Anybody Good With Undergravel Filters?

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
UGFs are just prone to problems, especially with younger aquarists. Why even think about promoting a filter that is more prone to causing problems and is harder to get back to where it needs to be when those problems arise when there are such better options out there? I am sticking with the best filtration that is out today, not the one from the 50s that if I do a lot of extra work may work out as good at best. Not to mention that sand is a far better substrate in almost every case. It is more natural and much cleaner. Effectively no aquarium fish come from waters that in nature have gravel as a substrate. It is just an old fashioned substrate that is also prone too problems. I personally will keep moving forward in the hobby and improving the care I provide for my fish, if others want to stick with what is 'good enough to not kill the fish' that is their choice.

This is what I meant by some members trying to hammer anyone that uses different methods. You are quick to dismiss over 50 years of experience. During that time I sorted thru many practices, dismissing the ones that did not work and adopting the ones that did. I was 12 years old when I started and had no issues with UGF. A difference between our approaches is that I am not going to tell forum members not to follow your methods.
 
Skj, back then, did you have an accurate method of testing nitrates? Unless your tank was VERY lightly stocked, your nitrates must have been in the hundreds. When I used one, I would have nitrate readings off the charts. I was doing 50-75% waterchanges twice a week. Nitrates were off the charts again the very next day every time. When I pulled the plates out of the tank, the solid waste buildup under the plates was incredible. I was using powerheads, too. With just an airlift, I'd have to assume that even less waste would be pulled out from under the plates.
 
Well even if I'm not going to use one, all of this information is very interesting. It just boils down to preference in the end. Some have good experiences, some don't. If you're willing to put time into it, I still believe that Ugf's are useful. And I'm new school. 20 years young lol. All the new stuff is convenience but carries a hefty price tag to boot. I think that Ugf's are decently inexpensive but not really enough at the cost of my tank. Wish they worked with sand though so I could share an experience of my own.
 
I specified that bacteria will stick to anything (as in any type of gravel, not any special type of gravel). Then someone said they knew they didn't have the right gravel for bacteria to stick to because they were not getting crud out of it when they vacuumed (equating brown crud to nitrifying bacteria). I specified that this is a misconception and that if that crub was their bacteria then they would be removing it every time.

FYI bacteria do not simply grew in an even biofilm throughout the whole tank on every surface. They grow where the conditions are best for them. If you have any wet/dry or tricle filtration this is where they will grow because there is SO much more oxygen available there. In other cases it will be where there is the highest flow because the flow supplies them with the oxygen and food they need. This means that effectively all the bacteria are in the filter media (not spread out on the decor, glass, etc.). If you use UGF then the gravel itself is that media.
 
Well even if I'm not going to use one, all of this information is very interesting. It just boils down to preference in the end. Some have good experiences, some don't. If you're willing to put time into it, I still believe that Ugf's are useful. And I'm new school. 20 years young lol. All the new stuff is convenience but carries a hefty price tag to boot. I think that Ugf's are decently inexpensive but not really enough at the cost of my tank. Wish they worked with sand though so I could share an experience of my own.
Hello; What I eventually did with sand was to sift it while dry and discard the very fine particles. I either used colanders or kitchen flour sifters or made one using various sized screening mesh. It all depended on what sized partiocles you want. I used the cheap construction sand, so could afford to discard large amounts and still have enough of the size that i wanted. The UGF seemed to work best with a somewhat coarser gravel, roughly bb sized, than the fine sand. Some of the very fine sand particles could make its way thru the filter plate and the fine stuff seemed to pack. I also liked the coarser stuff for my rooted plants. I also grew to like the pure black gravel for a substrate over the pale sands. Darker substrates seem to encourage the fish to display in darker colors.

The expense of some of the equipment used in fishkeeping was a big factor when I was younger and I still do not have endless funds. If I set up a tank with an UGF again, I will have some sort of additional filtration. Right now I only have two tanks set up and have the HOB power filters and air bubblers. If I ever get this house in shape, i hope to have several tanks in a dedicated fish room. I recall when one of my friends got what I think was a canister filter back in the 70's. It was desireable, but out of my price range.

I almost always had rooted plants and trumpet snails in my tanks and suspect that these helped prevent some of the problems others seem to have had with the UGF.
 
Skj, back then, did you have an accurate method of testing nitrates? Unless your tank was VERY lightly stocked, your nitrates must have been in the hundreds. When I used one, I would have nitrate readings off the charts. I was doing 50-75% waterchanges twice a week. Nitrates were off the charts again the very next day every time. When I pulled the plates out of the tank, the solid waste buildup under the plates was incredible. I was using powerheads, too. With just an airlift, I'd have to assume that even less waste would be pulled out from under the plates.

Hello; Back in the 50's I was not aware of any consumer water test kits. Some kits became available over the years, but were limited if I recall correctly. The first serious water testing I did was during the 70's while taking a masters course in limnology. We could get some water parameter readings on site. For others we had to set the sample chemically on site and do the rest back in the lab. The best that I recall is that it took over an hour to complete the process in the lab. So, to answer the question, no I did not have accurate testing methods for much of my early years of fishkeeping.

I have been trying to reconcille my experiences with the current thinking. One possible reason that I had good results may have been that I usually had lots of rooted plants and snails in my tanks. I also tended toward lighter stocking densities over time. (Got into a heated discourse over stocking densities on another forum some months back.)
 
Right on. I am probably going to get either a bright white aragonite type of sand or a dark black... Like Tahitian moon but these are also pretty expensive for me to use. Do you know of a cheaper alternative for a white sand that I could get at a hardware store? Im planning on sifting whTever I do end up purchasing but if I have to buy the expensive stuff then i probably won't be able to toss too much of it out. I prefer nOt to use gravel anymore due to it looking somewhat unnatural no matter what color it is. My tank build will amount to look like an Amazonia, Orinoco river biotope.
 
MonsterFishKeepers.com