underwater gravel

[Jen]

So what's the general consensus on using undergravel filters? Are they good
or bad?


Jen

[Peter in New Zealand]

"Jen" > wrote in message
...
> So what's the general consensus on using undergravel filters? Are they
> good or bad?
>
>
> Jen
Well, I've always used them in my tanks, but I suspect the rate at which the
water is drawn through them must be incredibly slow. That said, I still use
them because I assume they do some good, expecially with "good" bacteria etc
built up in the gravel. However I always regard them as secondary only, and
install more aggressive "slip on the outside of the tank" filters. To sum
up - under-gravel filters beneficial, but don't rely on them as your main
filtration. Others on the group here who are more experienced than me may
want to comment too. Hope this helps.

--
Peter in New Zealand. (Pull the plug out to reply.)
Collector of old cameras, tropical fish fancier, good coffee nutter, and
compulsive computer fiddler.

[amosf © Tim Fairchild]

Jen wrote:

> So what's the general consensus on using undergravel filters? Are they
> good or bad?

They work and are still a reliable filtration method, but somewhat higher
maintenance. I used to use them for many years. I don't think I'd use them
with goldfish. Just too much waste. With an external filter, like a
canister (or HOB or wet/dry) you get the wastes out of the tank into a
place you can easily clean up, and with goldfish you need to do that a bit.

With other fish it's not so bad, but the same applies. If you are willing to
do very regular gravel vacuuming and maybe break down the tank every couple
of years, then UGF is fine. It's a good biofilter, but you can replace it
with enough media in some other filtration system.

It's a personal choice.

[Texas Yankee]

Use a canister filter and NO GRAVEL - no waste at all building up in the
bottom of the tank - as long as you have other structures in the tank that
bacteria can colonize on (rocks, etc.) the benefits that the gravel bed were
providing will be taken care of - and no more of that pain in the neck
gravel vacuuming.

"amosf © Tim Fairchild" > wrote in message
...
> Jen wrote:
>
>> So what's the general consensus on using undergravel filters? Are they
>> good or bad?
>
> They work and are still a reliable filtration method, but somewhat higher
> maintenance. I used to use them for many years. I don't think I'd use them
> with goldfish. Just too much waste. With an external filter, like a
> canister (or HOB or wet/dry) you get the wastes out of the tank into a
> place you can easily clean up, and with goldfish you need to do that a
> bit.
>
> With other fish it's not so bad, but the same applies. If you are willing
> to
> do very regular gravel vacuuming and maybe break down the tank every
> couple
> of years, then UGF is fine. It's a good biofilter, but you can replace it
> with enough media in some other filtration system.
>
> It's a personal choice.

[Edward]

I have always used U/G filters in conjunction with an outside filter,
aside from the beneficial bacteria they hold, they are also great if you
want to have live plants in your tank.

[Zebulon]

"Jen" > wrote in message
...
> So what's the general consensus on using undergravel filters? Are they
> good or bad?
==============
I gave them up years ago. They're too hard to keep clean.
--
ZB....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
rec.ponder since late 1996.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }<((((*> ~~~ }<{{{{(ö> ~~~~ }<((((({*>

[Jen]

"Jen" > wrote in message
...
> So what's the general consensus on using undergravel filters? Are they
> good or bad?


Thanks to all the replies. I'll think when I change over to tropical I'll
take it out, and see how it goes.

Jen

[carlrs]

Jen wrote:
> So what's the general consensus on using undergravel filters? Are they good
> or bad?
>
>
> Jen

I have used UGFs extensively over the years. I personally do not
recommend them do to the extra maintenance sometimes needed (especially
with flat plate UGFs), especially if poorly cared for. But UGFs do not
deserve all the flack they get either. Proper gravel (#3) with about
2-3" of depth works best. The Nektonics UGF was actually very good and
I actually clocked higher flow rates with the same air pump with these
UGF filters vs. the more common flat plate design (placing a 1 gallon
jug just under the out flow and timing the rate of fill).
There are better filters now, but even some newer ones popularity are
based in hype (bio wheel comes to mind). I recommend redundancy with
two filters. In a smaller aquarium a HOB with an internal or sponge
filter is effective, or at least a HOB with a pre filter attached for
improved bio filtration.

For more aquarium filtration information:
http://www.americanaquariumproducts.com/Aquarium_Filtration.html

Also I have an article about Bio Wheels here:
http://aquarium-answers.blogspot.com/

Carl

[[email protected]]

http://weloveteaching.com/puregold/care/care1.htm#GRAVEL
GRAVEL
Gravel is not recommended for keeping goldfish.
1. Gravel is the leading cause of sudden death when gravel gets stuck in their
throat.
2. Food drifts down into gravel and rots. Goldfish will sift and work thru the
gravel looking for food. Rotting food is toxic for goldfish.
3. Gravel creates "dead" spots where anaerobic bacteria thrive and secrete toxic
gases.
4. Organic compounds contribute to the waste in the tank, driving up nitrate levels.
High organic loads in gravel can easily equal the waste output of an extra fish for
two which drastically lowers the "carrying capacity" of the tank (1 gf per 10
gallons).
5. Organic compounds are acidic and can lower the pH to the point that it kills off
the biobugs. The nitrite converting bacteria are the first to die, which causes a
nitrous acid spike. This will cause a sudden crash that kills the entire biofilter.
Unlike cycling, where the keeper knows and is checking for wastes and changing water,
sudden crashes are not detected until the fish are showing severe symptoms.
6. It is more work to clean gravel and do water changes. Any gravel or rocks on the
bottom require a bell of some kinds to suck up debris that gets caught under the
items. In a bare bottom tank, the circulation of the water in the tank means all the
crud and wastes are sucked out by the filter intake. There is no siphoning required.
7. Fish can be sucked up into a siphon bell and be maimed or killed every time the
gravel is cleaned. When there is no gravel to clean, a nylon sockie can be put over
the siphon and even fry wont get sucked out with the waste water.


"Jen" > wrote:

>So what's the general consensus on using undergravel filters? Are they good
>or bad?
>
>
>Jen
>



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List at
http://weloveteaching.com/puregold/
sign up: http://groups.google.com/groups/dir?hl=en&q=puregold&qt_s=Group+lookup
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I receive no compensation for running the Puregold list or Puregold website.
I do not run nor receive any money from the ads at the old Puregold site.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Zone 5 next to Lake Michigan

[amosf © Tim Fairchild]

wrote:

> http://weloveteaching.com/puregold/care/care1.htm#GRAVEL
> GRAVEL
> Gravel is not recommended for keeping goldfish.

Interesting opinion, but...

> 1. Gravel is the leading cause of sudden death when gravel gets stuck in
> their throat.

Possible perhaps, but never seen it actually happen.

> 2. Food drifts down into gravel and rots. Goldfish will sift and work
> thru the
> gravel looking for food. Rotting food is toxic for goldfish.

I imagine rotting food is potentially bad for all fish, but then that's why
you clean the gravel. Mind you I notice fish tend not to eat 'rotting
food'. They tend to be a little selective.

> 3. Gravel creates "dead" spots where anaerobic bacteria thrive and secrete
> toxic gases.

Toxic gasses? Ammonia perhaps. Of course that's why you clean gravel.

> 4. Organic compounds contribute to the waste in the tank, driving up
> nitrate levels. High organic loads in gravel can easily equal the waste
> output of an extra fish for two which drastically lowers the "carrying
> capacity" of the tank (1 gf per 10 gallons).

Nitrate factory, sure. That's why you clean the gravel. Nitrates can be
great, but we know about plants and goldfish :)

> 5. Organic compounds are acidic and can lower the pH to the point that it
> kills off the biobugs. The nitrite converting bacteria are the first to
> die, which causes a
> nitrous acid spike. This will cause a sudden crash that kills the entire
> biofilter. Unlike cycling, where the keeper knows and is checking for
> wastes and changing water, sudden crashes are not detected until the fish
> are showing severe symptoms.

That's why you clean the gravel. And of course with correct kH the pH is not
going to crash on you... And we all check the parameters now and then,
right ;)

> 6. It is more work to clean gravel and do water changes. Any gravel or
> rocks on the bottom require a bell of some kinds to suck up debris that
> gets caught under the items. In a bare bottom tank, the circulation of the
> water in the tank means all the crud and wastes are sucked out by the
> filter intake. There is no siphoning required.

If you want to save work maybe, but I like the look of gravel and it gives
you somewhere to stick plants (anubias with gf of course - as well as some
salad for them to snack on). But even in a bare bottom you have to clean up
wastes. The crap still sits all over the bottom anyway.

> 7. Fish can be sucked up into a siphon bell and be maimed or killed every
> time the
> gravel is cleaned. When there is no gravel to clean, a nylon sockie can
> be put over the siphon and even fry wont get sucked out with the waste
> water.

This is the silliest one. The whole idea of the bell siphon is to reduce the
suction so that the gravel isn't sucked out. Fish don't get sucked into the
siphon. And fry? In a goldfish tank? Yum!

Not great reasons to go to a bare bottom. Point 6 to make vacuuming easier
maybe.

But this was about UGF, and with UGF you change many of the points above in
that there is circulation in the gravel and so it's not "anaerobic"...

