I would like everybodys views on UGF's

[JacksontoKobe]

What are your experiences? I currently have one on my 92 gal with a cannister and a HOB filter. Do they work against other filters? Do they just make my tank messier?

[OCSupertones]

i had one of my 60 gallon, and all i ever had was high nitrates.

Then when i tore my 60 gallon down, there was some nasty brown debris under it...i know why i had high nitrates, and i'll never use UGF's again...my 135 doesnt have any UGF and i'm much happier

[pinballqueen]

My tank (currently on its way to storage, long story...) is set up in a very similar fashion. I think the ugf is great for the biology of the tank, but never as a stand-alone unit. It does make for decent backup (as a holdover) in the event one of your other filters fails, but I wouldn't count on it doing too much for the cleanliness of your tank. It just pulls all of the gunk down under the gravel where it's out of your way. A word to the wise, though; if you have plants or cichlids, the thing isn't doing you a bit of good. Plant roots get knotted up in it, clogging the holes in the grating, and cichlids dig holes in the gravel, leaving dead spots in the filtration. Other than that, they are okay, on the whole. (They are not the messiahs of the aquarium world that the industry made them out to be a few years ago, though...hassle-free tank, my butt...)

[downloader]

Like the Queen said old school . Low tech, big mess, just chuck it. The only place maybe is in a growout tank for fry. But then a small aquaclear with a sponge in the intake tube does a much better job

[Richer]

OCSupertones - In a freshwater setup, _any_ filter will produce nitrates (except nitrate eliminating filters). Producing nitrates is a sign that the filter (be it a HOB, canister, UGF, RUGF, etc. etc.) is working as a biological filter. Thats why most of us do water changes... to reduce the amount of nitrates present in the water due to the nitrogen cycle. If my filters weren't producing nitrates, I would be worried. I believe its different in SW setups, as a deep sand bed and live rock convert nitrates to nitrogen gas. I'm not too familiar with that, so I'll leave it to a SW person to explain.

As for using a UGF as filtration, I really see no problems with one. They have been used for who knows how long in the world of aquaria. They work great as biological filtration, and if large enough powerheads are used, they are also very good mechanical filters. The only problem with these types of filters is that quite a few users do not maintain them properly (through good gravel vacs). Without proper maintainence, gunk eventually builds up under the gravel plates, slows down the UGF, and eventually renders it useless. A solution to this is to use a RUGF (reverse under gravel filter). Certain powerheads have the ability to go into reverse flow. Instead of pulling water from the top of the gravel down, water is pushed from the bottom up. By putting a sponge over the intake of the powerhead, you essentially prevent any gunk from collecting under the plates.
However, as pinballqueen has said, UGFs (or RUGFs) will not work in some cases. Cichlids being one of them. If a hole is to be dug in the substrate, that would also render the filter nearly useless.

That said, I'm not a fan of UGFs. I have nothing against them, but I feel that there are several better methods of filtration out there, that can contain more surface area than a gravel bed.

If you have a working UGF on your tank and maintain it properly, all the more power for you. Overfiltration is always better than underfiltration =)

Check this link (http://www.aaquaria.com/aquasource/rtrrfug.shtml) out for more info on those types of filters.

HTH
-Richer

[Ozalie]

I have a UGF on all my tanks and never have a problem.But like Richer stated you must use a vac. when cleaning!I would also recommed getting the best power heads you can afford.

[Tiger15]

I think UGF is outdated because now we have so many outside filters to choose from. UGF is so hard to clean that it is only practical for small tank with small non-messy fish like tetra. I keep cichlids and it takes no time to clog it up. IMO, the air lift, UGF works better than the power head UGF by creating a slow flow that takes longer to clog up and possibly (?) creating a deep denitrification zone. But for digging cichlid, no UGF of any types will work.

By maintaining good water current, a thin substrate will function as an over-gravel-filter. An OGF provides as effective mechanical and biological filtration as many expansive filters provided that it is vacuumed regularly to remove the solid waste and restore the porosity.

