Under Gravel Filters

[tarpon]

Nvm about the cleaning. I read a little better and saw the siphoning out part

 

[Fishguy2727]

One lake, ever has so much rock that the rock covers the sand.

It is basic geology, we covered it in my Geology 101 class. As a river slows down it drops smaller and smaller particles. Most of the fish in the hobby are from waters past the gravel, in the sand or finer sections of river systems.

 

[tarpon]

You stated it like it was a law of nature or fact, when clearly its not.

 

[Chriznat20]

Can you even buy underground filters any longer?!?! lol.

I agree with most everybody here - Do a HOB power filter or a canister. Undergravels were notorious for harboring nitrates, and if an ICH outbreak occurred in the tank, you're a total goner.

Also, Ive had tanks since I was 9 (Now 31). I just switched to sand this month- its amazing and I cant believe I waited so long. Also, its $3.60/50lb bag at Home Depot - safe for aquariums!

 

[Wy Renegade]

Sand is cleaner because it requires no cleaning ever. That makes it cleaner than gravel which does require cleaning ever.

I'd be curious to see if anyone has done any long term studies on accumulation of wastes in sand in freshwater systems. Given the relatively low flow rate in most freshwater systems, I find it hard to believe that nothing gets into the sand ever. Even in saltwater systems with a much higher flow rate substances are known to accumulate within the sandbed, be it deep or shallow.

The gunk trapped in HOBs and canisters is still in the system. It is still exposed to the water column. As it rots away it still effects water quality. The only filter that actually removes the waste from the system is a protein skimmer because the skimmate is no longer in contact with the water column and therefore is actually removed from the system (but they don't work in freshwater, so not really relevant).

True enough, till it is removed by the cleaning of the filter.

Natural is not an opinion. It is basic geology. In order for gravel to be a substrate in nature the water has to be moving so fast that sand can't settle. Very few of the fish in the hobby are from waters that move this fast. Almost all the fish in the hobby are from waters that naturally have sand (or finer, like silt or even mud) as a substrate.

While I've certainly not researched enough of the fish in the hobby to know if that is a debatable subject, I do know that your statement on gravel is incorrect. Have you ever been to Lake Yellowstone my friend? Or Crater Lake, or any of the high mountain lakes across our continent? Their substrate is not sand, nor is it a result of flow. Further, very few natural systems are all one type of substrate or another (geology is never simple!). Take lake Malawi for example, one of the African Rift lakes, it has sandy beaches, marshy shores, and rocky areas. The mbuna are tied to the rocky areas, not the sandy beaches or marshy shore areas.

I have been using sand for 5-6 years now and you do not have to clean it. Sand keeps everything on top so that one of two things happen. If you have enough flow debris keeps moving until the filters trap it. If you don't have enough flow you end up with a couple spots where debris settles. Those spots are easily siphoned in a few seconds at the very beginning of a water change. So, yes, you may have to spend a few seconds siphoning if you don't have enough flow. Or you can stick with gravel and spend the entire water change vacuuming the gravel.

Yes, I have run UGFs and RUGFs with proper flow. They need to be vacuumed every single week. When neglected they do more harm and it is almost impossible to catch up again without major work in the tank.

With all the better options out there, and sand, it simply makes no sense to me to use UGFs anymore.

Have you ever used sand?

On this, we will have to agree to disagree; I have never done weekly vacuuming, nor does my water quality indicate any such need. I do do regular monthly vacuuming. Yes, I've used sand; for many more than 6 years, although in saltwater not fresh, and I've pulled enough deep sandbed tanks apart to know that sand does not remain clean. I have a hard time believing that your sandbed in your freshwater tank is truly clean. Water (and therefore other dissolved substances) make their way down through the sand by simple water movement, this is true unless your sandbed remains dry (which I doubt).

Personally I would tend to believe that this is even truer in a freshwater system were water flow is even slower than in a saltwater system were water flow is much higher. I also know that sand in saltwater systems can bind phosphates over time, how is this not true in freshwater?

Can you link any studies to show me that a freshwater sandbed remains clean, or is this just your opinion?

Understand, I do not disagree that sand is a much better option in a planted tank for the benefit of supporting the plants, as to the cleaner part, I have a much harder time with that.

 

[Fishguy2727]

I will let my Geology professor know that it has changed, per some guy online. Although you may find some exceptions (where we don't even get our fish from), the rule still applies. Gravel generally requires higher flow in nature. Almost all of the fish in the hobby are from waters that do NOT have gravel as a substrate.

Although some debris does get down in to the sand, it is an insignificant amount. It doesn't drive up the nitrate concentration by 30-40ppm or more the way debris built up in gravel can. It is not enough to worry about or do anything about.

You will never find any real studies of almost anything in this hobby. Usually the best we can get is something having to do with aquacultured food fish, not ornamental fish. If you are going to wait for studies proving everything you will never move out of the 80s...or UGFs...

 

[jetajockey]

Almost all of the fish in the hobby are from waters that do NOT have gravel as a substrate.

I have to disagree with this from personal experience. I would say many, or the majority are found in sand or silty substrates, but I wouldn't say almost all are.

I've collected fish in gravel beds on multiple occasions, and yes they have a constant flow and typically lack vegetation at the center, but there are many species there. I've collected multiple species of sunfish, bass, killifish/topminnow, several various darter and shiners and a few others. So it's pretty safe to assume that there are gravel bottom areas in other parts of the world, and that people collect hobby fish from them.

I could be wrong though, and perhaps I should reconsider my experience and collection logs per some guy online as well.

 

[Fishguy2727]

That is a list of very few fish. That doesn't counterbalance effectively/almost all in the hobby as a whole.

Generally, yes, if you collect from waters that have gravel, most of the fish you catch will come from waters with gravel as a substrate.