[Peter in New Zealand]

amosf © Tim Fairchild wrote:
> wrote:
>
>> http://weloveteaching.com/puregold/care/care1.htm#GRAVEL
>> GRAVEL
>> Gravel is not recommended for keeping goldfish.
>
> Interesting opinion, but...
>
>> 1. Gravel is the leading cause of sudden death when gravel gets stuck in
>> their throat.
>
> Possible perhaps, but never seen it actually happen.
>
>> 2. Food drifts down into gravel and rots. Goldfish will sift and work
>> thru the
>> gravel looking for food. Rotting food is toxic for goldfish.
>
> I imagine rotting food is potentially bad for all fish, but then that's why
> you clean the gravel. Mind you I notice fish tend not to eat 'rotting
> food'. They tend to be a little selective.
>
>> 3. Gravel creates "dead" spots where anaerobic bacteria thrive and secrete
>> toxic gases.
>
> Toxic gasses? Ammonia perhaps. Of course that's why you clean gravel.
>
>> 4. Organic compounds contribute to the waste in the tank, driving up
>> nitrate levels. High organic loads in gravel can easily equal the waste
>> output of an extra fish for two which drastically lowers the "carrying
>> capacity" of the tank (1 gf per 10 gallons).
>
> Nitrate factory, sure. That's why you clean the gravel. Nitrates can be
> great, but we know about plants and goldfish :)
>
>> 5. Organic compounds are acidic and can lower the pH to the point that it
>> kills off the biobugs. The nitrite converting bacteria are the first to
>> die, which causes a
>> nitrous acid spike. This will cause a sudden crash that kills the entire
>> biofilter. Unlike cycling, where the keeper knows and is checking for
>> wastes and changing water, sudden crashes are not detected until the fish
>> are showing severe symptoms.
>
> That's why you clean the gravel. And of course with correct kH the pH is not
> going to crash on you... And we all check the parameters now and then,
> right ;)
>
>> 6. It is more work to clean gravel and do water changes. Any gravel or
>> rocks on the bottom require a bell of some kinds to suck up debris that
>> gets caught under the items. In a bare bottom tank, the circulation of the
>> water in the tank means all the crud and wastes are sucked out by the
>> filter intake. There is no siphoning required.
>
> If you want to save work maybe, but I like the look of gravel and it gives
> you somewhere to stick plants (anubias with gf of course - as well as some
> salad for them to snack on). But even in a bare bottom you have to clean up
> wastes. The crap still sits all over the bottom anyway.
>
>> 7. Fish can be sucked up into a siphon bell and be maimed or killed every
>> time the
>> gravel is cleaned. When there is no gravel to clean, a nylon sockie can
>> be put over the siphon and even fry wont get sucked out with the waste
>> water.
>
> This is the silliest one. The whole idea of the bell siphon is to reduce the
> suction so that the gravel isn't sucked out. Fish don't get sucked into the
> siphon. And fry? In a goldfish tank? Yum!
>
> Not great reasons to go to a bare bottom. Point 6 to make vacuuming easier
> maybe.
>
> But this was about UGF, and with UGF you change many of the points above in
> that there is circulation in the gravel and so it's not "anaerobic"...
>
Whew! I can see all these points, but I have a little tank of about 40
litres with four decent goldfish and two white cloud minnows in it.
There's gravel on the bottom and all the plants are plastic. It's away
from any direct sunlight and I allow algae on the end and back panels. I
have a very good external pump/filter hung on the outside of the tank,
and change around half the water three or four times a year. I dump
chlorinated water straight from the tap on the assumption that what's
already in the tank will dilute anything unpleasant for the fish. Apart
from that all I do is feed them lightly once a day. This little tank has
run without a single hiccup for over two years now, and brought endless
enjoyment to me and the grandkids when they come to stay. In fact each
grandchild has his/her own fish they have named.

Now, my point in all this is simply this - people often remark on how
clean and fresh the tank looks, and how healthy and energetic the fish
are. I never check Ph or any other parametres - the only three
principles I use are - (a) watch the feed quantity, (b) understock the
tank, (c) have a good filter setup and keep it running sweetly. So,
ahem, why the need for all these other things, or am I just plain lucky?
I am not seeking to be provocative, and I respect the obvious experience
and knowledge of others in this group, which is far greater than mine. I
just want to know if all this extra stuff is good for the fish.

Cheers,
--
Peter in New Zealand. (Pull the plug out to reply.)
Collector of old cameras, tropical fish fancier, good coffee nutter, and
compulsive computer fiddler.

[amosf © Tim Fairchild]

Peter in New Zealand wrote:

> amosf © Tim Fairchild wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>>> http://weloveteaching.com/puregold/care/care1.htm#GRAVEL
>>> GRAVEL
>>> Gravel is not recommended for keeping goldfish.
>>
>> Interesting opinion, but...
>>
>>> 1. Gravel is the leading cause of sudden death when gravel gets stuck in
>>> their throat.
>>
>> Possible perhaps, but never seen it actually happen.
>>
>>> 2. Food drifts down into gravel and rots. Goldfish will sift and work
>>> thru the
>>> gravel looking for food. Rotting food is toxic for goldfish.
>>
>> I imagine rotting food is potentially bad for all fish, but then that's
>> why you clean the gravel. Mind you I notice fish tend not to eat 'rotting
>> food'. They tend to be a little selective.
>>
>>> 3. Gravel creates "dead" spots where anaerobic bacteria thrive and
>>> secrete toxic gases.
>>
>> Toxic gasses? Ammonia perhaps. Of course that's why you clean gravel.
>>
>>> 4. Organic compounds contribute to the waste in the tank, driving up
>>> nitrate levels. High organic loads in gravel can easily equal the waste
>>> output of an extra fish for two which drastically lowers the "carrying
>>> capacity" of the tank (1 gf per 10 gallons).
>>
>> Nitrate factory, sure. That's why you clean the gravel. Nitrates can be
>> great, but we know about plants and goldfish :)
>>
>>> 5. Organic compounds are acidic and can lower the pH to the point that
>>> it kills off the biobugs. The nitrite converting bacteria are the first
>>> to die, which causes a
>>> nitrous acid spike. This will cause a sudden crash that kills the
>>> entire biofilter. Unlike cycling, where the keeper knows and is checking
>>> for wastes and changing water, sudden crashes are not detected until the
>>> fish are showing severe symptoms.
>>
>> That's why you clean the gravel. And of course with correct kH the pH is
>> not going to crash on you... And we all check the parameters now and
>> then, right ;)
>>
>>> 6. It is more work to clean gravel and do water changes. Any gravel or
>>> rocks on the bottom require a bell of some kinds to suck up debris that
>>> gets caught under the items. In a bare bottom tank, the circulation of
>>> the water in the tank means all the crud and wastes are sucked out by
>>> the filter intake. There is no siphoning required.
>>
>> If you want to save work maybe, but I like the look of gravel and it
>> gives you somewhere to stick plants (anubias with gf of course - as well
>> as some salad for them to snack on). But even in a bare bottom you have
>> to clean up wastes. The crap still sits all over the bottom anyway.
>>
>>> 7. Fish can be sucked up into a siphon bell and be maimed or killed
>>> every time the
>>> gravel is cleaned. When there is no gravel to clean, a nylon sockie can
>>> be put over the siphon and even fry wont get sucked out with the waste
>>> water.
>>
>> This is the silliest one. The whole idea of the bell siphon is to reduce
>> the suction so that the gravel isn't sucked out. Fish don't get sucked
>> into the
>> siphon. And fry? In a goldfish tank? Yum!
>>
>> Not great reasons to go to a bare bottom. Point 6 to make vacuuming
>> easier maybe.
>>
>> But this was about UGF, and with UGF you change many of the points above
>> in that there is circulation in the gravel and so it's not "anaerobic"...
>>
> Whew! I can see all these points, but I have a little tank of about 40
> litres with four decent goldfish and two white cloud minnows in it.

I can't imagine 4 goldfish in 40 litres. I think you are pulling our leg :)
We have a very overcrowded (temporary) situation, but still have only 8 in
220 litres. They grow so fast, and even here we will need another tank or
pond soon...

> There's gravel on the bottom and all the plants are plastic. It's away
> from any direct sunlight and I allow algae on the end and back panels.

Algae is okay if you don't mind it. It eats nitrates and so forth.

> I
> have a very good external pump/filter hung on the outside of the tank,
> and change around half the water three or four times a year. I dump
> chlorinated water straight from the tap on the assumption that what's
> already in the tank will dilute anything unpleasant for the fish.

The main risk there is that the chlorine in the water will kill some of the
good bacteria that convert the toxins in the tank. Best to leave the water
stand for 24 hours before adding to the tank, especially in a larger water
change.

> Apart
> from that all I do is feed them lightly once a day. This little tank has
> run without a single hiccup for over two years now, and brought endless
> enjoyment to me and the grandkids when they come to stay. In fact each
> grandchild has his/her own fish they have named.

My sister kept goldfish in a small tank for a few years. But in a larger
tank they will actually grow and live longer. They are a large fish.

> Now, my point in all this is simply this - people often remark on how
> clean and fresh the tank looks, and how healthy and energetic the fish
> are. I never check Ph or any other parametres - the only three
> principles I use are - (a) watch the feed quantity,

Yes, well, goldfish will eat all day.

> (b) understock the
> tank,

well, 4 in 40 litres isn't under stocked tho. 1 in 200 litres might be. Most
people recommend 1 in 80 litres at least... These guys get over 30cm long
(more, depending on the type).

> (c) have a good filter setup and keep it running sweetly.

A good filter is a big help with goldfish. They need twice as much as most
other fish.

> So,
> ahem, why the need for all these other things, or am I just plain lucky?
> I am not seeking to be provocative, and I respect the obvious experience
> and knowledge of others in this group, which is far greater than mine. I
> just want to know if all this extra stuff is good for the fish.

I don't think you need a lot of 'other stuff'. With enough tank and basic
maintenance and a good filter, it all works fine.

[carlrs]

wrote:

>1. Gravel is the leading cause of sudden death when gravel gets stuck in their
throat.

I have seen this happen, but can happen with any aquarium with gravel,
obviously this happens less with pea sized gravel. But with proper
feeding technique (soaking pellets before feeding for 5 minutes +) this
is very rare, and I have maintained hundred of goldfish aquariums over
the years in my maintenance business.

>2. Food drifts down into gravel and rots. Goldfish will sift and work thru the
gravel looking for food. Rotting food is toxic for goldfish.

Again true, but this is true for all fish al again proper feeding
technique is important here as well

>3. Gravel creates "dead" spots where anaerobic bacteria thrive and secrete toxic
gases.

This is much more common with sand, which is why sand is best near the
roots of plants, where the chance of hydrogen sulfide producing
bacteria is low. This is VERY rare with Nektonics UGF.

>4. Organic compounds contribute to the waste in the tank, driving up nitrate levels.
High organic loads in gravel can easily equal the waste output of an
extra fish for
two which drastically lowers the "carrying capacity" of the tank (1 gf
per 10
gallons).

This is where plants can help or again proper cleanings. This is just
as common or more so with a poorly maintained canister filter (and
canister filters are excellent, they just cannot be ignored just
because of their large capacity)

>5. Organic compounds are acidic and can lower the pH to the point that it kills off
the biobugs. The nitrite converting bacteria are the first to die,
which causes a
nitrous acid spike. This will cause a sudden crash that kills the
entire biofilter.
Unlike cycling, where the keeper knows and is checking for wastes and
changing water,
sudden crashes are not detected until the fish are showing severe
symptoms.

