Greg Tong wrote:
> All biological filters do what a biowheel would do so everyone s
> your reasoning, get better plant growth by removing their bio
> filters--canister, sponge, biowheel, UGF.
I don't think anyone has said that you get better growth without
extra biological filtration. I think most people suggest that
extra biological filtration is not necessary on a prudently
stocked planted aquarium. IMO, The biggest benefit to keeping the
biological filtration down in a planted tank is that if the plants
use the ammonium before it is converted, it prevents the build-up
of nitrate in the water, and lessens the likelihood of algae
> When you removed the biowheel, did you also stop the waterfall?
> splashing is likely to dissipate more CO2. By stopping the water
> keep more CO2 in the water for the plants. Was the biowheel your
I used to think so too. Then I did some measurements on a tank
with and without the biowheel. The amount of CO2 loss was
negligible, and easily replaced when using supplemental CO2 even
from a yeast reactor.
My feeling at this point is that biowheels in a planted tank are
in the same position as carbon in a planted tank. They are an
added expense, and there may be very slight advantages to _not_
using them, but they are easily compensated for if you really feel
the need to use them.
Aquatic Gardeners Assoc.