Undergravel Filter

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
Why not reverse flow, it is superior in every way no?

Hello; I am among the older members who began using UGF's back in the late 50's. The basic setup is very simple requiring only an air pump and some tubing. Reverse flow requires a different and special type of pump. Aside from an air pump failure from time to time, I have never had an UGF fail. I have had some break from my handling after decades of use and I suppose simple aging.
As I am one who likes to have air in some form in all my tanks the UGF is not an extra expense beyond the initial purchase.

I joined the fad to do away with my UGF's a decade or so back but have recently set up a tank with an old survivor. So far, a little over a year, none of the negative issues some preach about have shown up as they did not in the prior decades when a UGF was the only filtration used. I do also run a HOB on the tank with the UGF now.

I had some gunk under the filter plate of some of my early setups but have learned that much of that was due to my overfeeding and I had not discovered the now common technique of siphoning the gravel. Basically the adoption of better practices that I now use in all my tanks has made a difference regardless of the filter system.

The UGF is a tool and used properly works well. There is no onerous extra work needed for cleaning over that performed in any tank.
 
Hello; I am among the older members who began using UGF's back in the late 50's. The basic setup is very simple requiring only an air pump and some tubing. Reverse flow requires a different and special type of pump. Aside from an air pump failure from time to time, I have never had an UGF fail. I have had some break from my handling after decades of use and I suppose simple aging.
As I am one who likes to have air in some form in all my tanks the UGF is not an extra expense beyond the initial purchase.

I joined the fad to do away with my UGF's a decade or so back but have recently set up a tank with an old survivor. So far, a little over a year, none of the negative issues some preach about have shown up as they did not in the prior decades when a UGF was the only filtration used. I do also run a HOB on the tank with the UGF now.

I had some gunk under the filter plate of some of my early setups but have learned that much of that was due to my overfeeding and I had not discovered the now common technique of siphoning the gravel. Basically the adoption of better practices that I now use in all my tanks has made a difference regardless of the filter system.

The UGF is a tool and used properly works well. There is no onerous extra work needed for cleaning over that performed in any tank.

Hi skjl47, glad a wise man chimed in. Could you post a pic for the said set up?

I'm not gonna lie and tell that I am experienced of all the things regarding aquaria.
I started out last April to have my own set up, and due to that I lost a total of 25 fishes, 10 fancy guppies, 10 neon tetras, 3 senegal bichirs and 2 ornates. Beginners mistake, 5 of the bichirs tho jump out... = ="
I do want to learn more of the hobby and would like to see and hear more out of UGF coming from 50's as you've said it.
 
Hello; I am among the older members who began using UGF's back in the late 50's. The basic setup is very simple requiring only an air pump and some tubing. Reverse flow requires a different and special type of pump. Aside from an air pump failure from time to time, I have never had an UGF fail. I have had some break from my handling after decades of use and I suppose simple aging.
As I am one who likes to have air in some form in all my tanks the UGF is not an extra expense beyond the initial purchase.

I joined the fad to do away with my UGF's a decade or so back but have recently set up a tank with an old survivor. So far, a little over a year, none of the negative issues some preach about have shown up as they did not in the prior decades when a UGF was the only filtration used. I do also run a HOB on the tank with the UGF now.

I had some gunk under the filter plate of some of my early setups but have learned that much of that was due to my overfeeding and I had not discovered the now common technique of siphoning the gravel. Basically the adoption of better practices that I now use in all my tanks has made a difference regardless of the filter system.

The UGF is a tool and used properly works well. There is no onerous extra work needed for cleaning over that performed in any tank.

Wow that is awesome! It's great hearing about the "old days". Although I definitely didn't use them in the late 50 early 60 and on time frame, I was def using them about and up to 11 or so years ago. I'd also like to hear the stories you have of the old days and UGF filters among other things! AWESOME!


Sent from my iPad using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
 
So where did the waste (poop, uneaten food, etc.) from all of the big fish go? Into the gravel substrate?

What you describe is basically the equivalent of a box filter except the filter fluff (mechanical media) is under the gravel (and a PITA / impossible to change out).