Nitric acid production is on going in all healthy well cycled
aquariums. Proper kH is what is important here, and not just the old
school method of baking soda, which does not add the calcium needed by
all fish (in fact all animals), and also does not add necessary
electrolytes. There are many excellent ways of doing this from Wonder
Shells to bags of aragonite in the filter.

>6. It is more work to clean gravel and do water changes. Any gravel or rocks on the
bottom require a bell of some kinds to suck up debris that gets caught
under the
items. In a bare bottom tank, the circulation of the water in the tank
means all the
crud and wastes are sucked out by the filter intake. There is no
siphoning required.

This describes an excellent hospital aquarium, but not an aesthetically
pleasing display aquarium. Also gravel can and does perform aerobic
bacterial filtration; it provides a place for healthy plants to take
root (sand mixture is best here). And in sal****er, anaerobic activity
is useful for nitrate removal. And even in freshwater a thicker layer
of coarse gravel utilizing a "void space" called a plenum is often used
for Nitrate removal. These are not to be confused with under gravel
filters.

>7. Fish can be sucked up into a siphon bell and be maimed or killed every time the
gravel is cleaned. When there is no gravel to clean, a nylon sockie
can be put over
the siphon and even fry wont get sucked out with the waste water.

Good point as to proper vacuuming procedure. With proper manipulation
of the vacuum and using your other hand to pinch the tubing when the
flow gets to strong, this should be a non occurrence. I cannot say it
has never happened to me, but in over 56,160 aquariums I estimate I
have cleaned over the last 27 years, it has maybe happened three times
(the math is based on 8 aquariums per day times 5 times 52 weeks time
27 years)

Carl
http://www.americanaquariumproducts.com/Aquarium_Information.html

[carlrs]

amosf © Tim Fairchild wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > http://weloveteaching.com/puregold/care/care1.htm#GRAVEL
> > GRAVEL
> > Gravel is not recommended for keeping goldfish.
>
> Interesting opinion, but...
>
> > 1. Gravel is the leading cause of sudden death when gravel gets stuck in
> > their throat.
>
> Possible perhaps, but never seen it actually happen.
>
> > 2. Food drifts down into gravel and rots. Goldfish will sift and work
> > thru the
> > gravel looking for food. Rotting food is toxic for goldfish.
>
> I imagine rotting food is potentially bad for all fish, but then that's why
> you clean the gravel. Mind you I notice fish tend not to eat 'rotting
> food'. They tend to be a little selective.
>
> > 3. Gravel creates "dead" spots where anaerobic bacteria thrive and secrete
> > toxic gases.
>
> Toxic gasses? Ammonia perhaps. Of course that's why you clean gravel.
>
> > 4. Organic compounds contribute to the waste in the tank, driving up
> > nitrate levels. High organic loads in gravel can easily equal the waste
> > output of an extra fish for two which drastically lowers the "carrying
> > capacity" of the tank (1 gf per 10 gallons).
>
> Nitrate factory, sure. That's why you clean the gravel. Nitrates can be
> great, but we know about plants and goldfish :)
>
> > 5. Organic compounds are acidic and can lower the pH to the point that it
> > kills off the biobugs. The nitrite converting bacteria are the first to
> > die, which causes a
> > nitrous acid spike. This will cause a sudden crash that kills the entire
> > biofilter. Unlike cycling, where the keeper knows and is checking for
> > wastes and changing water, sudden crashes are not detected until the fish
> > are showing severe symptoms.
>
> That's why you clean the gravel. And of course with correct kH the pH is not
> going to crash on you... And we all check the parameters now and then,
> right ;)
>
> > 6. It is more work to clean gravel and do water changes. Any gravel or
> > rocks on the bottom require a bell of some kinds to suck up debris that
> > gets caught under the items. In a bare bottom tank, the circulation of the
> > water in the tank means all the crud and wastes are sucked out by the
> > filter intake. There is no siphoning required.
>
> If you want to save work maybe, but I like the look of gravel and it gives
> you somewhere to stick plants (anubias with gf of course - as well as some
> salad for them to snack on). But even in a bare bottom you have to clean up
> wastes. The crap still sits all over the bottom anyway.
>
> > 7. Fish can be sucked up into a siphon bell and be maimed or killed every
> > time the
> > gravel is cleaned. When there is no gravel to clean, a nylon sockie can
> > be put over the siphon and even fry wont get sucked out with the waste
> > water.
>
> This is the silliest one. The whole idea of the bell siphon is to reduce the
> suction so that the gravel isn't sucked out. Fish don't get sucked into the
> siphon. And fry? In a goldfish tank? Yum!
>
> Not great reasons to go to a bare bottom. Point 6 to make vacuuming easier
> maybe.
>
> But this was about UGF, and with UGF you change many of the points above in
> that there is circulation in the gravel and so it's not "anaerobic"...

All great points!! Especially the final one. I was typing my answer
while doing other computer work and answering calls (which took a
while), so I appolgize for any similar answer.

Carl

[Zebulon]

"amosf © Tim Fairchild" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
>> http://weloveteaching.com/puregold/care/care1.htm#GRAVEL
>> GRAVEL
>> Gravel is not recommended for keeping goldfish.
>
> Interesting opinion, but...
>
>> 1. Gravel is the leading cause of sudden death when gravel gets stuck in
>> their throat.
>
> Possible perhaps, but never seen it actually happen.

<brevity snips>
==================
I have gravel in my GF tanks and only once did I have to use tweezers to
remove one. I can't stand the "hospital" tank look of the graveless bottom.
It's too unnatural for my tastes, and I do have live plants in every tank.
Also there is nothing for the fish to do in "glass cages." They love
picking over the bottom for dropped bits of food. If food is rotting on the
bottom someone is over-feeding their fish. PH remains stable because I
keep the gravel vacuumed and do regular partial water changes.

But everyone has their own way of doing things.
--
ZB....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
rec.ponder since late 1996.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }<((((*> ~~~ }<{{{{(ö> ~~~~ }<((((({*>

[Jen]

"carlrs" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> Nitric acid production is on going in all healthy well cycled
> aquariums. Proper kH is what is important here, and not just the old
> school method of baking soda, which does not add the calcium needed by
> all fish (in fact all animals), and also does not add necessary
> electrolytes. There are many excellent ways of doing this from Wonder
> Shells to bags of aragonite in the filter.


Can you explain this please? Are you saying that Wonder Shells are needed
in all aquariums? What are they?


Jen

[Zebulon]

"Peter in New Zealand" > wrote in message
...
>>
> Whew! I can see all these points, but I have a little tank of about 40
> litres with four decent goldfish and two white cloud minnows in it.

I'm not familiar with the metric system. ;-)
The recommended amount of filtered water per goldfish is 10 gallons. GF are
large fish and to starve them into a stunted condition (which some people
unknowingly do) to keep them in small tanks (less than 10g per GF) is
considered cruel by many people. They're big eaters and grow quickly when
well fed and well housed and cared for.

I
> have a very good external pump/filter hung on the outside of the tank, and
> change around half the water three or four times a year. I dump
> chlorinated water straight from the tap on the assumption that what's
> already in the tank will dilute anything unpleasant for the fish.

Most of us do partial changes at least every few weeks to remove the
dissolved solids (pollutants the filter doesn't get).


Apart
> from that all I do is feed them lightly once a day.

This in my opinion is cruel. Would you feed a puppy or growing child
"lightly?" GF are not once a day eaters. They're browsers or grazers who
nibble all day long in nature - and grow rapidly if healthy.


This little tank has
> run without a single hiccup for over two years now, and brought endless
> enjoyment to me and the grandkids when they come to stay. In fact each
> grandchild has his/her own fish they have named.
>
> Now, my point in all this is simply this - people often remark on how
> clean and fresh the tank looks, and how healthy and energetic the fish
> are. I never check Ph or any other parametres - the only three principles
> I use are - (a) watch the feed quantity,

Which seems to mean you are underfeeding them if they're still small. A
normal 2 year old GF is a good 6" long or longer.

b) understock the
> tank, (c)

Each GF needs 10 gallons of water for maximum health and growth, MORE when
an adult at 8 to 12" long.

have a good filter setup and keep it running sweetly. So,
> ahem, why the need for all these other things, or am I just plain lucky?

Luck and starving fish perhaps? One light meal a day? :-(

> I am not seeking to be provocative, and I respect the obvious experience
> and knowledge of others in this group, which is far greater than mine. I
> just want to know if all this extra stuff is good for the fish.

All they really need is enough space, clean water, plenty of decent food and
a running filter.


--
ZB....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
rec.ponder since late 1996.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }<((((*> ~~~ }<{{{{(ö> ~~~~ }<((((({*>

[carlrs]

Jen wrote:
> "carlrs" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> >
> > Nitric acid production is on going in all healthy well cycled
> > aquariums. Proper kH is what is important here, and not just the old
> > school method of baking soda, which does not add the calcium needed by
> > all fish (in fact all animals), and also does not add necessary
> > electrolytes. There are many excellent ways of doing this from Wonder
> > Shells to bags of aragonite in the filter.
>
>
> Can you explain this please? Are you saying that Wonder Shells are needed
> in all aquariums? What are they?
>
>
> Jen

No, but they or some other form of calcium, magnesium and electrolytes
are very important to a healthy aquarium. Proper electrolyte balance is
also important for proper Redox Potential (reduction), which recent
research shows is very important.
Even soft water fish such as discus need calcium.
What these blocks are a basically calcium with minor, and trace
elements. They are good buffer kH control, but only then if you do not
have an over abundance of decaying organics supplying nitric acid.
These Wonder Shells (this is just a trade name, the name tends to over
state them) are my preferred way, but many like to use Aragonite sand,
I have found the Wonder shells to dissolve at a rate needed based on
kH, where as aragonite tends to dissolve at a rate less affected by kH
and electrolyte needs.

