# UGF how you know if it is working?



## sunyang730 (Jan 30, 2012)

I want to setup a UGF with a canister filter. How will you know if it is taking the water in? LOL 



Thanks!


----------



## James M (Jun 21, 2012)

Stay away from under gravel filters.
I used them for maybe my first 5 years back in the mid 80's.
You can never vacuum up all the detritus underneath them, and that stuff isn't where
the plants can make good use of it anyway. Tear down enough tanks with UGF's, and you learn their shortcomings.

You're better off with a canister, supplemented the HOB power filter if need be. Although in a planted tank I'm not sure why you'd need anything else.


----------



## PlantedRich (Jul 21, 2010)

UGF are sneaky! There is no way to tell if some of the small holes are plugged short of tearing it all down and pulling them out to look. I found that first a few holes would plug and water would go to other holes to go through. Flow didn't cut down in any way I could see. But around those spots where there is no water flow, the good bacteria is replaced by bad bacteria which does not require O2. As more and more holes plug more good bacteria is replaced. At some point the whole filtering process becomes a sewer instead. 

If there is no reason to clean filter media, why do we all do it? Is an UGF not the same process but without a way to clean the media?


----------



## James M (Jun 21, 2012)

If you're going to run a UGF, honestly the best way is to make your own out of plastic egg crate/light diffuser and screen mesh. I would never do this now, but back in the day this is what I did for my freshwater and marine tanks. It works fantastically for a while, but the life span of any UGF before needing to be torn down is a very finite thing.


----------



## pejerrey (Dec 5, 2011)

Lol! Ha ha ha ha! Is working because is water coming out of the filter out flow!! Lol!

I have DIY UGF in both tanks, working good, stable ph. Akadama substrate.

I would never run a UGF with an air pump tho, that is just not very smart IMO.

Good luck!


----------



## James M (Jun 21, 2012)

pejerrey said:


> Lol! Ha ha ha ha! Is working because is water coming out of the filter out flow!! Lol!
> 
> I have DIY UGF in both tanks, working good, stable ph. Akadama substrate.
> 
> ...


Keep in mind that a UGF is a 'slow flow' filter - contact time with the media is important. You're not doing yourself any favors by putting a power head on the uplift tube with too much flow. Water flows through the substrate too quickly, and efficiency is compromised.


----------



## HypnoticAquatic (Feb 17, 2010)

ug filters having a short life lol, this is very untrue is all just how its set up and/or maintaned, here are a few contribuiting factors grain size of sub, surface area for water to enter into the intake, bioload, cleaning those are going to be the main factors that contriubute to the overall life of it. even airpumps can do a fine job as long as there not underpowered i just dont like all the splashing and noise.

and depending on the depth of the sub and plant type used will determine if there roots can or might be a issue later. as long as there is flow going on the outtake its sucking water in, if your buying a premade one get the ones that look like this / \ / \ / \ / \ and not just flat - - - - - -, if your making your own more holes the better just make sure there not big enough to suck up your substrate *depending on the grain size*. 

i still love my ug filter i had to hook it up to a canister as i was sucking up eco complete into the powerhead and messing the impeller up but with my 306 no issues as there is other media to catch the fine particles, saved a whole tank tear down which i didnt really want to go though on it.


----------



## James M (Jun 21, 2012)

Nobody said short, I said finite.
I've seen enough that I wouldn't use one these days. None of those things you mention mitigate the accumulation of detritus underneath.

You'll see that when you tear your tank down.


----------



## HypnoticAquatic (Feb 17, 2010)

James M said:


> Nobody said short, I said finite.
> I've seen enough that I wouldn't use one these days. None of those things you mention mitigate the accumulation of detritus underneath.
> 
> You'll see that when you tear your tank down.


 its a filter it needs cleaning just like any other filter type, if u leave a hob,canister untouched in time it will accumulate detruis the same as the others, this is why general cleaning is needed for ANY filter type period. 

now the way to clean a ug is either sucking out the mulm during a water change or stiring it and letting the cantister catch it to be removed in the pads. excessive mulm build up is only a issue with overstocked and unmaintaned tanks, the detruis with a non overstocked tank will be able to handel the waste and break it down faster than its accumulating then you only have the fine sediment to remove, still very easy. then by breaking everything down to its elemental form the plants will take up what is needed and with normal water changes the rest will be removed and replaced *shouldnt need to be listed that wc remove buildup imo*


----------



## James M (Jun 21, 2012)

IME experience you get mulm underneath the plate now matter what over time. So yes the gravel itself is easily cleaned, but over time it builds up under the plate.

