Under Gravel Filters

[Fishguy2727]

If they are in buckets the water will cool, requiring an acclimation.

I never said anyone had to do things the way I do them. I share my experience and preferences just like everyone else.

Maybe there is a better food than NLS, I sure hope so. But until one proves it is even as good I will stick with NLS. I don't know why your LFSs don't carry it, you should ask them. IME the people who don't use it (and argue against it the hardest) do so because they have never even tried it. People get caught up on the idea that variety is needed and the claims of NLS seem to good to be true, so they think it is a bunch of made up false claims and stick with what they are doing. I was the same way until I actually tried it and saw what it can really do.

Of course I think my ways are right. No one sticks to ways they think are wrong. I will discuss them with anyone who wants to, but just because I don't change because others disagree doesn't mean I am wrong or unwilling to change. It means that I strongly believe in my methods because they have worked better than anything else I have tried (and I have tried almost everything out there, uncluding UGFs, other diets, other substrates, etc.).

 

[Demonknight]

And a lot of the lfs around here use hob filters.

this makes me laugh every time I see it, esp as lfs's are usually used as a "how not to do it" example. The one we have here thats not a petco/petsmart uses a massive set of canisters in his back room, downside is he has to treat each row of tanks if any ONE tank gets hit with something..bonus is the time he has to take to clean filters is low.

I have a canister filter, just no tank big enough to use it on any longer, as well as two HOB's 1 undergravel and a HI (hang inside) and must say I like the ugf best, maybe its just because they are what I have used the longest, and lord knows I seem to do things "wrong" by this forums ways and ideas...but the fish I have seem happy and all my tanks now are nice and clean

 

[Wy Renegade]

Of course I think my ways are right. No one sticks to ways they think are wrong. I will discuss them with anyone who wants to, but just because I don't change because others disagree doesn't mean I am wrong or unwilling to change. It means that I strongly believe in my methods because they have worked better than anything else I have tried (and I have tried almost everything out there, uncluding UGFs, other diets, other substrates, etc.).

Well said. However presenting things that you think are correct as factual, when in truth they are nothing more than your opinion appears to be the issue that many have with your posts. Obviously, based on this thread alone, some of your "factual" information is not all that factual. Perhaps presenting things as "your opinion" rather than factual would help in the future. Just a thought.

 

[Wy Renegade]

this makes me laugh every time I see it, esp as lfs's are usually used as a "how not to do it" example. The one we have here thats not a petco/petsmart uses a massive set of canisters in his back room, downside is he has to treat each row of tanks if any ONE tank gets hit with something..bonus is the time he has to take to clean filters is low.

I have a canister filter, just no tank big enough to use it on any longer, as well as two HOB's 1 undergravel and a HI (hang inside) and must say I like the ugf best, maybe its just because they are what I have used the longest, and lord knows I seem to do things "wrong" by this forums ways and ideas...but the fish I have seem happy and all my tanks now are nice and clean

Humorous isn't it? Not to worry, you are a long ways from being the only "old schooler" around.

 

[Fishguy2727]

If people have to specify every time they state an opinion effectively every sentence of every post would start with 'IMO'. Any time someone asks 'What is the best...?' it should be a given that whatever anyone replies with is an opinion. Facts should be obvious as well. 'Fluvals have a higher flow rate than...' is a fact. 'Fluvals are best because...' is an opinion.

It is factual that the higher the flow rate is in a river the larger the particles are that it can keep in suspension (not dropped as a substrate). This is not an opinion. Although there are many places that do not have sand as a substrate, this doesn't change the fact that to have gravel as a substrate instead of sand requires more flow (except for specific geological exceptions).

I am willing to learn though. Only I know how I intend something, everyone else has to interpret it. So if anyone sees any posts or statements that do hover in the in between please let me know.

 

[Zagz]

This thread has been closed due to too much off topic posts.