I can only imagine what the fluff on a box filter or sponge would look like after a week or two (let alone 2+ years) on a tank with 17 bichirs: far more than "slightly discolored".

For the record, after using UGFs for a long time, I quit using them in the 90s, especially for big, messy fish (like oscars).

Matt

I've used UGF for decades. I never had to clean under the grating due to using Dr Spottes technique. Simply, I placed the plate(s) in the tank and covered the plate(s) with a layer of bonded filter padding (blue on one side/white on the other). Then, poured in the substrate. The bonded pad provided 800 times more BB surface area than the substrate alone, prevented gunk from being pulled under the plate, and offered a strong medium for my plants to root and anchor in. After running a 240 for over 2 years with an UGF and 4 powerheads I never had any ammonia spikes and the underside of the plates were clean as the day I set the tank up. Even the bonded pad was only slightly discolored after 2+ years. That tank had a large bio-load with 17 polys, an afaro, and a black aro as residents. The tank had no other filtration. Just routine water changes/gravel washes.
 
So where did the waste (poop, uneaten food, etc.) from all of the big fish go? Into the gravel substrate?

What you describe is basically the equivalent of a box filter except the filter fluff (mechanical media) is under the gravel (and a PITA / impossible to change out).

I can only imagine what the fluff on a box filter or sponge would look like after a week or two (let alone 2+ years) on a tank with 17 bichirs: far more than "slightly discolored".

For the record, after using UGFs for a long time, I quit using them in the 90s, especially for big, messy fish (like oscars).

Matt

You just described every filter that uses mechanical separation including hang-ons and canisters. And show me a box filter from the 70s that ran on 4 300 to 350gph powerheads.
When I said 'slightly discolored" I meant it. The pad's blue side was still blue and the white side was mostly white. The darker stained areas were those around the lift tubes and in the corners of the tank since these areas couldn't get completely covered by a round gravel washer.

BTW, quite a number of members of the SD Tropical Fish Society were using gravel washers long before they became commercially available (Something I regret not getting an edge on in the market). Scripps Institute began using a crude opaque homemade setup and we copied it. Big downside was having to keep a net at the end of the hose to catch the gravel that got sucked up the opaque tubes and garden hoses.
 
So where did the waste (poop, uneaten food, etc.) from all of the big fish go? Into the gravel substrate?

What you describe is basically the equivalent of a box filter except the filter fluff (mechanical media) is under the gravel (and a PITA / impossible to change out).

I can only imagine what the fluff on a box filter or sponge would look like after a week or two (let alone 2+ years) on a tank with 17 bichirs: far more than "slightly discolored".

For the record, after using UGFs for a long time, I quit using them in the 90s, especially for big, messy fish (like oscars).

Matt

Agreed. I'm also old enough to remember a time when water changes usually ended up in fatalities because the new "clean" water was such a shock to the fish. They had adapted to the high nitrates and the new water literally killed them.
Funny how things change.


Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
 
You just described every filter that uses mechanical separation including hang-ons and canisters. And show me a box filter from the 70s that ran on 4 300 to 350gph powerheads.
When I said 'slightly discolored" I meant it. The pad's blue side was still blue and the white side was mostly white. The darker stained areas were those around the lift tubes and in the corners of the tank since these areas couldn't get completely covered by a round gravel washer.

BTW, quite a number of members of the SD Tropical Fish Society were using gravel washers long before they became commercially available (Something I regret not getting an edge on in the market). Scripps Institute began using a crude opaque homemade setup and we copied it. Big downside was having to keep a net at the end of the hose to catch the gravel that got sucked up the opaque tubes and garden hoses.

Hello; I ran into the issue of catching gravel in a net. One way I found to work around this was to have a bare tank on the lower level of a stand. I used a clear tube of sufficent diameter to pass the gravel. I siphon the gravel into the lower tank along with the detritus, working a different section of a tank each water change. I would have a supply of washed gravel ready to put back into the tank along with the fresh water. One unexpected benefit from this was that from time to time a fry would show up in the lower tank due to a fertilized egg being siphoned along with the gravel and stuff.
 
MonsterFishKeepers.com