[Darkangel]

UGF filters were for a long time the standard and like all things that are older it will be the people who grew up with them that defend them and those new who will shoot them down. Do not get me wrong I see nothing wrong with it just that it is the same in any situation like this. It is like the difference in trusting the internet, the older the person the less the trust. Having said all of that there is nothing out there that can do what an UGF was designed to do any better or simpler. It is a model of simplicity and efficiency. They are awesome biological filters, and with proper maintanence are pretty much trouble free. They re-start after power outages, will not die quickly with no flow rate, break down waste quickly and effieciently and they never need a lot of work. To maintain one all you need to do is vacuum the gravel from the top down and underneath. To get underneath you use a small diameter hose and run it down the uplift, you will get much of what is under there. I have run a tank for 10 years with a UGF and never had any problems. They do have limitations though as mentioned with plants and cichlids. Now having defended them so vigorously I will admit that my personal filter choice is the humble sponge filter. As the saying goes though for your situation, If it ain't broke don't fix it.

[Richer]

I'm fairly new to this hobby and I didn't shoot them down :D

I am convinced they are good filters if kept properly... I kept a black arowana in a very large tank (200 gallons I think) for years with only an UGF and a couple of AC500s. After quitting the hobby for a few years after the arowana jumped out and died, I have to admit I was rather confused at why so many ppl didn't like UGFs... and how many ppl complained about how gunk would collect under the plates so easily. I recall very little gunk under the plates when I tore that tank down. After reading a bit, I realized that most ppl never maintained their UGFs properly and thus the UGF earned their bad name.
Once again, maintained properly, UGFs are great filters. However, I would never use them as my sole filters... coupling them with canisters, HOB filters, sponge filters, etc. is suggested (as with most tank setups UGF or not).

HTH
-Richer

[pinballqueen]

I wasn't necessarily shooting them down, either. I was just stating that they aren't the best filter available. They don't offer nearly as many options as a canister or H.O.B. filter, but they do work when maintained properly. They will do what they are designed to do if you put forth the effort involved in keeping them spotlessly clean. All I was saying is that while they used to be the best option out there, they aren't anymore and additional filtration is worth the investment.

Now, on a 3 gallon betta tank or something, they would suffice on their own, just not on a bigger tank...

[Tiger15]

I am not shooting UGF down becasue of my unfamiliarity with it. I grew up with UGF and used it as my first and excluisive filtration for many years in my childhood. It was initially designed to run on air lift. Contempory outside filtration at that time was a lot more expensive and didn't work that well. My first outside filter was a Superking HOB that run on 45 watt electiricty and sounded like flushing the toilet. Worst of all, the siphon tubes needed to be restarted from time to time. The early magnetic drive HOB were highly unreliable because the magnetic couple slip easily and could overflow and wet the floor.

Modern outside filters are far different. In comparison with modern outside filters, UGF isn't the cheapest or easiest to maintain. I can replace the media in an HOB in minutes without even unplugging the unit. Cleaning an UGF isn't easy. One needs to vacuum 2 inch of substrate above the UGF plate and beneath it, which is much more time consuming than vacuuming a 1/2 inch substrate in a bare bottom. In term of maintenance, I would place HOB, sponge filter, wet-and-dry, canister and UGF in the order of increasing complexity. In term of performance, there is no difference and all will perform well provided one cleans them regularly.

[Darkangel]

Perhaps shoot down was too strong a word. I also was not reffering to any one in particular just a general observation on things new and old. This is not the only site I read and I see the same on those other sites as well. No offense was meant so I hope non was taken.

[RTR]

I absolutely love it when newcomers to the hobby **** UG/RFUG as being "old" and "outdated". Anyone who has been around for a while or has studied the history of the hobby should be well aware that UGs, canisters, and hang-on filters are all about the same age. The early W/Ds are close to the same age. The only relatively new filtration format is fluidized bed filters.

