PlanetCatfish.com

Hey everyone, since I am about to set up some new tanks I feel like sharing with you and offering some inspiration to some of you.

This is my way of doing it and it is surely not the only or the "correct" way to do it. There are as my solutions as there are hobbyists and most of your solutions will work.

The principle of my breeders is using HMF (Hamburger Matten Filter) Filtration to implement a healthy biodiversity and a stable bio-filtration with zero to very little maintenance efforts in the long run. These might not work out for panaqolus species though!

The following tank will end up being my breeder.
It is a standard europen tank with sizes of 100x40x40cm. They are pretty cheap and sufficient. (49€ for one)
It can contain almost 160 litres of water.

I clean the tank inside and outside using vinegar essence and water prior to any steps.

I use cheap black adhesive foil from the DIY Market to cover the sides of the tank.

All I use to build the HMF is some basic PVC Angles: Some 20 PPI Filterfoam (3cm strong/depth): And aquarium silicon. The tools needed are a saw, a cutter and a silicone dispenser gun.

I use a 1x3cm (or 2x4cm) pvc angle and a 1x1cm pvc angle on the bottom of the tank. Length = 100cm.
I cut both of the angles about 10cm from the ends halfway in and bend them a little to get a "[-like" shape.
I glue the 1x1cm angle at the very back, bottomside of the tank: Then I glue the 1x3cm about 3cm in front of it, just so that the filter foam will fit in between those two.

I will then glue one 1x1cm PVC angle into the middle of the back side of the tank. And another one on the top of the backside of the tank. These are only about 80cm long. Gluing two more shorter 1x1cm angles on the right and left side of the tank to prevent the filter foam from getting pressed back later on. Let it dry for some hours.(though it usually only takes 30 minutes to be solid enough to continue with the next step)

Next I cut the Filter foam. 100x38x3cm. 20PPI. Using a long cutter knife works pretty decent. Scissors kinda sucked for me. Insert the foam into the prebuild PVC Angles. Voila: A filter like this will run on a tank like that for years without any maintenance. Maybe siphon out the dirt once a year behind it.

People may argue that 3cm is not deep enough. I like to differ, there is almost no biological activity after the first 2cm... It will only help with mechanical filtration. But that will kinda clog up the whole thing. I prefer it to be thin, so the dirt can drop out at the backside more easily. Less clogging for me. "Keep it simple, keep it easy, reduce it to the essentials, remove all the superfluos" is my style here.

Here are some background infos about the HMF:
http://www.deters-ing.de/Filtertechnik/Mattenfilter.htm

Sadly the site is in german. It describes the very essential idea of the HMF without all the commercialized ideas that followed later (that failed to add efficeny to it). It also offers help and calculators on dimensioning your own HMF.

I also added some thermal insulation: I know it kinda kills the style, but saving electricity and resources should come first.

I will also be using double-glazing Acryl windows to insulate the front and top of my tanks. Like this one:

Here are some Pics of the L134 Setup:

It is still running an cycled Eheim powerhead for starters to evade dangerous spikes. Didn't clean out the sand, so I have some "fog" in there, sorry guys (edit:) and girls

Here is another tank, same filtration system. 140x40x25cm, 140litres. Contains and . And cherry shrimps.

Very thorough. Thanks for sharing, Johannes.

I'm curious about your use of the horizontally placed PVC strips along the middle of the back wall. I understand that they act as spacers to keep the Matten foam away from the tank wall, but do these impair the movement and circulation of water behind the HMF?

Cheers, Eric

there is almost no biological activity after the first 2cm

All I know says this is not the case. For one, most mechanical filtration can be handled biologically given sufficient media volume. For biological denitrification to happen, the filter media must be thick enough for there to be spaces which are effectively anaerobic. What makes a Matten filter most functional is its volume. However, part of this volume requires thickness for maximal biological processes to establish. Moreover, there should be penetration of oxygenated water deeper than 2 cm in many parts of a 2 or 3 inch (5-7.6 cm) thick Matten.