Here are some facts about Calcium:
Calcium carbonate in your aquarium will keep a more stable Kh, while
magnesium is another important element that works with calcium. A
proper amount of Calcium and Magnesium in your aquarium will affect the
fish' health positively. Besides helping to keep a stable Kh,
magnesium and calcium have been shown to increase resistance to
degenerate diseases by lowering the acidity in the body. This will help
with prevention of ich, fungus, and general "wear and tear" in your
fish. Calcium also helps in healing and stress, and without proper
calcium levels healing may be difficult or impossible. The addition of
antibiotics (such as Tetracycline) will lower calcium absorption.
Another note about calcium; Calcium is very important to proper discus
health, yet calcium can adversely affect the pH of a discus aquarium,
which is generally kept at a pH below 6.5. I have successfully used
calcium (Wonder Shells or Calcium Polygluconate) in discus aquariums by
using a mix of RO (Reverse Osmosis) water and tap water (dilution will
vary depending on your tap and tank water parameters). I then add
electrolytes to the RO water and add peat to the filters. I have used
this method successfully with discus and added the needed calcium with
no pH climb.

Other needs for calcium:
· Calcium is a vital component in blood clotting systems and also
helps in wound healing.
· Calcium helps to control nerve transmission, and release of
neurotransmitters.
· Calcium is an essential component in the production of enzymes and
hormones that regulate digestion, energy, and fat metabolism.
· Calcium helps to transport ions (electrically charged particles)
across the membrane.
· Calcium is essential for muscle contraction.
· Calcium assists in maintaining all cells and connective tissues in
the body.

There is more information about Calcium, Magnesium, and kH here:
http://www.americanaquariumproducts.com/AquariumKH.html

Carl

[Peter in New Zealand]

amosf © Tim Fairchild wrote:
> Peter in New Zealand wrote:
>
>> amosf © Tim Fairchild wrote:
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://weloveteaching.com/puregold/care/care1.htm#GRAVEL
>>>> GRAVEL
>>>> Gravel is not recommended for keeping goldfish.
>>> Interesting opinion, but...
>>>
>>>> 1. Gravel is the leading cause of sudden death when gravel gets stuck in
>>>> their throat.
>>> Possible perhaps, but never seen it actually happen.
>>>
>>>> 2. Food drifts down into gravel and rots. Goldfish will sift and work
>>>> thru the
>>>> gravel looking for food. Rotting food is toxic for goldfish.
>>> I imagine rotting food is potentially bad for all fish, but then that's
>>> why you clean the gravel. Mind you I notice fish tend not to eat 'rotting
>>> food'. They tend to be a little selective.
>>>
>>>> 3. Gravel creates "dead" spots where anaerobic bacteria thrive and
>>>> secrete toxic gases.
>>> Toxic gasses? Ammonia perhaps. Of course that's why you clean gravel.
>>>
>>>> 4. Organic compounds contribute to the waste in the tank, driving up
>>>> nitrate levels. High organic loads in gravel can easily equal the waste
>>>> output of an extra fish for two which drastically lowers the "carrying
>>>> capacity" of the tank (1 gf per 10 gallons).
>>> Nitrate factory, sure. That's why you clean the gravel. Nitrates can be
>>> great, but we know about plants and goldfish :)
>>>
>>>> 5. Organic compounds are acidic and can lower the pH to the point that
>>>> it kills off the biobugs. The nitrite converting bacteria are the first
>>>> to die, which causes a
>>>> nitrous acid spike. This will cause a sudden crash that kills the
>>>> entire biofilter. Unlike cycling, where the keeper knows and is checking
>>>> for wastes and changing water, sudden crashes are not detected until the
>>>> fish are showing severe symptoms.
>>> That's why you clean the gravel. And of course with correct kH the pH is
>>> not going to crash on you... And we all check the parameters now and
>>> then, right ;)
>>>
>>>> 6. It is more work to clean gravel and do water changes. Any gravel or
>>>> rocks on the bottom require a bell of some kinds to suck up debris that
>>>> gets caught under the items. In a bare bottom tank, the circulation of
>>>> the water in the tank means all the crud and wastes are sucked out by
>>>> the filter intake. There is no siphoning required.
>>> If you want to save work maybe, but I like the look of gravel and it
>>> gives you somewhere to stick plants (anubias with gf of course - as well
>>> as some salad for them to snack on). But even in a bare bottom you have
>>> to clean up wastes. The crap still sits all over the bottom anyway.
>>>
>>>> 7. Fish can be sucked up into a siphon bell and be maimed or killed
>>>> every time the
>>>> gravel is cleaned. When there is no gravel to clean, a nylon sockie can
>>>> be put over the siphon and even fry wont get sucked out with the waste
>>>> water.
>>> This is the silliest one. The whole idea of the bell siphon is to reduce
>>> the suction so that the gravel isn't sucked out. Fish don't get sucked
>>> into the
>>> siphon. And fry? In a goldfish tank? Yum!
>>>
>>> Not great reasons to go to a bare bottom. Point 6 to make vacuuming
>>> easier maybe.
>>>
>>> But this was about UGF, and with UGF you change many of the points above
>>> in that there is circulation in the gravel and so it's not "anaerobic"...
>>>
>> Whew! I can see all these points, but I have a little tank of about 40
>> litres with four decent goldfish and two white cloud minnows in it.
>
> I can't imagine 4 goldfish in 40 litres. I think you are pulling our leg :)
> We have a very overcrowded (temporary) situation, but still have only 8 in
> 220 litres. They grow so fast, and even here we will need another tank or
> pond soon...
>
>> There's gravel on the bottom and all the plants are plastic. It's away
>> from any direct sunlight and I allow algae on the end and back panels.
>
> Algae is okay if you don't mind it. It eats nitrates and so forth.
>
>> I
>> have a very good external pump/filter hung on the outside of the tank,
>> and change around half the water three or four times a year. I dump
>> chlorinated water straight from the tap on the assumption that what's
>> already in the tank will dilute anything unpleasant for the fish.
>
> The main risk there is that the chlorine in the water will kill some of the
> good bacteria that convert the toxins in the tank. Best to leave the water
> stand for 24 hours before adding to the tank, especially in a larger water
> change.
>
>> Apart
>> from that all I do is feed them lightly once a day. This little tank has
>> run without a single hiccup for over two years now, and brought endless
>> enjoyment to me and the grandkids when they come to stay. In fact each
>> grandchild has his/her own fish they have named.
>
> My sister kept goldfish in a small tank for a few years. But in a larger
> tank they will actually grow and live longer. They are a large fish.
>
>> Now, my point in all this is simply this - people often remark on how
>> clean and fresh the tank looks, and how healthy and energetic the fish
>> are. I never check Ph or any other parametres - the only three
>> principles I use are - (a) watch the feed quantity,
>
> Yes, well, goldfish will eat all day.
>
>> (b) understock the
>> tank,
>
> well, 4 in 40 litres isn't under stocked tho. 1 in 200 litres might be. Most
> people recommend 1 in 80 litres at least... These guys get over 30cm long
> (more, depending on the type).
>
>> (c) have a good filter setup and keep it running sweetly.
>
> A good filter is a big help with goldfish. They need twice as much as most
> other fish.
>
>> So,
>> ahem, why the need for all these other things, or am I just plain lucky?
>> I am not seeking to be provocative, and I respect the obvious experience
>> and knowledge of others in this group, which is far greater than mine. I
>> just want to know if all this extra stuff is good for the fish.
>
> I don't think you need a lot of 'other stuff'. With enough tank and basic
> maintenance and a good filter, it all works fine.
>

Ummm, my tank measures 50 X 26 X 30 cm high. Have I done something
really silly with the calculation? The residents all look healthy, happy
and active. If it was allowed in a news group I could attach a quick pic
of it to show you. Maybe my filtration system is robust enough to
increase the apparent carrying capacity of the tank enough for them. I
just never worry about it. If the fish are not entirely happy I know
what to look for, and would do something about it, but they're perky,
eating well, clean of any sign of trouble, and the water is clear and
clean. I know goldfish are an inherently "dirty" species, and I would
not want to leave the water circulating and filtering system turned off
for a day or two, but as it stands now, they have remained happy and
healthy for about two years.
--
Peter in New Zealand. (Pull the plug out to reply.)
Collector of old cameras, tropical fish fancier, good coffee nutter, and
compulsive computer fiddler.

[amosf © Tim Fairchild]

Zëbulon wrote:

>
> "Peter in New Zealand" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>
>> Whew! I can see all these points, but I have a little tank of about 40
>> litres with four decent goldfish and two white cloud minnows in it.
>
> I'm not familiar with the metric system. ;-)

Well, 40l would be about 10 gallons...

> The recommended amount of filtered water per goldfish is 10 gallons. GF
> are large fish and to starve them into a stunted condition (which some
> people unknowingly do) to keep them in small tanks (less than 10g per GF)
> is
> considered cruel by many people. They're big eaters and grow quickly when
> well fed and well housed and cared for.

I have some in a somewhat overcrowded situation with about 40l per goldfish,
but that will change as they grow.

tim

[[email protected]]

it is best to be careful of "wonder shells" because there has been this idea of
making "calcium pucks" from plaster of paris and in acid water it can really jerk the
pH around ... lethally.

the absolute best way to stabilize calcium or "hardness" is with dolomitic limestone
(not dolomite) which also has magnesium in it (which oyster shells do not). it comes
powdered and the right stuff looks off white with bits of black flecking in it. even
limestone chunks are good (but not marble). powdered dolomitic limestone stays in
the bottom of the tank dissolved on demand. getting the right stuff is not always
easy, but a lot is not needed either. Ingrid

"Jen" > wrote:

>
>"carlrs" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>>
>> Nitric acid production is on going in all healthy well cycled
>> aquariums. Proper kH is what is important here, and not just the old
>> school method of baking soda, which does not add the calcium needed by
>> all fish (in fact all animals), and also does not add necessary
>> electrolytes. There are many excellent ways of doing this from Wonder
>> Shells to bags of aragonite in the filter.
>
>
>Can you explain this please? Are you saying that Wonder Shells are needed
>in all aquariums? What are they?
>
>
>Jen
>



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List at
http://weloveteaching.com/puregold/
sign up: http://groups.google.com/groups/dir?hl=en&q=puregold&qt_s=Group+lookup
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I receive no compensation for running the Puregold list or Puregold website.
I do not run nor receive any money from the ads at the old Puregold site.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Zone 5 next to Lake Michigan

[[email protected]]

Many people on various goldfish lists have had this happen. come home to find a fish
dead that was perfectly healthy when they left the house. most people dont do a
necropsy on their fish to find out what happened. Fortunately, many have long
handled tweezers to get the rock out of the GF mouth since this most often happens at
feeding time when GF are aggressively sucking up off the bottom of the tank.