For my thoughts on the subject (including cichlid-proofing):

http://www.aaquaria.com/aquasource/rtrrfug.shtml

[slipknottin]

that was pretty rude IMO.

anyways... UGFs have been around longer. became pretty popular in the early to mid 50s. Wet/dry filters didnt start becoming popular till the 80s.

canisters and HOB powerfilters became popular late 60s early 70s. eheim invented the canister filter in 1962.

You might want to go yell at Bob Fenner at www.wetwebmedia.com because he called UGFs "obsolete" in an article in TFH.

[Tiger15]

Even though canister and HOB have been around for a long time, they were very different and were never popular until their reliability, design and price improved in the 80's. At that historical point of time, UGF was more popular, reliable and affordable. Reading my old TFH magazine, the old Dynaflow HOB had that huge motor underneath the box. The design of the magnetic drive was not perfected until the mid 80's and now every HOB and power head use the same basic motor/pump design. It's an engineering marvel that a 9 watt motor can push 300 gph with no noise, heat or maintenance around the clock for a decade and beyond. It outperfoms even the heart of many small animal.

[Serrateeth_2002]

One if the worst filters i ever used,i'll need alot of gravel,i can't put plants,not suitable for digging fishes,not for kuhlies and crayfishes.

[Fisher Price]

UGF's and Disco are two things from the seventies I do not miss. Why would you want all that crap decaying in your gravel? Other than providing nutrients and aeriation for plant roots I see no other benefits.

[Richer]

You'll only have decaying crude in your UGF if your tank is overstocked/your overfeeding/your not maintaining the UGF well enough/or a combination of these things.
There's a store in this city that have 2-3 asian arowanas that range from 15000 dollars to 25000dollars. They are all housed in tanks with UGFs, and an internal filter. They seem pretty darn healthy to me.

-Richer

[Skippy]

I have kept both on tanks and seen both do well.

My longest running tank for yearas had a UGF and a hob emp400 on a 50 gallon acrylic.

And on top of that it was planted. My amazon swords in it thrived in that environment. Someone in one of the first responses on this thread mentioned the high nitrate levels they saw with a UGF. This is not a horrible thing in my opinion, just an opportunity to have plants thriving by consuming that. I would be willing to bet that person didn't have a single living plant in that tank. Then again, I al also one of those radicals who support the use of plants to control nitrate levels.

Eventually I removed it only because I started keeping specific types of fish that wouldnt work well with them. (Khulis for instance, and amanno algae eating shrimp).

I don't see anything inherently wrong or bad with them, like anything else in this hobby. they require certain and specific maintenance.

[Vision]

I have been using UGF for the last 10 years and I don't think much of them. Truth is I recently switched to a canister (Eheim Classic 2213) and I think it was the best thing I ever did. UGF need constant maintenance and the powerhead sometimes get clogged by the debrids that go underneath the plates. Not to mention the fact that when you take out the powerhead the gravel might accidently go under the plates and then you have to take out all the gravel lift the plates and put the gravel back in place. This is too much hasle for me the canister is much more convenient. There is also the matter of the debris accumulating under the filter plates you have to clean it from time to time and it is more work. There are also some people that claim that plants don't apreciate the flow of water through their roots so for all these reasons I would avoid an UGF. I think I will never use one again. But other people might think otherwise this is just my opinion.
Vision

[Kit Walker]

In the time I've kept aquariums (just over 10 years) I used UGF for several of them. They work fine if you follow the precautions such as vac the gravel regularly, use pots so plants down clog the pores, keep sensible stocking levels etc. I always used them with a HOB. I have since discarded them as of changing over to Eheims and Aquaclears. When I did have the UG I did have exceptional water quality.