Of course I used these with South American Cichlids, groupers, triggers, etc. All tanks with very heavy bio-loads. In a lightly stocked planted tank with light feeding, I'd imagine the area underneath the plate would remain detritus free for a longer period of time. 

In the end though your hydro clean isn't efficient at pulling matter off the bottom glass because of the gap to the filter plate. So much of what ends up there, will stay there.

I ended up being a big fan of the large tetra sponges attached to a medium flow power head. Efficient, and easily cleaned.


----------



## PlantedRich (Jul 21, 2010)

pejerrey said:


> Lol! Ha ha ha ha! Is working because is water coming out of the filter out flow!! Lol!
> 
> I have DIY UGF in both tanks, working good, stable ph. Akadama substrate.
> 
> ...


 
After a time, you may find that judging the flow does NOT tell you if the water is flowing through many of the holes at a slow speed or just a few holes at a faster speed. The same amount of water may be coming up the lift tubes but I find no way to tell how much of the filter is still working. 

It is a gradual stoppage. As a hole is stopped up ,the flow in that area under the plate is slowed also. This makes a spot where debris is more likely to settle due to the lack of current. As a hole is stopped, this debris collecting under the plate makes it more likely that the next hole is blocked. The situation continues until there is a steady loss of filtering. The flow up the lift tube may be the same. 

Consider the reasons people would want to use undergravel. They are cheap, quiet, and appear to not need much maintenance. Then the question becomes why are they not used more since they are a really old filter type. 

There are only two answers. 
1. Either the vast majority of fish keepers like to spend money, have noise and work harder

2. Undergravel don't work 

Your choice on which you believe!


----------



## HypnoticAquatic (Feb 17, 2010)

but u said they were meant for low flow which isnt really true, high flow will pull down everything to decay and this also helps stop any build up of fine sedemint i really try and get 10-20x the gph without a high current to keep the flow good so no dead spots which in turn keeps the surface of the sub nice and clean would be the same for the area under the ug with enough flow. 

planted rich please prove that ug filters dont work!! why do even shrimp keepers use them along with many many people? just because they have gone out of main stream does that mean they stoped working at that point? please keep the facts as on point as possible! show the world it doesnt work with facts, which i can counter easy with your first statement so a dirty filter is getting clogged? so if a canister filter was getting clogged with debris also does that mean it doesnt work? same with a hob filter ?


----------



## James M (Jun 21, 2012)

HypnoticAquatic said:


> but u said they were meant for low flow which isnt really true,


It's entirely true - you need to understand what the point of an under gravel filter is, the mechanism at work there, and what the difference is between a biological filter and a mechanical filter.




HypnoticAquatic said:


> 10-20x the gph without a high current to keep the flow good so no dead spots


Doesn't work that way.

You're just pulling water faster through the unclogged spots - a fluid takes the path of least resistance. Even the slightest increase in resistance means the water
will find the holes with less organic matter in the way. 
High flow will decrease the effectiveness of the bacteria/biological filtration due to reduced contact time with the media.


----------



## HypnoticAquatic (Feb 17, 2010)

the organic matter that has slowed the flow will still break down and reoped one of the more main things is the grain size as that effects more of the flow rate and clogging so the size will can negatively impact the flow and allow the build up to be compounded but with a larger size this issue isnt a issue , once you really think of how much water flows over that much surface area its still slow but with a high turn over due to the surface area think of it like a overflow to a sump in the tube going its a high current but once it hits the plate to distribute the water its slowed to a trickle due to the surface area alone.

i know what a ug filter is its both bio and mech, the biological isnt held mainly in the water its on the substrate and inside the canister so it doesnt just flow by in the water, this is the reason why u have to seed media not water when jumpstarting a new tank. when there is a build up the bio should be all over it as its a food source for them, think of it like sugar and yeast, if you put yeast into a cake and just sugar in two main spots the main spots will always produce more yeast to eat the food in that area. if there ever gets to be to much for the filter to do biologically then this is where the mechanical part comes into play you remove then debris just like u would from a canister that has its sponge caked up but u have to use a shypon or any other way to manually remove the debris when the bioload is to high for any filter type that is clogged.


----------



## PlantedRich (Jul 21, 2010)

Quote" planted rich please prove that ug filters dont work!! 

Why should anyone even try to prove things when they give an honest opinion even though it may conflict with what you think. 

