UGFs and maintenance

[Simon the Cinder]

I have a 30 gallon tank, which I want to have well planted. I am
wondering which will require less vacuuming of the substrate, with or
without a UGF?

I have seen completely contradictory opinions on the topic, so I am a bit
confused...

Along the similar lines, if I don't use a UGF, am I likely to get
anaerobic bacteria growing in the substrate?

Thanks

[RedForeman ©®]

|| I have a 30 gallon tank, which I want to have well planted. I am
|| wondering which will require less vacuuming of the substrate, with or
|| without a UGF?

long story short... Either will have benefits, but I was one who worshiped
UGFs thinking they were better.... until I learned the hard way... The only
contribute to bad things when left unmaintained. That being said, I ditched
my UGF and have no complaints at all... deeper substrate, easier to have
plants root well... easy to fert root feeders with root tabs, the UGF would
usually dissolve the tab and dump it into the water column, whereas a NonUGF
setup would not.

|| I have seen completely contradictory opinions on the topic, so I am
|| a bit confused...
||
|| Along the similar lines, if I don't use a UGF, am I likely to get
|| anaerobic bacteria growing in the substrate?

Gravel vacuuming will combat that, and even laxed routines won't be in
danger of that. Go 2-3 months on a heavy bioload and you may have some
activity, but it takes a bit to do any harm....

My vote, Skip the UGF and spend that money in filters or lights, or a CO2
tank....

--
| RedForeman ©® fabricator and creator of the ratbike streetfighter!!!
| ==========================
| 2003 TRX450ES
| 1992 TRX-350 XX (For Sale)
| '98 Tacoma Ext Cab 4X4 Lifted....
| ==========================
| ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤° `°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø
|| ><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸. ><((((º> ·´¯`·. , .·´¯`·.. ><((((º>
| for any questions you may have....
is that better??

[Victor Martinez]

Simon the Cinder wrote:
> I have a 30 gallon tank, which I want to have well planted. I am
> wondering which will require less vacuuming of the substrate, with or
> without a UGF?

Well-planted tanks are usually not vacuumed. I never do.

> Along the similar lines, if I don't use a UGF, am I likely to get
> anaerobic bacteria growing in the substrate?

Not if you use MTS.

--
Victor Martinez
Owned and operated by the Fantastic Seven (TM)
Send your spam here:
Email me here:

[Dances With Ferrets]

I am currently using an undergravel filter with my planted 50G tank,
with a polyester pad over the top and sides of the filter plate...
with a canister filter taking water out from above the gravel and
pushing the clean water DOWN the tube and flowing UP through the
gravel (a reverse-flow setup), thus, creating a gravel bed that has a
higher concentration of beneficial bacteria and no dead, anaerobic
spots. The same can be accomplished with powerheads and foam
strainers inside the tank.... My plants are growing like crazy (I
also supplement with aquatic plant fertilizer and a yeast CO2 system).
Look into it, I consider this a superior method for using UGFs.

[Jason Dale]

On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 23:10:44 +0800, (Simon the
Cinder) wrote:

>I have a 30 gallon tank, which I want to have well planted. I am
>wondering which will require less vacuuming of the substrate, with or
>without a UGF?

As an UGF makes the substrate a mechanical filter naturally using an
UGF will make the substrate dirtier. When I was new to aquatics I used
air powered and powerhead UGF and have also used the reverse flow.
What I found was that no matter how clean you thought you'd got the
substrate it was always very dirty keep down where even the best
cleaning attempts didn't clean, reverse flow also didn't keep the
gravel that clean as promised. Also a UGF needs to be completely
striped down every now and then and in a planted tank this means
uprooting all the plants, also vacuuming the gravel is rather
difficult with plants and plant roots getting in the way. In a planted
tank many experts say not to clean or to only lightly clean the gravel
as the mulm acts as fertiliser for the plants and chelate iron and so
when using an external filter not to have the intake very close to the
gravel.

Myself I have been using external canister filters for the past 12
years and can say they are the best way to filter a tank as they do a
great job and are easy to maintain with all the dirt they collect
easily when kept separate from the tank. Will never use UGF again as
found it a nightmare, even an internal filter is better than a UFG as
the dirt if easier to remove from the tank complete.

Also UGF is generally considered not to be the best interest of plants
as many experts though other experts disagree with them say that the
constant flow of water upsets some plants as they don't like the flow
of water over their roots and the flow of water also inhibits the
uptake of nutrients from the roots.