I guess it is like comparing a carburettor to Electronic Fuel injection. The carby has no technology but still works in many applications, but EFI gives you a world of possibilities. To a person on a budget the UG can be a great tool, especially if they come free with a tank package. But I have noticed that some internal power filters are about the same price as UG's. I am not trying to talk anyone out of UG's, they worked for me, but if you can afford the Eheims then you'll never look back.

[Tiger15]

The UGF was originally designed to run by air pump which IMO works better than Power Heads. The air pump provides a slow flow just enough to settle the solid waste on the gravel surface whereby the bacteria digest and powerderize it. By the time the gunk got pulled underneath the plate, there is no more nitrate value left. So the air lift UGF will not act as a nitrate reservoir and regular water change can keep nitrate down. There is evidence that some denitrification is occuring as bubbles do come up when the gravel is disturbed and that the gunk underneath the plate is tainted black suggesting iron sulfide formation. On the other hand, power head driven UGF is so powerful that solid waste is pulled underneath the plate before bacteria have a chance to fully digest it. So doing large water change may not reduce the nitrate because there is a large nitrate reservoir underneath the plate. It's equivalent to sweeping dirt underneath the bed and gives one a false security that out of sight is out of problem.

[RTR]

As I have the rep of being an Eheim fanatic, I think I'm pretty up on what canisters do and don't do, but this does not mean I have done away with all my RFUGs, or ever have any intention of doing so. The most recently reset tank of mine uses RFUG, and is in process of being planted now. But I do not suggest that for novices. But then I'm anti-HOB for planted tanks, so I do have my preferences as do others.

I'll agree with Tiger15 that most folk severely overpower conventional-flow UG.

BTW, all the downsides mentioned for UG in this thread do not occur with prefiltered reverse flow undergravel filtration. Provided of course that the tank-keeper rinses the prefilters frequently and regularly.

[Hatter]

Look at my name and you'll get my feelings on them...


Like it has been said over and over in this thread...do your maintenance and you won't have problems...that holds true for many things in life.

[Tiger15]

PTR, thanks for agreeing on something. But I dissagree with prefiltering a filter. Placing an UGF or canister in series with a prefilter is redundant. The prefilter is a sponge filter that can be used as an effective stand alone filter for mechanical and biological filtration. When the waste is filtered through the sponge, it has already been fully or nearly fully digested. So the cansiter or UGF in series is a redundant piece of equipment that can be done without.

I am in favor of simple filtration and sponge filter IMO is an excellet filter and it is no wonder a favorite among discus keepers. If not because I hate the sight of a big chunk of sponge, I would use it in my show tanks.

[125gJoe]

Originally posted by RTR
I absolutely love it when newcomers to the hobby **** UG/RFUG as being "old" and "outdated".
Reverse UGF may be acceptable -- my opinion on UGF's is that they are OUTDATED and OLD when it comes to filtration. I mentioned in the past about why anyone would want to 'store crud' at the bottom of their tank? It doesn't make any sense to me, nor should it make sense to those thinking about water quality of their aquarium. When I was "newer" to the hobby, I did have a UGF in my 20 gallon. I also had a HOB since I knew the UGF wouldn't work solo at keeping the tank clean.
Perhaps these days UGF's have 'portholes' where you can get your Python in and get rid of the crud. I haven't seen the need to check into that...

Then again - UGF's are better than none at all... :)

[RTR]

UGs do not "store crud" if they are properly maintained, any more than HOBs store crud on the back of the tank, same difference. Or than canisters store crud underneath the tank. Maintenance is the key to any filter, select the one that suits what you are willing or capable of doing.

Tiger15 - prefiltering a filter is common and practical - Eheim even sells them. An RFUG pump is not a filter - a pump is a pump. The filter is the UG, and if you want it for bio, it is prudent to prefilter it. Ditto the bio-only canisters I run - not to prefiler them would defeat their purpose and lessen their function. If you choose not to do so, fine, your choice. But don't try to preach that a standard laboratory proceedure is suddenly undesirable when applied to a fishtank. And if I don't count on those prefilters for bio, I can rinse them well under the tap without any concern for bacterial damage. To me this is faster, easier, and cleaner

[1 fish 2 fish]

I have a UG in all my tanks powered by a pump with digging cichlids, and have never had a problem. I just vacumm the gravel whenever I do a water change.