I referr you back to the two points I numbered so --back to you to PROVE what you say is true. You might note also that I did not say they were slow flow. It is you who is trying to twist what I said. 

My statement was," After a time, you may find that judging the flow does NOT tell you if the water is flowing through many of the holes at a slow speed or just a few holes at a faster speed." 

But then I really don't care what you use. I only stated what I feel is true. Feel free to do the same.


----------



## willknowitall (Oct 3, 2010)

''High flow will decrease the effectiveness of the bacteria/biological filtration due to reduced contact time with the media.''

like say a canister filter , with its high flow
less contact time hmmm how long does a molecule take to pass by a bacteria
more flow is more nutrient and oxygen coming in to contact with biological filter
up to the point that they are flushed from house and home


----------



## HypnoticAquatic (Feb 17, 2010)

to prove a fact is to show why and how something does what it does if its a honest opinion then good but without facts we cant have progress, i never said u said that if u reread what was posted u might see that someone else said. 

if u need me to prove why its wrong ok... the filter media is cleaned only because it doesnt have enough stages to be broken down, think of it like a water company idk if you have ever been to one and watched the prosess there are several steps which gradually go to fine sand beds, but the steps require a big footprint and several stages which almost everyone doesnt want in there house so we do it on a much smaller scale, but in doing so we have to manually remove some of the larger debris that dont break down fast enough, same with a ug but if you use a larger sub to start its much much harder to build up and gunk up then going to a canister it like the later stages of the proccess to take the fine water polishing properties and return the highest quality that that specific filter can put out.

yes you wont know if there are holes that are going fast and clogged areas if you never work or clean it but with a maintained filter it should always be the same, if any filter was never cleaned it would also do the same when a sponge collects debris in one spot the water will flow to the least resistance until its removed via bio or mech its the reason why we use coarse to fine on every setup. so unless the bio load is under what it can do it will have to be removed one way or another doesnt matter the filter type or method its just the nature of the beast.

hope u can understand what im trying to say lol.


----------



## James M (Jun 21, 2012)

@willknowitall

That some biological filtration is happening at higher flow rates is not evidence that it doesn't happen more efficiently at lower flow rates.

"how long does a molecule take to pass by a bacteria"

That's not the question you should be asking, and doesn't even make sense really when you consider the mechanism at hand. Biological filters become more inefficient if flow rate is too high. There is a point of diminishing returns if flow rate is increased too much. 

The bacteria take time to do their thing.


----------



## HypnoticAquatic (Feb 17, 2010)

James M said:


> That some biological filtration is happening at higher flow rates is not evidence that it doesn't happen more efficiently at lower flow rates.
> 
> "how long does a molecule take to pass by a bacteria"
> 
> ...


 and at what flow is that? what cfm of water movement to give people a guide?

and are u saying it just takes time to them to get established and do there thing or are u saying they are unable to do anything at a high flow rate?


----------



## Aquaticfan (Oct 30, 2011)

James M said:


> It's entirely true - you need to understand what the point of an under gravel filter is, the mechanism at work there, and what the difference is between a biological filter and a mechanical filter.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



For those of you that thing UGF's are bad, then most of you havent seen enough of them used properly or a good one vs a poor one. And Opinion is just that. not fact. 

While using a UGF may not be in the best interest of a planted tank as the filter plate and roots can cause havok with each other. There are methods that UGF's are very good filters. Alot of the quality is in the way the plate is set up. But first and foremost lets remember the plate isnt a filter. Its just a means to support the substrate so you can create flow through it. The Substrate itself is the actual filter. And While it is mainly Bio filtration it does do some forms of mechanical. But lets look at the Bio filtration part. You say its low flow and while High flow wont work due to contact time? Then how do you explain a Canister filter being used as bio filtration with No real surface area for O2 to be taken in? After all its a sealed canister. How would you explain less useable surface area of media Vs what the substrate has for the Beneficial bacteria to live in? Look at how much media most if not all of us with canister filters use for Bio load in them. Look at the amount of surface area all the bits and pieces of your substrate has for the Bio to live on. Its much greater. BUT yet we push 500 to 700GPH through some of our canister filters and they work. With that given you could easily increase the amount of flow through the UGF and it will work. As in the case of running large power heads running 250 to 400 gph each and some UGF's having more then one power head on them.. They work just fine. As for the solution to getting the mulm out its pretty easy. Run a Tube down the indie of the down pipe into the underside of the filter plate suck it out... Or how about a Reverse flow? Then you get no mulm build up at all, But still get flow through the substrate and it doesnt let the holes in the plate get plugged that way either... 