The one issue I have with Matten filters is that they do reduce the footprint and swimmable volume of a tank, especially if powered by a water rather than an air pump. But I love how low maintenance they are and how clear they leave my water.

Some interesting references:
"Microbial population dynamics in the faeces of wood-eating loricariid catfishes"
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 12061/full

The water first passed through a trickle filter filled with bioballs and then through
a foam mat, also known in the aquarium jargon as a 'Hamburg Mattenfilter'

Here are the two articles by Dr. Stephan Tanner on Mattenfilters and filtration in nature;
http://www.swisstropicals.com/library/a ... iltration/
[url]ttp://www.swisstropicals.com/library/mattenfilter/[/url]

Doing a search on Google scholar for Mattenfilter, most of what comes back is in German, but there are a number of references one can put into Google translate.

Please note, I am not saying your design does not do the job you want in your tanks. I am just in disagreement with that one statement. I believe it would be more accurate applied to nitrification and an unplanted substrate than to a thick Mattenfilter.

Hi all,
I like the look of these tanks as well.

TwoTankAmin wrote: ↑10 Jan 2018, 16:31

there is almost no biological activity after the first 2cm

....All I know says this is not the case. For one, most mechanical filtration can be handled biologically given sufficient media volume. For biological denitrification to happen, the filter media must be thick enough for there to be spaces which are effectively anaerobic.

I think @TwoTankAmin is right, but I don't think it matters in @Jobro tanks, mainly because he doesn't need the denitrification arc of the nitrogen cycle.

One reason is that in a planted substrate both nitrification and denitrification will occur. The roots of plants like Echinodorus bleheri will effectively transport oxygen into the substrate, where the rhizosphere will develop zones of fluctuating REDOX value during cycles of light and growth (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 7012001283). At the end of the photo-period the internal air spaces of the plant will be filled with oxygen and it is is this oxygen that is largely used for both respiration at night and is transported down into the root.

You also have the direct contribution of the plants, both to higher dissolved oxygen levels (during photosynthesis one molecule of oxygen is produced for every molecule of CO2 utilised, and plants also grow making them net oxygen producers), and to reduced fixed nitrogen levels (plants take up all forms of fixed nitrogen).

cheers Darrel

bekateen wrote: ↑10 Jan 2018, 14:25 Very thorough. Thanks for sharing, Johannes.

I'm curious about your use of the horizontally placed PVC strips along the middle of the back wall. I understand that they act as spacers to keep the Matten foam away from the tank wall, but do these impair the movement and circulation of water behind the HMF?

Cheers, Eric

In fact it just sits there to keep the matten away from the tank and enable watermovement behind it. yes it impairs vertical water movement, but should enable horizontal water movement.

TwoTankAmin wrote: ↑10 Jan 2018, 16:31

there is almost no biological activity after the first 2cm

All I know says this is not the case. For one, most mechanical filtration can be handled biologically given sufficient media volume. For biological denitrification to happen, the filter media must be thick enough for there to be spaces which are effectively anaerobic. What makes a Matten filter most functional is its volume. However, part of this volume requires thickness for maximal biological processes to establish. Moreover, there should be penetration of oxygenated water deeper than 2 cm in many parts of a 2 or 3 inch (5-7.6 cm) thick Matten.

The one issue I have with Matten filters is that they do reduce the footprint and swimmable volume of a tank, especially if powered by a water rather than an air pump. But I love how low maintenance they are and how clear they leave my water.

Some interesting references:
"Microbial population dynamics in the faeces of wood-eating loricariid catfishes"
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 12061/full

The water first passed through a trickle filter filled with bioballs and then through
a foam mat, also known in the aquarium jargon as a 'Hamburg Mattenfilter'

Here are the two articles by Dr. Stephan Tanner on Mattenfilters and filtration in nature;
http://www.swisstropicals.com/library/a ... iltration/
[url]ttp://www.swisstropicals.com/library/mattenfilter/[/url]

Doing a search on Google scholar for Mattenfilter, most of what comes back is in German, but there are a number of references one can put into Google translate.

