Why does everyone slam undergravel filters and their effectiveness?

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Asian_Redtail_Catfish

Feeder Fish
Jun 21, 2006
155
1
0
United States
Everytime I see someone post about undergravel filters, they say they are junk and it is better to get a cannister or a hang on back filter..I think they are wrong..An undergravel filter if maintained properly is a a very good filter...I have a 110, 55, and 20 gallon tank with undergravel filters equipped with powerheads and they filter my water fine...I change my water every 1.5 months only..My water quality checks out fine..An undergravel filter is huge..In my 110 gallon, the size of my filter is 60 inches x 18 inches..Compare that to the size of a hang on back filter or a cannister filter..

One thing about undergravel filters is that you have to vacum the gravel at each water change so that the undergravel filters work properly..Also with an undergravel filter, a person can overstock their tank because the undergravel filter can handle filtering the waste.
 
O

Oreo

Feeder Fish
MFK Member
May 7, 2008
223
1
0
Baltimore
It's not that the undergravel filter is bad... it's just out-dated by options that pretty much leave them in the dust both in terms of biological efficiency and in terms of ease of maintenance.
 
S

Spankbelly

Feeder Fish
MFK Member
May 23, 2008
132
0
0
Alberta Canada
I also think they work well. And have some benefits, like they don't suck smaller fry out of the tank and through pump blades. And (unrelated) air powered foam filters can do some things that canisters can't, like provide a home for micro organisms that some of our fish eat.
But both of these systems are not new or cool. And are easily outmatched by over feeding and Monster dumps. And require more constant maintenance. And are vulnerable to damage. Foam gets eaten, gravel gets dug up, bypassing the gravel filter. A big factor for our Cichlids.
A big canister let's me be lazy.
 
A

Asian_Redtail_Catfish

Feeder Fish
Jun 21, 2006
155
1
0
United States
Oreo;1947186; said:
It's not that the undergravel filter is bad... it's just out-dated by options that pretty much leave them in the dust both in terms of biological efficiency and in terms of ease of maintenance.
Click to expand...
Well I think that is wrong..You have to own one to see how it works..I been keeping fishes for 12 years and I will not trust another filter..
 
gomezladdams

gomezladdams

Polypterus
MFK Member
Sep 8, 2005
5,768
6
92
gilboa,ny
Ive visited 2 rift lake cichlid breeding facilities one with 250-300 tanks and the other with 1300+ tanks and there were ugfs everywhere.They both said its about results.dollar for dollar other filters cant come close in terms of biofilter and stability.
The people who say ugfs are obsolete or dated technology havent used them.

For fish that do alot of digging,or need sand they are no good but other than that......
 
R

rallysman

Polypterus
MFK Member
Aug 7, 2005
17,533
32
89
42
indiana
Asian_Redtail_Catfish;1947141; said:
Everytime I see someone post about undergravel filters, they say they are junk and it is better to get a cannister or a hang on back filter..I think they are wrong..An undergravel filter if maintained properly is a a very good filter...I have a 110, 55, and 20 gallon tank with undergravel filters equipped with powerheads and they filter my water fine...I change my water every 1.5 months only..My water quality checks out fine..An undergravel filter is huge..In my 110 gallon, the size of my filter is 60 inches x 18 inches..Compare that to the size of a hang on back filter or a cannister filter..

One thing about undergravel filters is that you have to vacum the gravel at each water change so that the undergravel filters work properly..Also with an undergravel filter, a person can overstock their tank because the undergravel filter can handle filtering the waste.
Click to expand...
I agree that UGF are great biologically. However, your water changes aren't determined by filtration. I'm guessing you know this, but I don't want other fish keepers to think that they can get away with less water changes due to more filtration.

Biological filtration will not replace water changes unless it has the ability to consume nitrates.
 
japes

japes

Blue Tier VIP
MFK Member
Nov 20, 2007
2,994
7
343
Queensland, Australia
www.simulationeight.net
rallysman;1947296; said:
I agree that UGF are great biologically. However, your water changes aren't determined by filtration. I'm guessing you know this, but I don't want other fish keepers to think that they can get away with less water changes due to more filtration.

Biological filtration will not replace water changes unless it has the ability to consume nitrates.
Click to expand...
It's actually quite a common misconception on these boards that having huge filtration somehow alleviates the need to do water changes. Unless your filtration system is immediately removing waste from the entire system, it doesn't.

I've never seen the point in UGF, but I vacuum every water change anyway.
 
O

Oreo

Feeder Fish
MFK Member
May 7, 2008
223
1
0
Baltimore
Well, nitrates are kinda part of my point. With the advent of sintered glass bio media, someone else here mentioned ozone would also remove nitrates, planted tanks, etc. nitrates are removable in some of the better systems out there.
 
A

Asian_Redtail_Catfish

Feeder Fish
Jun 21, 2006
155
1
0
United States
I was never worried about nitrates..I am talking about the more toxic things like controlling ammonia and nitrites..

Nitrates is not that toxic at all in my opinion..Yes, in very high levels it is but I think it would never get to that point..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
zoomed.com
hikariusa.com
aqaimports.com
Store
Top Bottom