To many people have tossed the UGF's aside and turned their noses up at them. BUT for the right set ups for the right uses they still can work absolutely great if set up right and properly taken care of. I can remember years ago (no keeping fish for 34 years of my life) They were the mainstay. Worked very well then and still do. I used to keep plenty of Africans and south Americans with them. The only down fall with keeping them with those fish is they dig so much. But they can still work just fine.


----------



## HypnoticAquatic (Feb 17, 2010)

an sorry to the op cause this went off course but hopefully can open some eyes up on how things work and why so they can make a better informed decicion for themselfs rather than take whats the new in thing.


----------



## James M (Jun 21, 2012)

HypnoticAquatic said:


> and at what flow is that? what cfm of water movement to give people a guide?


You don't need to turn your water volume over more than once an hour with an under gravel filter, this is because of the amount of biomedia that is in contact with the water at one time.

It's not all about flow rate. The amount of bio filter "real estate" is the most important factor, then flow rate. Faster isn't necessary better. For mechanical filtration yes, for biological filtration...again to a point, then it's diminishing returns.


----------



## James M (Jun 21, 2012)

Aquaticfan said:


> For those of you that thing UGF's are bad, then most of you havent seen enough of them used properly or a good one vs a poor one. And Opinion is just that. not fact.
> 
> While using a UGF may not be in the best interest of a planted tank as the filter plate and roots can cause havok with each other. There are methods that UGF's are very good filters. Alot of the quality is in the way the plate is set up. But first and foremost lets remember the plate isnt a filter. Its just a means to support the substrate so you can create flow through it. The Substrate itself is the actual filter. And While it is mainly Bio filtration it does do some forms of mechanical. But lets look at the Bio filtration part. You say its low flow and while High flow wont work due to contact time? Then how do you explain a Canister filter being used as bio filtration with No real surface area for O2 to be taken in? After all its a sealed canister. How would you explain less useable surface area of media Vs what the substrate has for the Beneficial bacteria to live in? Look at how much media most if not all of us with canister filters use for Bio load in them. Look at the amount of surface area all the bits and pieces of your substrate has for the Bio to live on. Its much greater. BUT yet we push 500 to 700GPH through some of our canister filters and they work. With that given you could easily increase the amount of flow through the UGF and it will work. As in the case of running large power heads running 250 to 400 gph each and some UGF's having more then one power head on them.. They work just fine. As for the solution to getting the mulm out its pretty easy. Run a Tube down the indie of the down pipe into the underside of the filter plate suck it out... Or how about a Reverse flow? Then you get no mulm build up at all, But still get flow through the substrate and it doesnt let the holes in the plate get plugged that way either...
> 
> ...


Yes they work well, especially early in their life. I didn't say high flow won't work, I said it's diminishing returns after a certain point. A UGF is a slow flow filter, that's how it's designed to work.
They're not useless, there's just things that work better is all, so not much point in dealing with the downfalls unless you really love UGF's for some reason including trying to remove mulm by vacuuming down the lift tubes, patching holes dug by fish that otherwise would render it useless (SA cichlids), and not able to deal with the waste those fish produce. Much better with heavy mechanical filtration with some bio, and huge water changes with those guys. I bred those guys for several decades. 

Reverse flow actually works better provided you put sponge filters on the intakes. I had fantastic success with under gravel filters in my marine fish tanks. I kept hardy fish during those early years though. What I didn't like was all the crud under the plate when I did finally tear a tank down.

Isn't gravel a horrible substrate for plants anyway?


----------



## In.a.Box (Dec 8, 2011)

never use them but a lot local store used them.
the fish store i go too have been using UGF for over 15+ yrs
so i dont see how it doesnt work.


----------



## Bananariot (Feb 28, 2012)

Mord's method works.....and if water is coming out of your spraybar......then it's working lol.....


----------



## HypnoticAquatic (Feb 17, 2010)

if you reread whats been said you will see that higher flow isnt bad and also removes the mulm from under the plate, etc etc so really only - is the fish can dig to the plate. thats really the only - i can see in the whole argument, the real estate is everywhere and is almost never maxed out unless your OVERSTOCKED what the filter could take doesnt matter what kind. if max real estate was key then why do canisters work with little space for the bio vs a ug?

your saying that the bacteria need a very very slow flow so at what cfm do they need? and why? why do higher flows like a canister and other ug's work fine with it? 

gravel isnt horrible for plants :/ there are types taht work better than others due to cec and grain size or one with ferts but thats another completely diff topic.