Please note, I am not saying your design does not do the job you want in your tanks. I am just in disagreement with that one statement. I believe it would be more accurate applied to nitrification and an unplanted substrate than to a thick Mattenfilter.

Ok, you are right, there is bacterial activity beyond the first 2-3 cm. My language barrier might have gotten in between us here. I meant nitrification bacteria, since this is the only bacteria I really really need. And I see where you are going and you are right. Let me rephrase this to "There is not more nitrification happening in a thicker filter compared to a thinner one. But there might occur other bacterial activity in a thicker filter that is missing in a thin filter."

Just like Darrel stated, I do not intend to have lot's of denitrification. At least not in my filter. I also don't think you could make a Mattenfilter fat enough (within reasonable dimensions to the tankspace) to get the water to anaerob levels in there... And even if you could, my fish wouldn't like the O2-free water that would be coming out of the filter...
Nitrate gets removed by plants and waterchanges. Even though there will be some denitrification happening somewhere, always, in any tank, I am not inclined to hope it will be effective enough to save on waterchanges. Especially since it's rainwater that is given by the heavens and that will be repurposed to fertilize plant-life.

I know that I could make it thicker and increase throughput and have a mechanical filtration. But it would mean that I would need to clean the mat at some point. Which completely obliterates the idea of the HMF. That is: refugium for beneficial bacterias without disturbance. I actually want it to act as little of a mechanical filter as possible. hence I would never use it with an electrical pump with high throughput.

Flying through the article from Dr. Thanner, I see him using thin (~5cm) mats as well which is closer to 3cm than to e.g. 10cm... And the great consensus is, that it should not be cleaned.

Making a Mattenfilter fat actually makes it kind of a block filter? which is... not a HMF?
Matten(German) = mat(English) which should be interpreted like "sheet" to understand the meaning correctly.
I appreciate your link about wood eating catfish, getting a proper filtersystem up for these is still a quest to me. So this might offer some good insights.

@Darrel, glad that you like my tanks Thanks

Thank you for sharing you experiences with the HMF. I was curious how many fish you are going to keep in the 100x40cm tank.

I'm using HMF's in my breeding tanks as well and I really like them. I've made a quarter circle filter with 2 sheets. A black 2cm one on the outside and a second (blue) 3cm one with smaller pores behind it, so I can clean them one at a time. But if you look at the surface of my quarter circle, it's a whole lot smaller than yours. Did you choose to make one from side to side because it was easier to build or because you need that amount of filtration?

MarlonnekeW wrote: ↑10 Jan 2018, 18:48 Thank you for sharing you experiences with the HMF. I was curious how many fish you are going to keep in the 100x40cm tank.

I'm using HMF's in my breeding tanks as well and I really like them. I've made a quarter circle filter with 2 sheets. A black 2cm one on the outside and a second (blue) 3cm one with smaller pores behind it, so I can clean them one at a time. But if you look at the surface of my quarter circle, it's a whole lot smaller than yours. Did you choose to make one from side to side because it was easier to build or because you need that amount of filtration?

It is 3 pairs of L134 and some cherry shrimps in there. Maybe I will occasionally add some different fry that I want to grow out there for myself. But that's it.

I did the exact same thing as you did before. half circle with 2cm 10ppi and 3cm 20ppi. Did not need no cleaning for 2 years on a heavily stocked tank and worked wonderfull. Then I got panaqolus in there...

I went with this solution since it provides huge surface area and promises long endurance before any cleaning. Also it is pretty easy to build. The "sand stop" at the bottom helps a lot as well. It would be way harder to implement one on a circular design.
The size is hopelessly overdimensioned though. (Attention, this is nothing for beginners to try!) Would probably even run if I removed it all together once it's well cycled. Substrate, sand, wood, stones, plants and the tank itself probably provide plenty surface for the nitrification needed for it's population.

Jobro wrote: ↑10 Jan 2018, 19:27
It is 3 pairs of L134 and some cherry shrimps in there. Maybe I will occasionally add some different fry that I want to grow out there for myself. But that's it.

