Sand is just as cheap as gravel. Yes, there are some cases where sand is not ideal, but these are exceptions and not the trend. Since the topic is completely related to substrate, substrate choice in general is also relevant.
Your UGF experiences
- Thread starter thebrandon
- Start date
The same work is needed to "undo" lazy maintenance: water changes and gravel vac's, so its no different from what you would have to do with a UGF.
just because you have found something to be "good" doesnt mean it is for everyone. if anything, no substrate is the idea substrate. easiest to clean.
substrate is 100% aesthetic. sand is no better than gravel. its all up to personal preferences.
I have properly vacuumed UGFs and in many cases you still get debris under the plate that cannot be removed without breaking down the tank.
Again, when life happens and you can't properly maintain the filters as needed, it is MUCH easier to undo that damage on any other filter than it is with an UGF.
I have sand and with adequate flow in the tank there is literally nothing to clean up so I don't have to vacuum when doing water changes. That is much easier than it being a must to vacuum every square inch of a gravel bed and hope that five years from now it is still clean.
Monthly cleaning with a HOB or canister with sand or a weekly vacuum with UGFs and gravel plus the monthly maintenance on the other filter.
Not to mention that in addition to an UGF you should still have another type of filter. So you can either buy a HOB or canister and an UGF and powerheads or spend less and just get a slightly larger HOB or canister.
Again, when life happens and you can't properly maintain the filters as needed, it is MUCH easier to undo that damage on any other filter than it is with an UGF.
I have sand and with adequate flow in the tank there is literally nothing to clean up so I don't have to vacuum when doing water changes. That is much easier than it being a must to vacuum every square inch of a gravel bed and hope that five years from now it is still clean.
Monthly cleaning with a HOB or canister with sand or a weekly vacuum with UGFs and gravel plus the monthly maintenance on the other filter.
Not to mention that in addition to an UGF you should still have another type of filter. So you can either buy a HOB or canister and an UGF and powerheads or spend less and just get a slightly larger HOB or canister.
What is the difference between running only a UGF an running only a HOB or canister? I.e. why does one require redundancy any more than the others?
again.. the OP didn't ASK about substrate choice. he asked about a filtration method REGARDING a method that utilizes GRAVEL, not the substrate of choice (nor your opinion on its superiority, backed up by references, or should i say, more opinion-based articles, written by you)
Sand is much more natural. Almost every habitat our fish come from has a slower current than would allow for a gravel substrate. It is also much cleaner since it does not require any vacuuming. With adequate flow debris doesn't collect on the surface. With inadequate flow the debris is visible on the surface, not hidden in the substrate. So you know you need to clean it.
It is much harder to remove extra debris from under an undermaintained UGF that it is to just clean out an undermaintained HOB or canister.
Have you used sand? How many tanks? For how long?
It is not ideal in every case, like I already said, but there are very few cases where it is not better than gravel. These exceptions are generally just big fish like cichlids that spit the sand into the filters or something like a large catfish that kicks up a lot of sand into the filters every time it moves. But there are many fish that should be on sand instead of gravel. These include: stingrays, cories, loaches, many cichlids, goldfish, and many others. There are even many cases where gravel is much worse than sand and can even pose a lethal threat to many types of animals (like goldfish, axolotls, and many other fish that can get gravel caught in their mouth or become impacted is they swallow any).
It is much harder to remove extra debris from under an undermaintained UGF that it is to just clean out an undermaintained HOB or canister.
Have you used sand? How many tanks? For how long?
It is not ideal in every case, like I already said, but there are very few cases where it is not better than gravel. These exceptions are generally just big fish like cichlids that spit the sand into the filters or something like a large catfish that kicks up a lot of sand into the filters every time it moves. But there are many fish that should be on sand instead of gravel. These include: stingrays, cories, loaches, many cichlids, goldfish, and many others. There are even many cases where gravel is much worse than sand and can even pose a lethal threat to many types of animals (like goldfish, axolotls, and many other fish that can get gravel caught in their mouth or become impacted is they swallow any).
http://www.aquaticcommunity.com/*************/journal.php?do=showjournal&j=110
There's nothing quite like using a 404 error as a reference.
There's nothing quite like using a 404 error as a reference.
you could do the same with a UGF. its called an RUGF.
you would still have to vacuum a gravel substrate, and turn over a sand substrate.
furthermore, unless your tank is totally unaquascaped, there are dead spots where junk accumulates. since you say that you are not going around looking for them, there are just piles of junk building up around them. this is exactly what you preach against with UGFs.
having two filters on a tank will always be better than only one. that way, if one breaks down there isnt any worry that the fish will die within hours. also, with a UGF there is no worry that the biological filter will die either.
Sploke:
The best form of mechanical filtration is pressurized so that it actually forces the substrate through. This is the case with canisters, but not with UGFs or most HOBs.
The main idea with UGFs is that the entire gravel bed serves as a filtration media. The problem is that this requires the entire gravel bed to be exactly the same thickness. Water will follow the path of least resistance so if a fish digs around in one spot and makes that area thinner, most of the water will go through this area and completely bypass the rest of the gravel bed. In addition to this when debris does collect in the gravel bed it covers any nitrifying bacteria under that debris and cuts off flow to the area.
If someone asks about UGFs this requires the use of gravel. I am simply letting them know that they may want to reconsider their choice of gravel.
My articles are written based on thirteen years of experience in the hobby, the experiences of all the fishkeepers I have ever communicated with, my knowledge as a Biologist, and general science. They are not based on unsupported opinion.
The best form of mechanical filtration is pressurized so that it actually forces the substrate through. This is the case with canisters, but not with UGFs or most HOBs.
The main idea with UGFs is that the entire gravel bed serves as a filtration media. The problem is that this requires the entire gravel bed to be exactly the same thickness. Water will follow the path of least resistance so if a fish digs around in one spot and makes that area thinner, most of the water will go through this area and completely bypass the rest of the gravel bed. In addition to this when debris does collect in the gravel bed it covers any nitrifying bacteria under that debris and cuts off flow to the area.
If someone asks about UGFs this requires the use of gravel. I am simply letting them know that they may want to reconsider their choice of gravel.
My articles are written based on thirteen years of experience in the hobby, the experiences of all the fishkeepers I have ever communicated with, my knowledge as a Biologist, and general science. They are not based on unsupported opinion.