 

[jetajockey]

That is a list of very few fish. That doesn't counterbalance effectively/almost all in the hobby as a whole.

Generally, yes, if you collect from waters that have gravel, most of the fish you catch will come from waters with gravel as a substrate.

I didn't realize I had to make a comprehensive list of every fish that I know lives in an area with gravel substrate. I was just giving an example of the ones I have seen for myself, and my range is very limited, so I'm sure there are a lot more out there.

My point still stands though, the lack of cogent response shows that.

 

[mfdrookie516]

I didn't realize I had to make a comprehensive list of every fish that I know lives in an area with gravel substrate. I was just giving an example of the ones I have seen for myself, and my range is very limited, so I'm sure there are a lot more out there.

My point still stands though, the lack of cogent response shows that.

But you're just a guy on the internet

 

[Fishguy2727]

Again, if you only look where there is gravel, all the fish will come from places with gravel.

I keep forgetting every river is full of gravel, not sand, silt, mud, etc...I can't believe something of such basic knowledge is argued. It wasn't even an advanced class, 101. Super basic knowledge and common sense.

 

[mfdrookie516]

I think I'll switch to mud substrate... I hear that most of the fish I have come from muddy bottoms. Wish me luck.

 

[Fishguy2727]

Take it to the extreme and out of context...nice. Obviously that isn't what is meant. Sand is an actual option, mud (usually) isn't.

Good thing everyone argues against sand so much, it is so evil. Being cleaner, and more recent than the 80s. But...the whole point of forums is to hold the hobby back and argue against any advancement just for the sake of argument.

We should all go back to gravel, UGFs, corner box filters, airing water out instead of using dechlorinator, and only feed crap foods.

 

[jetajockey]

Again, if you only look where there is gravel, all the fish will come from places with gravel.

I keep forgetting every river is full of gravel, not sand, silt, mud, etc...I can't believe something of such basic knowledge is argued. It wasn't even an advanced class, 101. Super basic knowledge and common sense.

What gave you the idea that I only look in places with gravel? I was just making a simple point that I have collected several varied fish species in gravel areas, not that this is the only place I've collected fish, and it doesn't mean that these fish only live exclusively in gravel areas.

Since you obviously have nothing better to respond with than attempts to insult my intelligence, the conversation has lost all of its fruitfulness and I will leave you to it. Take care.

 

[mfdrookie516]

Stop posting opinions as factual information and I'll never bother you again. I agree with a lot of your opinions (please don't take that too far), but I do not agree with your method of presenting these OPINIONS as FACTS. I won't argue that sand is great, I love it. But, it's not the end all, be all of aquarium substrates. Just like NLS isn't God's gift to fish, and estes isn't the best thing since sliced bread.

 

[Fishguy2727]

It is not your intelligence, it is that you think that because you can think of SOME places that naturally have gravel that it disproves basic principles of geology. As stated, most fish in the hobby do not have gravel as a substrate in nature. They have sand (or finer). The fact that there are places with gravel is not argued against, but does not prove that most of the in the hobby do not have gravel naturally.

 

[Fishguy2727]

I didn't mention NLS or Estes, at least not recently in this thread. We bring those up just to argue them against me?

The FACTS that I did state were facts. Water has to be moving at a certain speed to have gravel as a substrate. Most aquarium fish come from water systems too slow to have gravel as a substrate. That is not an opinion, that is a fact.

 

[Zagz]

I used to have UGF's in my tanks, I prefer HOB's and cannister filters as a matter of choice. I have sand in all my tanks because they are heavily planted and a UGF makes sand impossible.

I love my sand but can tell you it does get dirty, the fish dig in it, they dig around the plants, cichlids pick it up and spit it out and the current carries mulm into the sand. Because of my fish and plants I need to clean the sand in my tanks more than probably most people do.

That is my opinion and that being said, this discussion is not about sand or gravel or what most fish have for substrate in the wild. This discussion was started by the op about filters, particularily whether UGF's are a good choice in other people's opinions. Keep the discussion about substrate out of this thread. Respect the op and stick to the topic please. It was disrespectful to have even had this particular off topic conversation started.

 

[Sisserydoo]

So...okay, wow! A lot has happened since I was on here yesterday! Let's calm down everyone

I really do appreciate everyone's opinions, and I will take all into consideration.

Fishguy, I'm not trying to get your back up by saying this, seriously I'm not, but your geology professor is just a guy too. He is just repeating what was told to him by some other guy! We're all just people with often flawed opinions. And textbooks! They do change! I've recently gone back to college (in fact I'm taking geology this semester ) and I can tell you that things that were stated as FACT 25 years ago have either been changed or omitted in some cases. And that will happen again with the books I'm learning from now!

I do appreciate everything you've added to the conversation, really. You seem very passionate about doing the right thing for your fish, and I appreciate that. I think that is the most important thing when dealing with animals that are depending on us for their very lives.

I just didn't want you to think professors are all knowing and special, because they're not!

I think the best thing to do is take other people's knowledge, add our own to that, and come up with our own opinions!

By the way, this might be off topic, but...NLS and Estes, what are they?

 

[Hobgob]

Undergravel filters are ok but can cause excess in nitrates if not gravel vac frequently. I would not use an undergravel filter to rearing tanks or grow out tanks. It could suck the fry into the filter and after all the hard work I wouldn't wanna see that happen. Hob filters are great. Provide three different types of filtration and sometimes even have sponge attachments for the intake tube to protect those little guys.

In my bedroom tank I have a undergravel powered by a maxi-jet 900 and a hob aquaclear. Personally I would go with a Hob or canister filter. They can be easier to maintain.

Although someone mention how much work goes into an undergrav filter compared to hob filters. But I personally don't really so to be of a difference unless you don't clean your inserts.