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Jun 15, 2008)

Hi All,

I have read this debate over, and over, and over ad nauseum on the various planted aquarium forums and I will say this; UGF's work fine in a planted tank. Yes, the roots of the plants will get down and under the filter plates but obviously to do that you have to have vigorous root growth. I run UGF's in both of my largest planted aquariums with these results:

45 Gallon tall with UGF, HOB, and 350 gph canister









30 Gallon (36") with UGF and 220 gph canister









These are air driven UGF's so I probably use a little more CO2 and the UGF's are good at breaking down nitrogenous waste so I probably use a little more KNO3 but the results are good. BTW, I break these tanks down every 2 years and have never had a problem with hydrogen sulfide (H2S) gas in either tank.

BTW, if the nitrifying bacteria have a problem with high flow rates when a power head or canister is hooked up to a UGF why do they work in the filter media of a 300 gph canister filter?


----------



## pejerrey (Dec 5, 2011)

PlantedRich said:


> Consider the reasons people would want to use undergravel. They are cheap, quiet, and appear to not need much maintenance. Then the question becomes why are they not used more since they are a really old filter type.
> 
> There are only two answers.
> 1. Either the vast majority of fish keepers like to spend money, have noise and work harder
> ...


 Lol!

What about extreme crystal clear water?

What about constant/stable ph buffering capabilities of a substrate?

Shrimp keepers

What about fixing nutrients into inert substrate with high CEC?

Planted shrimp tanks

30gal

















And:

6gal








Planted Hob+eheim 2213 w/UGF


----------



## pejerrey (Dec 5, 2011)

Seattle_Aquarist said:


> Hi All,
> 
> I have read this debate over, and over, and over ad nauseum on the various planted aquarium forums and I will say this; UGF's work fine in a planted tank. Yes, the roots of the plants will get down and under the filter plates but obviously to do that you have to have vigorous root growth. I run UGF's in both of my largest planted aquariums with these results:
> 
> ...


Very interesting! It's the first time I see UGFs run with air pumps in a planted tank with such a wonderful scape to back it up!! Very nice tanks! 
I assume that the success is on the user end from now on!
Thanks for sharing!


----------



## 150EH (Dec 6, 2004)

I would use something like the Azoo UGF or make my own from PVC with large holes upto a 1/4 inch in diameter, I would cover this with something larger like Eheim's Substrat Pro (Cocoa Puffs) making sure to have the tubing well hidden, now I'd use a coarse black nylon screen and cover it with any substrate you like other than sand or substrates that break apart easily. I would think Akadama, Turface, Flourite, etc. would work well but I think you will need to stuff your filter with floss or some media you can trash after using it to clear the system before you add any fish/shrimp, this is something I've been wanting to try for a long time but I have not tested this system, what so you think?


----------



## pejerrey (Dec 5, 2011)

Well, akadama releases some dust but it's better to just let it sit for a few hrs with low water with a lot of gh booster like equilibrium and then fill the tank up before turning on the canister.

Why soak with equilibrium? Akadama absorbs GH and other nutrients, if you prep it like that then GH wont be dropping as much the first month. Also i BELIEVE and HOPE Fe from equlilbrium could be fixed as well. 

Akadama does not leach ammonium like Ada soils, in fact is the total opposite.


----------



## Complexity (Jan 30, 2008)

I find this whole argument amazing. When I first had aquariums as a kid, the standard filter to be used was always UGF. Oh, how I remember the mess they made! After so many months, I'd have to tear down the entire tank just to clean it all out. This was normal back in those days.

I've always believed the reason you don't see tanks with UGFs these days is because they were replaced with a huge assortment of much better filters. In fact, that's why those other filters made it so big on the market. If the UGF was so wonderful, why would everyone change to something else?

Before I got busy with finishing my degree, I didn't hear a single peep about using an UGF. Not one single peep! It was absolutely unheard of, and that was only a couple of years ago.

So imagine my surprise to see people arguing to actually use UGFs now!

If people want to use them, then that's fine with me. It's their tank. But it just amazes me that they've made any kind of comeback at all. To me, the thought of using an UGF is the stuff nightmares are made of! :icon_lol:


----------



## pejerrey (Dec 5, 2011)

Man, there is people that don't use filters at all! Lol!