Anything that has been aroung so long, and is still used today is OK in my book.

[Serrateeth_2002]

The problem with them is regular maintenance,as all the other post as stated that UGFs need regular maintenance,for people who are busy or just plain lazy to do maintenance but would like to see the fishes,this isn't the right filter.Other filters are not as regular in terms of maintenance as UGFs.

[Darkangel]

I almost agree with you Serrateeth_2002, except for one thing. The main beef most people seem to have is with the crud. This accumulates in HOB, canisters, or any other type filter without regular removal. UGF's have there place as do other filter types. Are they the most effiecent? Probably not but they do do what they were designed to do with no problems.

[ewok]

never had it, probably never will.........

would consider trying rfug tho, it sounded pretty interesting as a concept.

for some reason i'm thinking it would alot harder to short circuit the sytem (rfug), and would probably matter less if cichlids or something did.

[125gJoe]

The pain with UGF's (which should be obvious..) is that maintaining them requires a 'total tank take down'. This means everything goes out of the tank. The time between 'turning your tank upside-down' for cleanings varies with ones' fish load.

Woo - Hoo ! :D

[RTR]

Joe - I have operated UG and RFUG up to 10 years without a "total tank take down", so from my viewpoint, it is still no more than a maintenance issue. If someone has to break the tank down due to build-up, they did not do the manitenance that should have been done. It is not inherent to the filter that they must be broken down periodically.

[125gJoe]

Originally posted by RTR
It is not inherent to the filter that they must be broken down periodically.
Maybe with less suction downward on the gravel, and frequent vacuums, there would be less crud build up at the very bottom of the tank (?).
This is just me - but, I'd never have a UGF again.
Also, live plants and their roots would get into the grating of the filter...

[Ledslnger]

I would say that they work well with plants, because they are holding the fertilizer where the plants can access it. I personally don't care for them too much. They can work well if you have the time to properly maintain them. Other things to remember...fry can get into them and you would never know it till you tear up the plates. I have heard of people finding 1/2" fish under their UGF plates. Sometimes quite a few of them. I do mostly cichlids and they do not go well with UGF anyway. Also, I do mostly all sand now...another no no with UGF. If you want a cheap filter that works well with air....go Sponges. They are actually cheaper and you can easily oversize...I normally put 110G rated sponges in my 55G tanks and 65G sponges in my 29G tanks.

[Tiger15]

80gJoe, I looked at your web tank picture, your discus set up is gorgeous. I had discus before but failed terribly because I couldn't follow the strict maintenance discipline.

When I had UGF before, I didn't know I had to maintain it. I just broke it down and washed everything in the bathtub every 3 to 4 months. But maintaining a UGF the right way is still harder than cleaning an outside filter. Vacuuming a 2 inch thick substrate on top of the plate and the gunk beneath it takes a lot more time than cleaning an outside filter.


Originally posted by RTR
UGs And if I don't count on those prefilters for bio, I can rinse them well under the tap without any concern for bacterial damage.

It's not up to you to discount the prefilter for bio. A foam filter will always double as a biological filter even if you clean it frequently because bacteria will quickly recolonize it wherever the condition is right. A foam filter is a very effective mechanical and biological filter by itself.

[125gJoe]

Originally posted by Tiger15
80gJoe, I looked at your web tank picture, your discus set up is gorgeous.
Thanks! I appreciate that! :)

[RTR]

Tiger - wanna bet? My used mech and canister prefilters are pulled, tossed in a separate bucket and replaced with clean dry ones. the dirties are well rinsed in tap water and sit on the side of the fishroom sink until next use. They have no bio component. Pure mechanical. It is much easier and faster to go around collecting and replacing than to make separate trips to the sink for each filter or tank. It is exactly up to me to know what is going on in my tanks, BTW.

