Canister filter + under gravel?

[SeaTurtle]

So, is there any reason why I shouldn't plumb an under-gravel filter into my Rena XP3? I have a well established 58 gallon tank.

My thought is this - I've torn down enough tanks to see the muck that accumulates in the gravel over time. Even with regular siphoning of the gravel, this matter still accumulates in the gravel. It seems to me that I could plumb a tee off of the XP3 input and with a couple valves I could control where the water is being pulled from. I could easily rig up an under-gravel input to the filter. Then, I could periodically crack the valve to filter all that mess out form the bottom of the tank.

Is this a dumb idea, or does it have some merit? I understand that siphoning the gravel is still important to help reduce pockets of bad stuff in the gravel. I also understand the importance of water changes - and I intend to keep doing them. I'm just simply trying to cut down on the amount of organic matter in my tank...

Any thoughts?

 

[JoelB]

Regarding the muck, if you normally pull water down through the gravel then pull the tube and drain some, it would probably come out looking clean.

I have a friend that normally uses multiple different filters in his tanks. It is a safe option and it helps ease maintenance a little.

If you want to connect it inline with your cannister then the detritus would begin to collect in the gravel instead of the canister. If you wanted to go the other way and run the output of the canister into the UGF as a reverse UGF then the gravel would likely remain clean and would just act like extra bio material.

 

[jm1212]

if you are gravel vacing enough you shouldnt see huge amounts of waste on the bottom of your tank. also, make sure you are not overstocking and overfeeding, as both of those factors will contribute to buildup of junk on the bottom of the tank.

 

[Rbishop]

Plumb the canister discharge to the UGF and make it RUGF..better in the long run..

 

[SeaTurtle]

Reverse under gravel filtration? Interesting idea.

Are there any drawbacks or risks to doing this? It seems that this may actually be easier on the pump in the long run.

 

[RDTigger]

Plumb the canister discharge to the UGF and make it RUGF..better in the long run..

THIS...:headbang2:

You never want to pull from an area that could potentially clog and damage the impeller on a canister... but you may need to stick to one outlet for ever 100gpH on the spray nozzle for returns..

 

[SeaTurtle]

but you may need to stick to one outlet for ever 100gpH on the spray nozzle for returns..

I like your avatar...

So, the XP3 puts out 350 gph. I currently have 1 output. I believe you're cautioning me to not just solely rely on the UGF for my output. Is that correct?

I imagine there would be some noticeable back pressure on the pump depending upon how think my substrate base is on top of the UGF.

In this setup, my plan would be to run a "tee" before the current discharge nozzle with a ball-valve on each output of the "tee". I could then shut off the UGF output all together (and essentially have my current setup), or I could open the UGF discharge and then meter the flow out of the existing discharge nozzle with the second ball valve - either off, on, or partial discharge.

 

[toddnbecka]

I have UGF's in several tanks, running both standard and reverse-flow. One 55 has 2 aquaclear 110 hob's running the plates, and nothing accumulates under them. IME 70's are also quite effective, I did have one on my 38 set up the same way until I switched to sand. The reverse-flow setups use aquaclear 70 powerheads with quickfilter cartridges for prefilters. I placed a layer of bonded filter media between the plates and the relatively thin gravel bed (just thick enough to cover the bottom rather than several inches.) I also use the filter media in the quickfilters, the regular material that comes with them clogs too quickly. That would work just as well if the filters were running regular flow, just didn't occur to me until after I had the one 55 up and running.