underwater gravel

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


Jen

"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.

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.

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.

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.

"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" 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

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....iltration.html

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

Carl

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....iltration.html

Also I have an article about Bio Wheels he
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/aquarium...01&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

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....iltration.html

Also I have an article about Bio Wheels he
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/aquarium...01&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....iltration.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....iltration.html

Carl