Even a good cleaning does not really get rid of all the mulm and crap that
accumulates in and under gravel and ornaments. many people who thought there were
doing a smashing good job of cleaning their tanks were shocked when they pulled the
underground filter plates out and saw what stirred up into the water. the other
indication is a persistent high nitrates, indicative of rotting stuff under plates
where water channelizes. Another drawback is after a while people get tired of the
water changes and cleaning and it gets increasingly cursory. as this happens,
nitrate and organic acids rise and the fish start suffering. the pH drops and kills
off the good bacteria and then there is a toxic stew.

Actually the toxic gases are produced anaerobically .. hydrogen sulfide and other
partial breakdown products, typically much like those in crude oil. they stink
badly, and when undergravel plates are pulled the smell of sulfur is very strong.

nitrates are not removed by cleaning the gravel, but by replacing the water.
anything in the tank that drives up nitrates will mean more water changes.

looks are an obvious consideration. but with big flashy goldfish I prefer the zen
appearance, and the bottom does grow its own algae covering, which I leave alone like
I do the back and sides of the tank. this provides a living filtration system that
can be a life saver if the electricity goes out. and no, with proper filtration and
proper placing of air stones there is no residual poop on the bottom of the tank.
actually, any kind of string of poop is a sign that the fish are either being
overfed at one time, or the food is wrong. in ponds, GF normally graze all day long
and their poops fall apart after exiting the end. plants can be attached in other
ways. http://weloveteaching.com/puregold/care/plants.html
tied to suction cups, planted, allowed to grow free

a very good suction is required to get the detritus out of the gravel.
http://weloveteaching.com/puregold/care/care1.htm#cleaning%20techniques
GF are not just nosy and curious, they have an excellent sense of smell and will be
drawn to where the "action" is by the smell of leftover food. they can also be quite
fast in moving to where the bell is. I have never suctioned up a single tail nor a
koi (my mistake having koi in a tank, but I was a raw newbie). however, fancy GF are
slow compared to single tails and any with a big head or hood will suction up even
faster.

circulation in a ugf gets quickly channelized. the water flows to those areas with
least resistance. debris piles up where the water isnt flowing as strong and soon
the water is only flowing in the channels.

most people who follow your techniques would have dead fish in a short period of
time. that is the reason that Jo Ann Burke (the Goldfish Guru) came up with the
essentials list for newbies.... to maximize success.
http://weloveteaching.com/puregold/care/care1.htm#essentials
I set up a 20 gallon tank, 3 GF, for my mother. It too did fine with almost no care
at all and then all the fish died, the tank had gone toxic despite the plants, the
gravel, the string algae all over the inside. and the fish frankly hadnt grown at
all, a sign of severe stunting due to chronic toxic water conditions. only then did
I find out she was not changing water.
Ingrid



Peter in New Zealand > wrote:
>amosf © Tim Fairchild wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>>> http://weloveteaching.com/puregold/care/care1.htm#GRAVEL
>>> GRAVEL
>>> Gravel is not recommended for keeping goldfish.
>>
>> Interesting opinion, but...
>>
>>> 1. Gravel is the leading cause of sudden death when gravel gets stuck in
>>> their throat.
>>
>> Possible perhaps, but never seen it actually happen.
>>
>>> 2. Food drifts down into gravel and rots. Goldfish will sift and work
>>> thru the
>>> gravel looking for food. Rotting food is toxic for goldfish.
>>
>> I imagine rotting food is potentially bad for all fish, but then that's why
>> you clean the gravel. Mind you I notice fish tend not to eat 'rotting
>> food'. They tend to be a little selective.
>>
>>> 3. Gravel creates "dead" spots where anaerobic bacteria thrive and secrete
>>> toxic gases.
>>
>> Toxic gasses? Ammonia perhaps. Of course that's why you clean gravel.
>>
>>> 4. Organic compounds contribute to the waste in the tank, driving up
>>> nitrate levels. High organic loads in gravel can easily equal the waste
>>> output of an extra fish for two which drastically lowers the "carrying
>>> capacity" of the tank (1 gf per 10 gallons).
>>
>> Nitrate factory, sure. That's why you clean the gravel. Nitrates can be
>> great, but we know about plants and goldfish :)
>>
>>> 5. Organic compounds are acidic and can lower the pH to the point that it
>>> kills off the biobugs. The nitrite converting bacteria are the first to
>>> die, which causes a
>>> nitrous acid spike. This will cause a sudden crash that kills the entire
>>> biofilter. Unlike cycling, where the keeper knows and is checking for
>>> wastes and changing water, sudden crashes are not detected until the fish
>>> are showing severe symptoms.
>>
>> That's why you clean the gravel. And of course with correct kH the pH is not
>> going to crash on you... And we all check the parameters now and then,
>> right ;)
>>
>>> 6. It is more work to clean gravel and do water changes. Any gravel or
>>> rocks on the bottom require a bell of some kinds to suck up debris that
>>> gets caught under the items. In a bare bottom tank, the circulation of the
>>> water in the tank means all the crud and wastes are sucked out by the
>>> filter intake. There is no siphoning required.
>>
>> If you want to save work maybe, but I like the look of gravel and it gives
>> you somewhere to stick plants (anubias with gf of course - as well as some
>> salad for them to snack on). But even in a bare bottom you have to clean up
>> wastes. The crap still sits all over the bottom anyway.
>>
>>> 7. Fish can be sucked up into a siphon bell and be maimed or killed every
>>> time the
>>> gravel is cleaned. When there is no gravel to clean, a nylon sockie can
>>> be put over the siphon and even fry wont get sucked out with the waste
>>> water.
>>
>> This is the silliest one. The whole idea of the bell siphon is to reduce the
>> suction so that the gravel isn't sucked out. Fish don't get sucked into the
>> siphon. And fry? In a goldfish tank? Yum!
>>
>> Not great reasons to go to a bare bottom. Point 6 to make vacuuming easier
>> maybe.
>>
>> But this was about UGF, and with UGF you change many of the points above in
>> that there is circulation in the gravel and so it's not "anaerobic"...
>>
>Whew! I can see all these points, but I have a little tank of about 40
>litres with four decent goldfish and two white cloud minnows in it.
>There's gravel on the bottom and all the plants are plastic. It's away
>from any direct sunlight and I allow algae on the end and back panels. I
>have a very good external pump/filter hung on the outside of the tank,
>and change around half the water three or four times a year. I dump
>chlorinated water straight from the tap on the assumption that what's
>already in the tank will dilute anything unpleasant for the fish. Apart
>from that all I do is feed them lightly once a day. This little tank has
>run without a single hiccup for over two years now, and brought endless
>enjoyment to me and the grandkids when they come to stay. In fact each
>grandchild has his/her own fish they have named.
>
>Now, my point in all this is simply this - people often remark on how
>clean and fresh the tank looks, and how healthy and energetic the fish
>are. I never check Ph or any other parametres - the only three
>principles I use are - (a) watch the feed quantity, (b) understock the
>tank, (c) have a good filter setup and keep it running sweetly. So,
>ahem, why the need for all these other things, or am I just plain lucky?
>I am not seeking to be provocative, and I respect the obvious experience
>and knowledge of others in this group, which is far greater than mine. I
>just want to know if all this extra stuff is good for the fish.
>
>Cheers,



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List at
http://weloveteaching.com/puregold/
sign up: http://groups.google.com/groups/dir?hl=en&q=puregold&qt_s=Group+lookup
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I receive no compensation for running the Puregold list or Puregold website.
I do not run nor receive any money from the ads at the old Puregold site.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Zone 5 next to Lake Michigan

[carlrs]

wrote:
> it is best to be careful of "wonder shells" because there has been this idea of
> making "calcium pucks" from plaster of paris and in acid water it can really jerk the
> pH around ... lethally.
>
> the absolute best way to stabilize calcium or "hardness" is with dolomitic limestone
> (not dolomite) which also has magnesium in it (which oyster shells do not). it comes
> powdered and the right stuff looks off white with bits of black flecking in it. even
> limestone chunks are good (but not marble). powdered dolomitic limestone stays in
> the bottom of the tank dissolved on demand. getting the right stuff is not always
> easy, but a lot is not needed either. Ingrid
>

Are you even familiar with this product?
It is not new, nor is it perfect.
Although dolomitic limestone is a good control for pH and somewhat for
kH, magnesium in small quantities is essential for proper osmotic
function, and even more so as a Redox reducer which new research shows
is very important for proper water chemistry.
I have used these Wonder Shels in literally thousands of aquariums I
have maintained without ever experiencing what you are talking about.
These products are admittedly poorly named, as they do not do wonders,
nor are they a cure all, but they are a usefull tool in good aquatic
husbandry.

As to water channeling in UGFs, you are absolutely correct, but this is
a problem in many poorly maintained filters, including wet drys. The
design of the Nektonics unit tends to somewhat alleviate this problem.
I am not however promoting this filter, as it is not even available any
more, but those who have been involved in the aquatics industry for any
amount of time are familiar with it (such as Netmax).

The site you posted is very good beginner information, but there is
newer research that can be added (such as the fact that Redox plays a
larger roll in aquatic health than pH for many fish, especially dirty
fish such as goldfish).

Anearobic activity is not hard to control in properly maintained
aquariums, and as I stated earlier, I have only accidentally suctioned
goldfish 3 times in over 56,000 cleanings, not bad odds (and those
accidents were years ago). The Nylon sock is however a good idea, but
others still can gravel vacuum properly without one, and honestly the
Lees is amuch better value than the Python.

[Trevor Stenson]

In article . com>,
"carlrs" > wrote:

> Jen wrote:
> > So what's the general consensus on using undergravel filters? Are they good
> > or bad?
> >
> >
> > Jen
>
> I have used UGFs extensively over the years. I personally do not
> recommend them do to the extra maintenance sometimes needed (especially
> with flat plate UGFs), especially if poorly cared for. But UGFs do not
> deserve all the flack they get either. Proper gravel (#3) with about
> 2-3" of depth works best. The Nektonics UGF was actually very good and
> I actually clocked higher flow rates with the same air pump with these
> UGF filters vs. the more common flat plate design (placing a 1 gallon
> jug just under the out flow and timing the rate of fill).
> There are better filters now, but even some newer ones popularity are
> based in hype (bio wheel comes to mind). I recommend redundancy with
> two filters. In a smaller aquarium a HOB with an internal or sponge
> filter is effective, or at least a HOB with a pre filter attached for
> improved bio filtration.
>
> For more aquarium filtration information:
> http://www.americanaquariumproducts.com/Aquarium_Filtration.html
>
> Also I have an article about Bio Wheels here:
> http://aquarium-answers.blogspot.com/
>
> Carl

I totally concur with the UG proponents.