[Archer]

Originally posted by Tiger15
But maintaining a UGF the right way is still harder than cleaning an outside filter. Vacuuming a 2 inch thick substrate on top of the plate and the gunk beneath it takes a lot more time than cleaning an outside filter.


I agree that UGF maintenance is harder than other filter maintenance. In today's Generation Xers, convenience and anything "fast" is in, as in fast food, microwaves, cell-phones, broadband, etc. Most of the previous generations will still find UGF workable...just like some people still prefer DOS over Windows... :)

One disadvantage I find with UGF is that when I vacuum the gravel, it is hard for me to do a thorough job of vacuuming when I have a lot of rocks, driftwood, and plants in the tank. I'm not a fan of constantly re-arranging my tank setup just to maintain my UGF.

JM2C. YMMV.

[Tiger15]

Originally posted by RTR
Tiger - wanna bet? My used mech and canister prefilters are pulled, tossed in a separate bucket and replaced with clean dry ones. the dirties are well rinsed in tap water and sit on the side of the fishroom sink until next use. They have no bio component. Pure mechanical. It is much easier and faster to go around collecting and replacing than to make separate trips to the sink for each filter or tank. It is exactly up to me to know what is going on in my tanks, BTW.

PTR, I hate to get into argument but you just don't get it. Do you really believe you can command the bacteria to grow wherever you want them to be? Do you really think you can direct the foam to provide purely mechanical and all bio go to the canister or UGF?

There are between one million to one billion of bacteria per cu inch of aged tank water and a lot more per square inch of any wet surface. So there is a lot of biological activities everywhere in your system and not solely confined in the filter you direct it to do bio. I can bet with a $million that within one hour of your foam replacement, whether it is brand new or thoroughly washed, you can see through a microscope that the foam surface is colonized with million of bacteria.

[JacksontoKobe]

This thread has had more replies than expected. I will stay with the UGF im my 92 being that gravel is vaccumed weekly and I have a Cannisster and power filter. Thanks for all the replies!!!

[RTR]

Tiger - if nitrification bacteria colonized that quickly and easily, folks could just add water from an existing tank to a new tank with a clean sponge (or for that matter a clean UG) and complete the cycle within a week or less - by your supposition. It does not happen that way in reality. Test it for yourself. I already have.

[Ledslnger]

There is beneficial bacteria in water. But, a colonized sponge has a HIGHER concentration. I had an established tank that didn't have the greatest filtration. It was borderline. I pulled out an established sponge from the tank and put in a new out of the box sponge. It didn't have that high concentration of beneficial bacteria on it. Ended up having an ammonia spike and killing off a few fish.

[Tiger15]

PTR, Actually it happened to me many times by my ignorance. In my young first 10 year of my hobby, I had a 10 gal tank with an air lift UGF as the sole filtration. I didn't know about biological filtration or that UGF need to be maintained. I broke up the UGF every 3 to 6 months when the bottom of the plate got gunk up. The fish were net into a bucket with old water. The gravel, ornament and tank were washed in the bathtub until the water came out clean. I did know about chlorine and temperature adjustment and so I stored new water overnight. Then I reset the tank and refilled it with new and old water and fish. I don't recall losing any fish after many of such drastic changes except for fish jumped out of the bucket. I guess the biological system must be able to recover quickly with some old tank water as seeding. Now I understand more about aquarium science and I will not recommend risking such drastic cleaning

Currently, I do large 75 percent water change in my heavily loaded tanks every two weeks along with wall to wall substrate vaccuuming, and sometimes cleaning of all filters at the same time. In fact, I prefer major cleaning of my filters immediately before water change so I can vacuum out the gunk that got flushed out of the filters. I have never had problem with this drastic measure but rather prevent prolems from happening. So I am very confident that in a cycled FW system, bacteria can adjust quickly. Please do not do it to SW though or else you are asking for disaster because in SW, nitrification is known to proceed very slowly.