I did the exact same thing as you did before. half circle with 2cm 10ppi and 3cm 20ppi. Did not need no cleaning for 2 years on a heavily stocked tank and worked wonderfull. Then I got panaqolus in there...

I went with this solution since it provides huge surface area and promises long endurance before any cleaning. Also it is pretty easy to build. The "sand stop" at the bottom helps a lot as well. It would be way harder to implement one on a circular design.
The size is hopelessly overdimensioned though. (Attention, this is nothing for beginners to try!) Would probably even run if I removed it all together once it's well cycled. Substrate, sand, wood, stones, plants and the tank itself probably provide plenty surface for the nitrification needed for it's population.

Thanks! Based on your experiences, I don't think I'll have to worry that my HMF is too small.
I did make a 'sand stop' in my circular filters. We have a big German DIY store here (the orange one with an H, which is a lot better than all Dutch DIY stores combined ;) ) and they sell 3cm wide and app. 3mm thick PVC strips (just straight, no angles or anything). I've cut one of them at the same size as the width of the foam. I've been able to bend it in a curve (by hand, bit by bit. It takes a while, but you can get a pretty decent curve) and glued it to the bottom of the tank and the PVC angles on the side of the filter.

@Jobro

Yes, I was referring to the biological processes besides nitrification. Moreover, even when there is no denitrification established in a Mattenfilter, the water coming out the return contains less O than when it entered the foam. This is the case no matter what filter is involved as long as nitrification is ongoing. Most of the microorganisms living in a nirtirfying biofilm use oxygen. There are many other heterotrophic bacteria in the bio-film, many of which consume O. However, the surface agitation caused by the filter's return fosters the re-oxygenation of the water.

I also believe having a Mattenfilter and live plants in a tank is a lot like wearing pants with a belt and suspenders. The more live plants, the less need there is for a Matten, or any other type of filter media for that matter. Given enough plants all you really need is circulation. Any nitrifying bacteria needed will be on the plants and in the substrate if used.

Finally, in a planted substrate there will often be active nitrification in the root zone as well as coupled denitrification. This is why nature, and a planted substrate are better filters than a Matten. But, in a bare bottom tank with no plants, I do not believe there can be any more effective filter than a "thick" Matten.

In the end, what works best for each of us is what we choose to use.

TwoTankAmin wrote: ↑11 Jan 2018, 00:43 @Jobro

Yes, I was referring to the biological processes besides nitrification. Moreover, even when there is no denitrification established in a Mattenfilter, the water coming out the return contains less O than when it entered the foam. This is the case no matter what filter is involved as long as nitrification is ongoing. Most of the microorganisms living in a nirtirfying biofilm use oxygen. There are many other heterotrophic bacteria in the bio-film, many of which consume O. However, the surface agitation caused by the filter's return fosters the re-oxygenation of the water.

I also believe having a Mattenfilter and live plants in a tank is a lot like wearing pants with a belt and suspenders. The more live plants, the less need there is for a Matten, or any other type of filter media for that matter. Given enough plants all you really need is circulation. Any nitrifying bacteria needed will be on the plants and in the substrate if used.

Finally, in a planted substrate there will often be active nitrification in the root zone as well as coupled denitrification. This is why nature, and a planted substrate are better filters than a Matten. But, in a bare bottom tank with no plants, I do not believe there can be any more effective filter than a "thick" Matten.

In the end, what works best for each of us is what we choose to use.

You are very right on what you are writing there Chris.

Since I do not have any tanks without substrate and plants I wouldn't know what works best there. I just found that my solution works really well with planted tanks and waterchanges every one or two weeks. Even dry simulations with 4+weeks without waterchanges are usually no problem in my tanks.

Hi all,

TwoTankAmin wrote: ↑11 Jan 2018, 00:43 Moreover, even when there is no denitrification established in a Mattenfilter, the water coming out the return contains less O than when it entered the foam. This is the case no matter what filter is involved as long as nitrification is ongoing. Most of the microorganisms living in a nirtirfying biofilm use oxygen. There are many other heterotrophic bacteria in the bio-film, many of which consume O. However, the surface agitation caused by the filter's return fosters the re-oxygenation of the water.