Hi, haven't been around this NG much since I set up a tank about a year
ago. I had tanks through most of my teenage years and recently as an
adult - 20 years latter - I set up another.

First of all before I chime in on UG filters I have to say that I guess
I forgot how much work and constant care an aquarium requires to get it
in good balance and keep it that way. I just don't have the time to
watch my tanks that I did as a youth. As a result I have set up a
stringent tank-care schedule and keep mostly hardy fish.

What surprised me, though, when I went to buy my current aquarium is
that I couldn't find a UG filter system at any retail store. The staff
would also keep telling me that they simply don't work.

I agree that they have a bad, and I think, undeserved reputation these
days. However, I'm a also big proponent of the dual-filtration system:
having say an outside power filter combined with an UG filter. I had
this as a youth in a 25 gallon tank and I swear that regular aside from
normal required attention this tank was a beautifully balanced system.
I nice stable ecosystem.

The trick is not to overfeed, use relatively large gravel and do your
normal tank care. I recently put a UG filter in my current tank and
already notice a definite difference in the quality of the environment
and the health of my fish. A lot of that may have to do with my annual
'big clean' that I just did - but I think the UG filter (that I had to
buy online) is helping as well and will continue to do so if used
properly.

In addition to Carl's points, which I obviously agree with, I've found a
really good online article that talks about the proper use of the UG
filter including the use of a dual filtration set-up:

http://www.aquariumfish.com/aquariumfish/detail.aspx?aid=9401&cid=3806&se
arch=

I'm not typically a conspiracy theorist but It seems to me that a cheap
UG filter has given away to the numerous chemical treatments that the
stores hook you into buying to keep you tank biochemistry healthy. I
don't remember having to buy all that stuff as a youth - and like I said
I had good success with my aquariums for years.

Cheers,

TS
Edmonton SCTV Locations:
http://members.shaw.ca/pumpkin27/iwebber2

My Blog feed:
feed://members.shaw.ca/kitschy/iwebber/TheStenonsNewDigs/Blog/rss.xml

[carlrs]

Trevor Stenson wrote:
> In article . com>,
> "carlrs" > wrote:
>
> > Jen wrote:
> > > So what's the general consensus on using undergravel filters? Are they good
> > > or bad?
> > >
> > >
> > > Jen
> >
> > I have used UGFs extensively over the years. I personally do not
> > recommend them do to the extra maintenance sometimes needed (especially
> > with flat plate UGFs), especially if poorly cared for. But UGFs do not
> > deserve all the flack they get either. Proper gravel (#3) with about
> > 2-3" of depth works best. The Nektonics UGF was actually very good and
> > I actually clocked higher flow rates with the same air pump with these
> > UGF filters vs. the more common flat plate design (placing a 1 gallon
> > jug just under the out flow and timing the rate of fill).
> > There are better filters now, but even some newer ones popularity are
> > based in hype (bio wheel comes to mind). I recommend redundancy with
> > two filters. In a smaller aquarium a HOB with an internal or sponge
> > filter is effective, or at least a HOB with a pre filter attached for
> > improved bio filtration.
> >
> > For more aquarium filtration information:
> > http://www.americanaquariumproducts.com/Aquarium_Filtration.html
> >
> > Also I have an article about Bio Wheels here:
> > http://aquarium-answers.blogspot.com/
> >
> > Carl
>
> I totally concur with the UG proponents.
>
> Hi, haven't been around this NG much since I set up a tank about a year
> ago. I had tanks through most of my teenage years and recently as an
> adult - 20 years latter - I set up another.
>
> First of all before I chime in on UG filters I have to say that I guess
> I forgot how much work and constant care an aquarium requires to get it
> in good balance and keep it that way. I just don't have the time to
> watch my tanks that I did as a youth. As a result I have set up a
> stringent tank-care schedule and keep mostly hardy fish.
>
> What surprised me, though, when I went to buy my current aquarium is
> that I couldn't find a UG filter system at any retail store. The staff
> would also keep telling me that they simply don't work.
>
> I agree that they have a bad, and I think, undeserved reputation these
> days. However, I'm a also big proponent of the dual-filtration system:
> having say an outside power filter combined with an UG filter. I had
> this as a youth in a 25 gallon tank and I swear that regular aside from
> normal required attention this tank was a beautifully balanced system.
> I nice stable ecosystem.
>
> The trick is not to overfeed, use relatively large gravel and do your
> normal tank care. I recently put a UG filter in my current tank and
> already notice a definite difference in the quality of the environment
> and the health of my fish. A lot of that may have to do with my annual
> 'big clean' that I just did - but I think the UG filter (that I had to
> buy online) is helping as well and will continue to do so if used
> properly.
>
> In addition to Carl's points, which I obviously agree with, I've found a
> really good online article that talks about the proper use of the UG
> filter including the use of a dual filtration set-up:
>
> http://www.aquariumfish.com/aquariumfish/detail.aspx?aid=9401&cid=3806&se
> arch=
>
> I'm not typically a conspiracy theorist but It seems to me that a cheap
> UG filter has given away to the numerous chemical treatments that the
> stores hook you into buying to keep you tank biochemistry healthy. I
> don't remember having to buy all that stuff as a youth - and like I said
> I had good success with my aquariums for years.
>
> Cheers,
>
> TS
> Edmonton SCTV Locations:
> http://members.shaw.ca/pumpkin27/iwebber2
>
> My Blog feed:
> feed://members.shaw.ca/kitschy/iwebber/TheStenonsNewDigs/Blog/rss.xml

That was an interesting article you posted. I have been the process of
writing a more in depth article about this subject, I have just been
too busy to finsih and research the article for any relevant studies (I
do discus UGFs in somewhat in my filtration article:
http://www.americanaquariumproducts.com/Aquarium_Filtration.html )

The interesting point about UGF and many other aquatic subjects is that
these methods and products seem to go thru fads (I have got caught up
in them too, even in my service business), but when I stop and go back
and look at the facts, such as UGFs, these filters are not as bad as
all the bad press they get (this is not to say they are without some
problems). As I pointed out earlier the type of plate makes a BIG
difference in flow and mulm that will cause problems with UGFs.

What I find interesting is that many of these UGF bashers have not done
their homework when it comes to HOB filters, in particular the Penguin.
These filters are riding the crest of un-deserved popularity (and I
admit to helping before I did my homework). As your article pointed out
HOBs are not very good biologically, and the bio-wheels in particular
are over rated. The theory behind the bio wheel is excellent, but in
practical application water deposits and more destroy the surface area
of these wheels and the point of more oxygen in the air for bio
bacteria is true, there is plenty in a properly maintained aquarium,
otherwise you have more serious issues for the fish (compare live rock
in the tank to a wet dry out of the tank). I have a more in depth
article about bio wheels in this blog:
http://aquarium-answers.blogspot.com/

I do have to differ with the article in regards to Sponge filters.
These too were filters that have swung in popularity (and again I also
fell victim too). When I originally used them I used the cheaper Tetra
and others, but these had poor flow designs and even more important
poor sponge media designs. When I re-discovered the Hydro Sponge (as I
started testing many different products in my service business often
side by side with business clients such as the Bahooka Restaurant), I
found them to have a much better sponge design than the others (they
hold a patent) that allows much more bio bacteria and less mechanical
clogging (one of the week spots for some sponge filters). I have found
when comaparing apples to apples when comes to sponge filter with other
filters for bio capacity they come out favorably.
Here is my article about sponge filtration:
http://www.americanaquariumproducts.com/sponge_filtration.html

Carl

[carlrs]

Trevor Stenson wrote:
> In article . com>,
> "carlrs" > wrote:
>
> > Jen wrote:
> > > So what's the general consensus on using undergravel filters? Are they good
> > > or bad?
> > >
> > >
> > > Jen
> >
> > I have used UGFs extensively over the years. I personally do not
> > recommend them do to the extra maintenance sometimes needed (especially
> > with flat plate UGFs), especially if poorly cared for. But UGFs do not
> > deserve all the flack they get either. Proper gravel (#3) with about
> > 2-3" of depth works best. The Nektonics UGF was actually very good and
> > I actually clocked higher flow rates with the same air pump with these
> > UGF filters vs. the more common flat plate design (placing a 1 gallon
> > jug just under the out flow and timing the rate of fill).
> > There are better filters now, but even some newer ones popularity are
> > based in hype (bio wheel comes to mind). I recommend redundancy with
> > two filters. In a smaller aquarium a HOB with an internal or sponge
> > filter is effective, or at least a HOB with a pre filter attached for
> > improved bio filtration.
> >
> > For more aquarium filtration information:
> > http://www.americanaquariumproducts.com/Aquarium_Filtration.html
> >
> > Also I have an article about Bio Wheels here:
> > http://aquarium-answers.blogspot.com/
> >
> > Carl
>
> I totally concur with the UG proponents.
>
> Hi, haven't been around this NG much since I set up a tank about a year
> ago. I had tanks through most of my teenage years and recently as an
> adult - 20 years latter - I set up another.
>
> First of all before I chime in on UG filters I have to say that I guess
> I forgot how much work and constant care an aquarium requires to get it
> in good balance and keep it that way. I just don't have the time to
> watch my tanks that I did as a youth. As a result I have set up a
> stringent tank-care schedule and keep mostly hardy fish.
>
> What surprised me, though, when I went to buy my current aquarium is
> that I couldn't find a UG filter system at any retail store. The staff
> would also keep telling me that they simply don't work.
>
> I agree that they have a bad, and I think, undeserved reputation these
> days. However, I'm a also big proponent of the dual-filtration system:
> having say an outside power filter combined with an UG filter. I had
> this as a youth in a 25 gallon tank and I swear that regular aside from
> normal required attention this tank was a beautifully balanced system.
> I nice stable ecosystem.
>
> The trick is not to overfeed, use relatively large gravel and do your
> normal tank care. I recently put a UG filter in my current tank and
> already notice a definite difference in the quality of the environment
> and the health of my fish. A lot of that may have to do with my annual
> 'big clean' that I just did - but I think the UG filter (that I had to
> buy online) is helping as well and will continue to do so if used
> properly.
>
> In addition to Carl's points, which I obviously agree with, I've found a
> really good online article that talks about the proper use of the UG
> filter including the use of a dual filtration set-up:
>
> http://www.aquariumfish.com/aquariumfish/detail.aspx?aid=9401&cid=3806&se
> arch=
>
> I'm not typically a conspiracy theorist but It seems to me that a cheap
> UG filter has given away to the numerous chemical treatments that the
> stores hook you into buying to keep you tank biochemistry healthy. I
> don't remember having to buy all that stuff as a youth - and like I said
> I had good success with my aquariums for years.
>
> Cheers,
>
> TS
> Edmonton SCTV Locations:
> http://members.shaw.ca/pumpkin27/iwebber2
>
> My Blog feed:
> feed://members.shaw.ca/kitschy/iwebber/TheStenonsNewDigs/Blog/rss.xml

That was an interesting article you posted. I have been the process of
writing a more in depth article about this subject, I have just been
too busy to finish and research the article for any relevant studies (I
do discus UGFs in somewhat in my filtration article:
http://www.americanaquariumproducts.com/Aquarium_Filtration.html )

The interesting point about UGF and many other aquatic subjects is that
these methods and products seem to go thru fads (I have got caught up
in them too, even in my service business), but when I stop and go back
and look at the facts, such as UGFs, these filters are not as bad as
all the bad press they get (this is not to say they are without some
problems). As I pointed out earlier the type of plate makes a BIG
difference in flow and mulm that will cause problems with UGFs.