[gutterguppy]

Actually, not to get in the middle of an argument, transfering water only has always worked for me to cycle tanks. Each of my 11 tanks, since my first, has been started by transfering a portion of water from my first tank. Each tank has been cycled within a week, with no fish loss.

As for undergravel filters, my father has been using them for longer than I've been alive, and will swear by them. His tanks are consistently healthy, and he has the largest, most beautiful angels I've ever seen.

Personally, I don't like them. I'd rather stick to canisters and sponge filters. But they do have their value, as do a lot of things that people disagree with, like carbon. But thats a whole other discussion.

[johnnyxxl]

I use an undergravel filter but thats mostly for added depth and hiding places for burrowing fish like kulhis and other small swimmers. I just think that adding that to the tank helps it along.

[RTR]

Since this antique thread has been resurected, I'll fill in an update on my planted OE-RFUG tank mentioned earlier in the thread- at well over a year of operation now, it is doing beautifully. Other than having to add nitrates periodicaly to support the plants, it is one of my easiest to maintain tanks, and has already provided enough extra plants to set several other tanks. All the plants used are deep-rooted types, no stem plants or floaters.

That first trial has gone so well I am setting a couple more larger tanks in the same manner but with a broader selection of rooted rosette plants - prefiltered OE-RFUG and supplemental mechanical-only in the water column. I think I am likely to continue prefering more convetional substrates as I tend to rich substrates and lean water column, but it is certainly a low-work alternative.

[Hans]

i think they are swell because if you have a disease to treat, shut off the fluval and just run the UGF

i think the best filtration would be about 20 pengin minis on a 150 gallon tank

[RioXingu]

I will chip in with my opinion.
Undergravel filters work, and that is their problem.
I will never set up another tank using a UGF, or RUGF, for that matter.
My reasons are as follows:
1) I don't like a part of my aquarium inaccessable; namely, beneath the filter plate. The "gunk" that accumulates there is always problematical. And, if you should be so unfortunate as to find fish fry beneath the plate, you must watch them slowly die because of their misfortune.
2) The lift tubes, air stones and/or powerheads detract from the aesthetics of the aquarium.
3) Increased frequency of gravel bed vacuumings because that's where the nasties are.
4) Inability to keep plants or certain fish.
5) UGs are just "old school"--passe.

Bill

[RTR]

While I would never dictate to RioXingu or anyone else how to run their own tanks - we all have carte blanch to operate as we deem best or desirable for a given set-up. But I cannot resist responding to RX's points:

1. Plenums are inaccessible, as are DSBs, coil denitrators, UV sterilizers, etc. Not everything in all tanks is or for me needs to be immediately accessible.

2. Lift tubes, just like siphon tubes, heaters, etc. are or can be unsightly. concealing such without compromising operational efficiency is just aquascaping, a learnable skill. The powerhead, prefilter, and "lift" (even though downflow) tube are all invisible in the tank mentioned in my last post.

3. Prefiltered RFUG has no gravel-bed "nasties".

4. I have known folks (including Tom Barr/plantbrain) who have successfully kept planted aquaria over UG/RFUG, and to date I am having no issues at all, not have I with veggie filters set over RFUG. Nor have I ever kept any fish which was incompatible with OE-RFUG. I would to hear just why plants and any fish should be incompatible.

5. UG, Canisters, HOBs, and actually W/Ds are all about the same age. Each has its pluses and minuses, so you select what suits your needs for a paricular situation. I use more canisters than anything else, but I also use W/Ds and RFUG and FBF. The only format I don't use is HOB, I think that I can always top their function with alternate techniques and with far less noise - but that is personal choice, I do not consider them outdated, I just prefer other techniques..

