:  good oxygenation of the water (:-O no gasping fish!); easy place
>in the sump to drop in additives, fertilizers, CO2 diffusers, thermometers,
>etc.; great way to eliminate surface scum of all sorts; per George's (Booth)
>and my own less rigorous experiments, no significant loss of CO2; and the
>splashing of water! well, it reminds me of when I was a little kid playing
>in the tub!!!  And soothing to the ears to boot!  How 'bout that!
>The only drawback I have experienced is the occasional fry or oto overboard.
>That used to distress me until I fitted out a small square of filter foam to
>fit on the inside of the trickle box overflow.  That prevents the little
>guys from going overboard.  And keeps me honest about cleaning the filter
>pad every week or two.
>Regards, Steve Dixon in San Francisco


I guess there is some confusion here. In my original post I didn't say
anything against sump systems. My remarks apply exclusively to the overflow
subsystems that feed the sump. I agree with you 100% that sump systems are
the best way to manage an aquarium, planted or salt. In fact my next (planted)
aquarium will have one, and my existing tank, when the time comes to refurbish 
it, will have its canister filter replaced by a sump too. My only criticism 
regards the overflow itself.

-Ivo Busko
 Baltimore, MD