What I find interesting is that many of these UGF bashers have not done
their homework when it comes to HOB filters, in particular the Penguin.
These filters are riding the crest of un-deserved popularity (and I
admit to helping before I did my homework). As your article pointed out
HOBs are not very good biologically, and the bio-wheels in particular
are over rated. The theory behind the bio wheel is excellent, but in
practical application water deposits and more destroy the surface area
of these wheels and the point of more oxygen in the air for bio
bacteria is true, there is plenty in a properly maintained aquarium,
otherwise you have more serious issues for the fish (compare live rock
in the tank to a wet dry out of the tank). I have a more in depth
article about bio wheels in this blog:
http://aquarium-answers.blogspot.com/

I do have to differ with the article in regards to Sponge filters.
These too were filters that have swung in popularity (and again I also
fell victim too). When I originally used them I used the cheaper Tetra
and others, but these had poor flow designs and even more important
poor sponge media designs. When I re-discovered the Hydro Sponge (as I
started testing many different products in my service business often
side by side with business clients such as the Bahooka Restaurant), I
found them to have a much better sponge design than the others (they
hold a patent) that allows much more bio bacteria and less mechanical
clogging (one of the week spots for some sponge filters). I have found
when comaparing apples to apples when comes to sponge filter with other
filters for bio capacity they come out favorably.
Here is my article about sponge filtration:
http://www.americanaquariumproducts.com/sponge_filtration.html

Carl

[[email protected]]

What has changed is more people are keeping much fussier fancy GF with deep bodies.
those plain old comets or pond fantails won at fairs can stand pretty bad conditions
without dying. not so the fancier GF with long fins.
We still call them "goldfish bowls" and they were never appropriate for GF because
too little water and high maintenance. the same is now true for UGF, they are high
maintenance compared to bare bottom tanks with good external filters.

a bare bottom tank does not require chemical treatments. for an absolute newbie who
has never had any kind of fish, and for people who want a low maintenance set up,
nothing compares to BBT. Typically the tank is set up with double the usual amount
of external filters. So a 20 gallon tank would have a filter rated for a 40 gallon
tank. 2 big airstones and a heater to keep temps constant. it is not easy to get a
couple fish and cycle this kind of tank without using some biofilter startup, either
a filter pad from a cycled tank, some biospira, or start with some fish food and do a
fishless cycling before getting the fish. however, once this is up and running it is
very stable and easy to maintain. water changes once a week, rinse out the filter
pad(s).
the only thing easier is a pond with a veggie filter. Ingrid


Trevor Stenson > wrote:
>I agree that they have a bad, and I think, undeserved reputation these
>days.
>The trick is not to overfeed, use relatively large gravel and do your
>normal tank care.
>I'm not typically a conspiracy theorist but It seems to me that a cheap
>UG filter has given away to the numerous chemical treatments that the
>stores hook you into buying to keep you tank biochemistry healthy.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List at
http://weloveteaching.com/puregold/
sign up: http://groups.google.com/groups/dir?hl=en&q=puregold&qt_s=Group+lookup
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I receive no compensation for running the Puregold list or Puregold website.
I do not run nor receive any money from the ads at the old Puregold site.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Zone 5 next to Lake Michigan

[carlrs]

wrote:
> What has changed is more people are keeping much fussier fancy GF with deep bodies.
> those plain old comets or pond fantails won at fairs can stand pretty bad conditions
> without dying. not so the fancier GF with long fins.
> We still call them "goldfish bowls" and they were never appropriate for GF because
> too little water and high maintenance. the same is now true for UGF, they are high
> maintenance compared to bare bottom tanks with good external filters.

Yes Goldfish bowls are hardly appropriate and never have been. But to
imply that UGFs worked before and do not now as compared to others is
presumptious. There are definately better filters, I have not sold a
UGF for years to a client. But there is a difference between UGFs and
the cheaper flat plate UGF that took over the maket and made aquarists
who do not do there home work think that they are all equal.
Also as for HOB external filters this where more aquarist homework
needs to be done as most are poor bio filters (although a pre filter
attached to htem improve this). The bio wheels are not as effective as
a good Sponge filter (not all sponge filters are equal either, of which
I admit to the assumption after poor results with some Tetra Sponge
filters that they do not work, the patented Hydro Sponge Filters are
superior)
http://americanaquariumproducts.com/SpongeFilter.html
A properly aerated aquarium (with a proper Redox Potential) provides
all the oxygen the bacterial colonies in a sponge filter need.



> a bare bottom tank does not require chemical treatments. for an absolute newbie who
> has never had any kind of fish, and for people who want a low maintenance set up,

No arguing with the ease of a BBT, especially with a Sponge filter
which is how my breeder and hospital tanks are set up. But most new
aquarists are NOT going to want this spartan a set up.

> nothing compares to BBT. Typically the tank is set up with double the usual amount
> of external filters. So a 20 gallon tank would have a filter rated for a 40 gallon
> tank. 2 big airstones and a heater to keep temps constant. it is not easy to get a
> couple fish and cycle this kind of tank without using some biofilter startup, either
> a filter pad from a cycled tank, some biospira, or start with some fish food and do a
> fishless cycling before getting the fish. however, once this is up and running it is
> very stable and easy to maintain. water changes once a week, rinse out the filter
> pad(s).
> the only thing easier is a pond with a veggie filter. Ingrid

Again veggie filters are great, although my pond installations always
included a pressurized filter such as the Clear Stream and/or a Hydro
Pond Filter for mechanical and additional bio filtration. In So Cal I
usually included a UV Sterilizer too.


> Trevor Stenson > wrote:
> >I agree that they have a bad, and I think, undeserved reputation these
> >days.
> >The trick is not to overfeed, use relatively large gravel and do your
> >normal tank care.
> >I'm not typically a conspiracy theorist but It seems to me that a cheap
> >UG filter has given away to the numerous chemical treatments that the
> >stores hook you into buying to keep you tank biochemistry healthy.
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List at
> http://weloveteaching.com/puregold/
> sign up: http://groups.google.com/groups/dir?hl=en&q=puregold&qt_s=Group+lookup
> www.drsolo.com
> Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> I receive no compensation for running the Puregold list or Puregold website.
> I do not run nor receive any money from the ads at the old Puregold site.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Zone 5 next to Lake Michigan

Carl
http://americanaquariumproducts.com/Aquarium_Information.html
http://www.americanaquariumproducts.com/sponge_filtration.html

[swarvegorilla]

"Jen" > wrote in message
...
> So what's the general consensus on using undergravel filters? Are they
> good or bad?
>
>
> Jen
>

absolute pain to clean.
now obselete with the air powered sponge filter so cheaply available
they can be handy for fish only marine tanks
and they hide well
but compared to a sponge filter under gravel is a pain.

[swarvegorilla]

"carlrs" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> wrote:
>> it is best to be careful of "wonder shells" because there has been this
>> idea of
>> making "calcium pucks" from plaster of paris and in acid water it can
>> really jerk the
>> pH around ... lethally.
>>
>> the absolute best way to stabilize calcium or "hardness" is with
>> dolomitic limestone
>> (not dolomite) which also has magnesium in it (which oyster shells do
>> not). it comes
>> powdered and the right stuff looks off white with bits of black flecking
>> in it. even
>> limestone chunks are good (but not marble). powdered dolomitic limestone
>> stays in
>> the bottom of the tank dissolved on demand. getting the right stuff is
>> not always
>> easy, but a lot is not needed either. Ingrid
>>
>
> Are you even familiar with this product?
> It is not new, nor is it perfect.
> Although dolomitic limestone is a good control for pH and somewhat for
> kH, magnesium in small quantities is essential for proper osmotic
> function, and even more so as a Redox reducer which new research shows
> is very important for proper water chemistry.
> I have used these Wonder Shels in literally thousands of aquariums I
> have maintained without ever experiencing what you are talking about.
> These products are admittedly poorly named, as they do not do wonders,
> nor are they a cure all, but they are a usefull tool in good aquatic
> husbandry.
>
> As to water channeling in UGFs, you are absolutely correct, but this is
> a problem in many poorly maintained filters, including wet drys. The
> design of the Nektonics unit tends to somewhat alleviate this problem.
> I am not however promoting this filter, as it is not even available any
> more, but those who have been involved in the aquatics industry for any
> amount of time are familiar with it (such as Netmax).
>
> The site you posted is very good beginner information, but there is
> newer research that can be added (such as the fact that Redox plays a
> larger roll in aquatic health than pH for many fish, especially dirty
> fish such as goldfish).
>
> Anearobic activity is not hard to control in properly maintained
> aquariums, and as I stated earlier, I have only accidentally suctioned
> goldfish 3 times in over 56,000 cleanings, not bad odds (and those
> accidents were years ago). The Nylon sock is however a good idea, but
> others still can gravel vacuum properly without one, and honestly the
> Lees is amuch better value than the Python.
>

By the mere name alone 'wonder shells' I am sceptical.
I like to know exactly what it is I am adding.
pH is such a small part of the game anyway
I keep mine good with partial water changes
If I wanna be lazy I throw a few bits of coral in a filter.