[125gJoe]

Originally posted by RioXingu
....I will never set up another tank using a UGF, ....
My reasons are as follows:
1) I don't like a part of my aquarium inaccessable; namely, beneath the filter plate. The "gunk" that accumulates there is always problematical. And, if you should be so unfortunate as to find fish fry beneath the plate, you must watch them slowly die because of their misfortune.
2) The lift tubes, air stones and/or powerheads detract from the aesthetics of the aquarium.
3) Increased frequency of gravel bed vacuumings because that's where the nasties are.
4) Inability to keep plants or certain fish.
5) UGs are just "old school"--passe.
Bill
Some good points Bill. I will continue help people when I can and steer people away from Undergravel "Filters"..

[RioXingu]

Beautiful tank 125gJoe--

Until about 5 years ago, I used UGFs on almost all my tanks.
I ran them with air pumps, or power-heads. On one tank in particular, a 55 gallon, I only covered about 2/3 of the floor of the tank with the UG filter, and used about 4-5 inches of gravel over the plate. Plants grew equally well on the UG side and the "naked" side. Maybe my plants just weren't very picky.
I did have the occasion to find fish fry beneath the filter plate on one occasion. I did effect a rescue, but it was an effort.
Digging cichlids and regular UGFs don't mix.
In my previous post I mentioned thar UGFs worked, so I don't disparage their efficacy.
I have gone over to the canister and/or HOB side now, my life seems to be simpler for it.

Digging into my memory, in the early 70s I used a gadget called a "Eureka Gravel Filter". It had the lift tubes of a UGF, but dispensed with the solid plate in favor of tinker-toy like piping in the gravel.
I must say it worked, because it was the only filter I had on this tank and it was very successful.

Bill in WI

[Hans]

wasnt the whoel thing about a UGF to be a place for biological filtration to be so that when you change out your whisper cartridge you dont get a spike. now that we have the bio wheel, there is no need for the UGf?

the wheels spin and spin and like the trains of time they go up in smoke like the camera that took its last picture i think we should nussle the bad cat into the hamper and flush the drain down the tubing river of pie.....

[stephenray75]

FYI in SW the deepsand bed helps elimate some nitritites but most of us use macro algae to comsume the nitrites and phosphates.

[Richer]

stephenray75 - I believe its nitrates, not nitrites ;)

My views on UGFs and RUGFs is still basically the same. I believe UGFs and RUGFs are both useful as a filter if maintained properly. My 200 gallon arowana tank ran on a UGF for biological filtration with an AC500 for mechanical filtration. For the 5 years that I kept that arowana (till it jumped out) I never had a problem with ammonia, nitrite or nitrate buildups. After I broke down the tank, there wasn't much gunk under the plates neither.
However, I also believe their usefulness is dictated by the situation of your tank. A tank with digging cichlids will more than likely not do too well with a UGFs/RUGFs. Plants is an iffy issue, I've seen people with successful plant tanks with UGFs/RUGFs, and I've seen tanks that did not fair well. Though the tanks that didn't do well probably weren't planned very well neither. Its all about personal preferences... and like many things in this hobby, it all "depends".

-Richer

[LongTime]

Originally posted by Richer
[ I believe UGFs and RUGFs are both useful as a filter if maintained properly...However, I also believe their usefulness is dictated by the situation of your tank. A tank with digging cichlids will more than likely not do too well with a UGFs/RUGFs. Plants is an iffy issue, I've seen people with successful plant tanks with UGFs/RUGFs, and I've seen tanks that did not fair well. Its all about personal preferences... and like many things in this hobby, it all "depends".

-Richer [/B]

That is the way this hobby is and will always be. No matter what type of filter you use, you have to do what you have to do. If you overstock, overfeed and do not do the necessary maintenance, you will have problems regardless of the type of filter you use.
UG may not be as forgiving as other filters, but they do the job. I kept a 55 community tank (tiger barbs, black tetras, etc) for 5 years with only a UG and did not have any problems.