im setting up a 150 gal fresh and was thinking of plumbing in a FX5 to a undergraval filter and filling the filter up with bio. And my ? is it worth it and will damage the filter.
undergraval filter
- Thread starter higginslakeguy
- Start date
Seems like a waste of a pretty decent filter.
Shouldn’t do any damage to the filter other than having it hooked into a pretty inefficient, high maintenance system.
Was the plan to have the return flowing into the UGF?
What is your objective here?
Shouldn’t do any damage to the filter other than having it hooked into a pretty inefficient, high maintenance system.
Was the plan to have the return flowing into the UGF?
What is your objective here?
no i was going to have the output hooked up to the UGF so that the water goes thou the gravel then out the the FX5. Then out to the tank thou the stock outtake..
I wouldnt go with an undergravel for a tank that size. you need min of 3in of larger gravel to make it work right. That a lot of gravel an a lot of extra weight. I am running a UGF in my 55gallon if I had to do it over again I would not use it. Plus gravel cleaning would be a pain on a tank that size
UGF's are worthless, unless you like making huge messes when cleaning your tank, and like non-beneficial bacteria breeding in your gravel.
Everyone slams UGFs because they read how bad they are. Acutally they are pretty good filters in my opinion. I have UGFs in all of my tanks which are my primary filters. I also run my UGFs with Aquaclear 110 HOBs and Rena XP3s which no one ever slams on. The Aquaclear HOBs and Rena XP3s are my secondary filters which mean they are not my primary filters. My water parameters are always good with UGFs, 0 ammonia, 0 nitrite so that is what I base on how good a filter is and how long I can go without a water change. I do not go by what people tell me. My largest tank is a 110 gallon.
Red_Belly_Pacu;5025446; said:
I don't slam ugf's based on what I've read. I used them for about 20 years successfully. My only problem with them is they are more difficult to maintain properly than other types such as canisters, sumps, hob's, etc. Not just my experience either. Plenty of data online to support these claims.
Ugf's work fine. They are just harder and more messy to maintain. Reverse ugf's are better but either way, I don't think running an fx5 through one would provide any benefit, but you know what? Try it and see. Just because folks haven't used them that way doesn't mean it's not worth a try. Worst case scenario is you find out you dont see any advantage, pull out the plates and run the fx5 normally. Either way, you ve still got a great filter.
On side note, filter efficiency should not be the gauge as to how often you do water changes. That should be based on load and nitrate levels. No filter will be able to put off water changes if nitrates are allowed to rise to dangerous
levels. ( other than a filter specifically designed for nitrate removal)
Since the OP wanted more filteration, I would run the FX5 as the primary filter and use the UGF as the secondary filter. I would use it the way as it was meant to be designed. Unconventional methods don't work well with me for some reason. The UGF would require more work as in vacuuming the gravel regularly thou.
I am just saying that I do not think it is right where everyone slams UGFs. My bioload is very high in my tanks and ammonia and nitrite are always at 0. I am using the UGF as my primary filters.
I am just saying that I do not think it is right where everyone slams UGFs. My bioload is very high in my tanks and ammonia and nitrite are always at 0. I am using the UGF as my primary filters.