Only thing I actually buy to add is dechlorinator
everthing else is easily knocked up

As a cure all
go buy some human food grade bentonite clay.
health food shops
a tablespoon in a bottle of aquarium water
shake it up
pour it in
go to bed
yes it will cloud the tank up for a bit
try a small dose first
but it will rip any crud out of the water

how this effects pH I don't quite know
but I just solved a wacky swingin' one with it.

Keep in mind water needs to degass after coming out of tank before it shows
true pH
and plants swing pH up and down thru day so always test at same time if
possible.
ALmost every fish can handle the pH 7.6 to 7.8 that a bit of shellgrit in
the gravel provides.

5am and ramblin on usenet
w000t
livin the dream eh

[carlrs]

swarvegorilla wrote:
> "carlrs" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> > wrote:
> >> it is best to be careful of "wonder shells" because there has been this
> >> idea of
> >> making "calcium pucks" from plaster of paris and in acid water it can
> >> really jerk the
> >> pH around ... lethally.
> >>
> >> the absolute best way to stabilize calcium or "hardness" is with
> >> dolomitic limestone
> >> (not dolomite) which also has magnesium in it (which oyster shells do
> >> not). it comes
> >> powdered and the right stuff looks off white with bits of black flecking
> >> in it. even
> >> limestone chunks are good (but not marble). powdered dolomitic limestone
> >> stays in
> >> the bottom of the tank dissolved on demand. getting the right stuff is
> >> not always
> >> easy, but a lot is not needed either. Ingrid
> >>
> >
> > Are you even familiar with this product?
> > It is not new, nor is it perfect.
> > Although dolomitic limestone is a good control for pH and somewhat for
> > kH, magnesium in small quantities is essential for proper osmotic
> > function, and even more so as a Redox reducer which new research shows
> > is very important for proper water chemistry.
> > I have used these Wonder Shels in literally thousands of aquariums I
> > have maintained without ever experiencing what you are talking about.
> > These products are admittedly poorly named, as they do not do wonders,
> > nor are they a cure all, but they are a usefull tool in good aquatic
> > husbandry.
> >
> > As to water channeling in UGFs, you are absolutely correct, but this is
> > a problem in many poorly maintained filters, including wet drys. The
> > design of the Nektonics unit tends to somewhat alleviate this problem.
> > I am not however promoting this filter, as it is not even available any
> > more, but those who have been involved in the aquatics industry for any
> > amount of time are familiar with it (such as Netmax).
> >
> > The site you posted is very good beginner information, but there is
> > newer research that can be added (such as the fact that Redox plays a
> > larger roll in aquatic health than pH for many fish, especially dirty
> > fish such as goldfish).
> >
> > Anearobic activity is not hard to control in properly maintained
> > aquariums, and as I stated earlier, I have only accidentally suctioned
> > goldfish 3 times in over 56,000 cleanings, not bad odds (and those
> > accidents were years ago). The Nylon sock is however a good idea, but
> > others still can gravel vacuum properly without one, and honestly the
> > Lees is amuch better value than the Python.
> >
>
> By the mere name alone 'wonder shells' I am sceptical.
> I like to know exactly what it is I am adding.
> pH is such a small part of the game anyway
> I keep mine good with partial water changes
> If I wanna be lazy I throw a few bits of coral in a filter.
>
> Only thing I actually buy to add is dechlorinator
> everthing else is easily knocked up
>
> As a cure all
> go buy some human food grade bentonite clay.
> health food shops
> a tablespoon in a bottle of aquarium water
> shake it up
> pour it in
> go to bed
> yes it will cloud the tank up for a bit
> try a small dose first
> but it will rip any crud out of the water
>
> how this effects pH I don't quite know
> but I just solved a wacky swingin' one with it.
>
> Keep in mind water needs to degass after coming out of tank before it shows
> true pH
> and plants swing pH up and down thru day so always test at same time if
> possible.
> ALmost every fish can handle the pH 7.6 to 7.8 that a bit of shellgrit in
> the gravel provides.
>
> 5am and ramblin on usenet
> w000t
> livin the dream eh

I agree with your point "'wonder shells' I am sceptical.", this is
poorly named, but if you look at this product:
http://americanaquariumproducts.com/MedicatedWonderShell.html
You will see that the main ingredients are listed. Also I have
repeatedly made the point thatthese are not a cure all or a pH
adjuster. These are a useful "tool" for kH, calcium, magnesium, and
electrolyte control, but they do not take the place of sound aquarium
hesbandry. They are not even new, I have used them for years.

I also especially agree with your comment about Spnge Filters over UGF
(I stated this earlier too), I just think UGFs do not deserve the
slamming they sometimes get, especially the Nektonics brand. Even all
sponge filters are NOT the same, some such as the Tetra use a sponge
media that clogs easily and does not have the internal surface area to
support as many bacterial colonies as the Hydro Sponge.

[swarvegorilla]

"carlrs" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> swarvegorilla wrote:
>> "carlrs" > wrote in message
>> ps.com...
>> > wrote:
>> >> it is best to be careful of "wonder shells" because there has been
>> >> this
>> >> idea of
>> >> making "calcium pucks" from plaster of paris and in acid water it can
>> >> really jerk the
>> >> pH around ... lethally.
>> >>
>> >> the absolute best way to stabilize calcium or "hardness" is with
>> >> dolomitic limestone
>> >> (not dolomite) which also has magnesium in it (which oyster shells do
>> >> not). it comes
>> >> powdered and the right stuff looks off white with bits of black
>> >> flecking
>> >> in it. even
>> >> limestone chunks are good (but not marble). powdered dolomitic
>> >> limestone
>> >> stays in
>> >> the bottom of the tank dissolved on demand. getting the right stuff
>> >> is
>> >> not always
>> >> easy, but a lot is not needed either. Ingrid
>> >>
>> >
>> > Are you even familiar with this product?
>> > It is not new, nor is it perfect.
>> > Although dolomitic limestone is a good control for pH and somewhat for
>> > kH, magnesium in small quantities is essential for proper osmotic
>> > function, and even more so as a Redox reducer which new research shows
>> > is very important for proper water chemistry.
>> > I have used these Wonder Shels in literally thousands of aquariums I
>> > have maintained without ever experiencing what you are talking about.
>> > These products are admittedly poorly named, as they do not do wonders,
>> > nor are they a cure all, but they are a usefull tool in good aquatic
>> > husbandry.
>> >
>> > As to water channeling in UGFs, you are absolutely correct, but this is
>> > a problem in many poorly maintained filters, including wet drys. The
>> > design of the Nektonics unit tends to somewhat alleviate this problem.
>> > I am not however promoting this filter, as it is not even available any
>> > more, but those who have been involved in the aquatics industry for any
>> > amount of time are familiar with it (such as Netmax).
>> >
>> > The site you posted is very good beginner information, but there is
>> > newer research that can be added (such as the fact that Redox plays a
>> > larger roll in aquatic health than pH for many fish, especially dirty
>> > fish such as goldfish).
>> >
>> > Anearobic activity is not hard to control in properly maintained
>> > aquariums, and as I stated earlier, I have only accidentally suctioned
>> > goldfish 3 times in over 56,000 cleanings, not bad odds (and those
>> > accidents were years ago). The Nylon sock is however a good idea, but
>> > others still can gravel vacuum properly without one, and honestly the
>> > Lees is amuch better value than the Python.
>> >
>>
>> By the mere name alone 'wonder shells' I am sceptical.
>> I like to know exactly what it is I am adding.
>> pH is such a small part of the game anyway
>> I keep mine good with partial water changes
>> If I wanna be lazy I throw a few bits of coral in a filter.
>>
>> Only thing I actually buy to add is dechlorinator
>> everthing else is easily knocked up
>>
>> As a cure all
>> go buy some human food grade bentonite clay.
>> health food shops
>> a tablespoon in a bottle of aquarium water
>> shake it up
>> pour it in
>> go to bed
>> yes it will cloud the tank up for a bit
>> try a small dose first
>> but it will rip any crud out of the water
>>
>> how this effects pH I don't quite know
>> but I just solved a wacky swingin' one with it.
>>
>> Keep in mind water needs to degass after coming out of tank before it
>> shows
>> true pH
>> and plants swing pH up and down thru day so always test at same time if
>> possible.
>> ALmost every fish can handle the pH 7.6 to 7.8 that a bit of shellgrit in
>> the gravel provides.
>>
>> 5am and ramblin on usenet
>> w000t
>> livin the dream eh
>
> I agree with your point "'wonder shells' I am sceptical.", this is
> poorly named, but if you look at this product:
> http://americanaquariumproducts.com/MedicatedWonderShell.html
> You will see that the main ingredients are listed. Also I have
> repeatedly made the point thatthese are not a cure all or a pH
> adjuster. These are a useful "tool" for kH, calcium, magnesium, and
> electrolyte control, but they do not take the place of sound aquarium
> hesbandry. They are not even new, I have used them for years.
>
> I also especially agree with your comment about Spnge Filters over UGF
> (I stated this earlier too), I just think UGFs do not deserve the
> slamming they sometimes get, especially the Nektonics brand. Even all
> sponge filters are NOT the same, some such as the Tetra use a sponge
> media that clogs easily and does not have the internal surface area to
> support as many bacterial colonies as the Hydro Sponge.
>

moving into aquaculture now......
the scale of things is really begining to change hey.
We change water conditions with sacks of stuff.......
but despite the fact it's bigger and more exe...... we really keep it
simple.
Line the dirt ponds with bentonite clay, the concrete ones are still sweet
and we got a load limestone gravel for the driveway in the fibreglass tubs.
Filters range from suspended buckets of gravel, huge pvc pipes with sponge
prefilters that feed our stacked milk crate bio-towers.
At the end of the day it's really **** all work for how many fish we
have..... I am trying to bring the theory into practise with me tanks at
home.
yea OT and ****e but...... I know everything I add now.
anything I'm not sure of
I call aquaculture free helpline
and the fish scientists explain ingredients and stuff.
HA! so much for secret tricks of the trade.
W0000000000t!!!

Sponge filters and calcium carbonate..... too bloody easy!
Now keeping it stable nice and soft and low to trigger tetra's
thats a bit more tricky..... tho slightly less when ya pass the 2,000L mark
Swarvegorilla