That is the one, nitrification is always an oxygen intensive process.

The advantage of the mattenfilter over a canister filter is that it has a large gas exchange surface exposed to oxygen rich water. That is also why "wet and dry" trickle filters work so well, they have a thin film of water travelling over the filtration media, and a huge gas exchange potential.

TwoTankAmin wrote: ↑11 Jan 2018, 00:43I also believe having a Mattenfilter and live plants in a tank is a lot like wearing pants with a belt and suspenders. The more live plants, the less need there is for a Matten, or any other type of filter media for that matter. Given enough plants all you really need is circulation. Any nitrifying bacteria needed will be on the plants and in the substrate if used.Finally, in a planted substrate there will often be active nitrification in the root zone as well as coupled denitrification. This is why nature, and a planted substrate are better filters than a Matten. But, in a bare bottom tank with no plants, I do not believe there can be any more effective filter than a "thick" Matten.

Jobro wrote: ↑11 Jan 2018, 11:49You are very right on what you are writing there Chris.

Since I do not have any tanks without substrate and plants I wouldn't know what works best there. I just found that my solution works really well with planted tanks and waterchanges every one or two weeks. Even dry simulations with 4+weeks without waterchanges are usually no problem in my tanks.

That is it, for us in the UK it is "belt and braces" (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... and_braces). I'm like @Jobro, having plants and a substrate removes the "single point of failure" in the filter, and I am always going to have both.

If I was forced to go "bare bottom", and couldn't have floating plants or a trickle filter, a thick HMF would be my next best option.

In some ways we are back to the <"deep gravel....." thread (https://www.planetcatfish.com/forum/vie ... 8&start=80)>.

cheers Darrel

Here is a quick update on my P. Compta breeder.
Somehow, my floating plant's are not growing as fast as I would like them to. So I put this piece of wood with moss in. Has been in there for 3 weeks. Moss still looks good. Took it straight out of a forest and put it into the tank.

@Jobro
That is a lovely looking tank. But what I wonder about is how you go about catching and removing plecos from it when you need to do so? How would you get 20 or 30 fry out of there?

That is def. gonna be fun
-Tony

I remove the fry 5-6 days after hatching from the dad's cave. I raise fry in different tanks than their parents to increase the number of survivors from 20% to about 99%. I hate to see tiny plecos with sunken bellies starving

That is a good looking tank. And I agree with you, I do the same thing - I prefer to take the fry from dad a few days after they hatch, while they are still in dad's cave and while they have a little yolk left.

Good luck,
Eric

Looks like one wriggler managed to stay in the parents tank after the last spawn.

he looks pretty pale, thin and weak:
Here is how it's brethren look like:
Think this pretty much sums up, why I decide to raise the fry seperately.

@Jobro - Healthy looking fry

I am not suggesting pulling fry cannot have good results. However, I have always done the opposite with good results. There are two things that I consider essential if one wishes to leave fry in the breeder tanks with parents. The first is to provide proper cover for the fry. This means places for them to hide into which bigger fish cannot fit. The second is to provide different food for the fry than for the adults. While fry can eat soft foods one might feed to adults, I feel when fry are very small, it is important to feed things such as BBS, Cyclops etc. for them. In many cases, I feel it also helps to provide some veggie matter for the fry, usually in the form of sinking veggie mini-sticks.

Finally, I agree with Eric when he wrote that adult poop is likely essential for the fry as well. Of course this is readily available in a breeder tank.

One of the reasons I wound up working with plecos was because dad did all the work and I ended up with free swimming offspring without doing much more than feeding properly, doing regular tank maint. and water changes. Another big factor for me is space limitations. I can only have so many tanks and going beyond that number is difficult at best.

At least when it comes to the six different Hypancistrus I have worked with, my experience has been that the fry grow better when left in the breeder tank than if pulled to a grow tank. I only do this when the number of fry gets too great and I have no option. But then I pull the biggest and let the smaller ones stay.

As always, this is my method and clearly not the only method that can work well.

Also, I do not have any live plants in any of my Hypan. tanks.

If it would work for me, I would leave them in the parents tank as it is surely the more comfortable way. But most of them end up starving to death. I would probably need to feed the youngsters more focused in the parents tank. But I feel like I would need tremendous amounts of food to cover the whole tank. Most of it would surely end up stuck in the hmf?

I met some breeders that leave fry in the tank. But most of their fry looked rather thin to me. And the grow rate seems to be very inconsistently with some growing way faster than others.

All I know is I have raised at least 500 zebra pleco fry, about 150 L236, about 100 L173b fry, 100s of L450 fry and about 100 contradens fry in breeder tanks. They all did fine.

And when I move them to growout tanks because they accumulate, I often get new fry in the growout tank because I am not a hugely aggressive seller.

The one thing I did notice is when there are too many fry in a growout tank they do not all grow at the same rate. Fish are not identical clones, they vary in a number of respects. Some fish in a group are more aggressive than others. The more aggressive ones will get more food and they will grow faster. After watching almost 1,000 bn fry as well as the above Hypancistrus I have come to an unusual conclusion. When fish, even fry, compete for food they may fight some. This means winners and losers. I believe some fry actually refuse to compete seriously which slows their growth rate. It also makes them less competition for their larger siblings and cousins. This often prevents them from being picked on the by the larger ones. It is as if this were an intentional strategy.

Since we tend to sell the bigger offspring first, this results in those that remain being much closer in size and smaller average size. As the larger fish went out, the smaller less aggressive ones were able to get more food and they would start showing growth spurts. Because of space considerations I might have 25-30 bn fry in a 10 gal. tank.

TwoTankAmin wrote: ↑14 Mar 2018, 18:11 The one thing I did notice is when there are too many fry in a growout tank they do not all grow at the same rate. Fish are not identical clones, they vary in a number of respects. Some fish in a group are more aggressive than others. The more aggressive ones will get more food and they will grow faster. After watching almost 1,000 bn fry as well as the above Hypancistrus I have come to an unusual conclusion. When fish, even fry, compete for food they may fight some. This means winners and losers. I believe some fry actually refuse to compete seriously which slows their growth rate. It also makes them less competition for their larger siblings and cousins. This often prevents them from being picked on the by the larger ones. It is as if this were an intentional strategy.

There's a name for this phenomenon in aquaculture, although I can't remember it right now, where the fry that gain an early advantage (genes, luck, whatever) are then more competitive (because they are bigger). The end result is that the biggest fry grow faster and the smaller ones grow slower, creating very unevenly sized fish.

Lycosid wrote: ↑14 Mar 2018, 23:12There's a name for this phenomenon in aquaculture, although I can't remember it right now, where the fry that gain an early advantage (genes, luck, whatever) are then more competitive (because they are bigger). The end result is that the biggest fry grow faster and the smaller ones grow slower, creating very unevenly sized fish.

It is this phenomenon in cory fry that started me "harvesting" larger fry about weekly and moving them to a separate tank, essentially size-sorting the fry from the initial grow out tank. With the biggest out of the way, a few more emerge to dominate in growth rate, then a week or two later I shift them ahead too.

Cheers, Eric

Glad to know this wasn't just a figment of my imagination.

I will regularly move the bigger fish to a bigger setup as well, so they can grow with the size of their tank and the smaller ones usually catch up pretty fast, once the big ones are gone.

I have experienced a similar situation with L128.

After 1 year the largest were 3 inches TL, with the smallest maybe not even 2 inches TL. They have all been left in the same tank as their parents due to space limitations.

That is only a group of 6 young with 4 adults. There are plenty of spaces the adults can't reach, often some leftover food will accumulate in these dead spots, maybe the larger young wedge themselves in and block access to the food for less aggressive young.

I don't have much experience separating young from parents but I will say every time I have tried to separate very young fry, still with yolk sacs they have all died, the only young I have successfully raised have remained with the parents. In some threads people have suggested it may be something to do with my water, so when my fishroom is finished I'll be able to see if using almost pure RO Vs 80% RO to 20% tap makes any difference to the survival rate.