I guess is all about BELIEFS. 

I only use them as I proved it to improve the stable ph in my shrimp tanks, and that I can see the great mechanical filtration they are to keep my water crystal clear. 

I believe that I have enough biological filtration with the canisters and UGFs.

That said, I think I've seen beautiful and horrendous tanks with or without HOBs.

I like to post pictures of my tanks to back up my statements tho, that way the reader can judge if my techniques are worth trying or not.


----------



## talontsiawd (Oct 19, 2008)

I have never used an UGF or a sump. However, I see the same thing with both. 90% of the people who are against using them haven't used one in a long time and are going back to a problem tank. Probably 50% of them haven't actually used one at all, to be fair, and are repeating what they have heard. Then you get the 10% of people who actually use them (and usually pretty religiously at that) who have amazing results. 

Sumps are getting a better reputation but even 5 years ago, people were saying that they don't work for planted tanks, even though their are many people that have way better results, better knowledge, and are overall better with planted tanks. I think the same is going on with UGF. Many of the people using them are shrimp keepers and are having great luck keeping very healthy and very expensive shrimp. Everyone not using them, or used one "once upon a time" will find every reason to nay say, even though some of the nicest shrimp tanks on the board use UGF.


I guess my point is...go for it. I would suggest you PM members who use them and follow peoples threads. That's what I did with sumps and I got way better info than what comes up in the forums.


Lastly, 2 of my favorite scapes had no filter at all. They were fully scaped as well, carpet, stems, etc. Just the same as everyone said you can grow certain plants without co2 or high light, I have done it. If it works it works, if it doesn't it doesn't but at least you learn. Most of the time it works. If there was one way to do it, everyone would have Eheims or more likely the Ebay joints.


----------



## James M (Jun 21, 2012)

SA - nice tanks.


----------



## Aquaticfan (Oct 30, 2011)

James M said:


> Isn't gravel a horrible substrate for plants anyway?



Looks like its working pretty good here isnt it? Its not a UGF but it is gravel..... Ive got a few tanks with nothing more then gravel that grow plants like crazy and jungle out quite easily. A little root tabs, EI dose and some light with Co2..


----------



## sunyang730 (Jan 30, 2012)

Wow I didn't realize the post become a debate~Lol thank you all for your input. I am keeping shrimp and I want to setup the one like Liam with PVC. I just want to know how to make sure that the filter is strong enough to get the water from all the holes I made. But how can I make sure it does that is my question. Lol thanks all for your recommendation!


----------



## Steve001 (Feb 26, 2011)

Let's tackle the ugf question this way.

What benefits does it produce over not using one ?
 
Biological filtration? 

 Chemical filtration?

Mechanical filtration?


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Jun 15, 2008)

Hi Steve001,

I use the UGF for biological filtration and mechanical filtration. The biological filtration capability of UGF's is well known and well documented going back to the old Eureka green tubular UGF's from the 1960's (ask your dad or grandpa). 

Some people may wonder why I included mechanical filtration as a benefit of UGF filtration since it seems obvious that canister and HOB filters are much better suited to removing particulates from the aquarium. And that is true except for very fine suspended particulates. I like to use heat treated Montmorillonite clay substrates for their high cation exchange capacity (CEC). However clay substrates do release fine clay particulates into my water column both when first set up and occasionally when doing maintenance or re-scape. I find my tanks 'clear' much faster with a UGF than with a canister or HOB even if I am using a water polishing pad in the canister.

I don't do chemical filtration (i.e. carbon or other chemicals) in any of my filters, canister, HOB, or UGF.

@James M - thanks James! We have some great 'plantheads' at GSAS that grow at lot of the 'rare' and hard to find plants.


----------



## speedie408 (Jan 15, 2009)

My take from personal experience with my own "shrimp tanks"... Totally necessary? Probably not for the average shrimp keeper. Does it keep the water crystal clear? Yes. 

I think the whole UGF in shrimp tanks came from Asia, just recently. They use UGF systems hooked up to multiple daisy chained canister filters to maximize bio filtration, used to house high grade shrimp. This actually works very well as breeders such as Gem from 35shrimp in Thailand have publically posted. 

As far as strictly planted tanks go, UGF is not necessary at all IMO. I'll stick with ADA AS or even MTS for this purpose. There is absolutely no need to disturb this type of substrate AT ALL, as long as you have optimal flow with a good canister filter.


----------



## sunyang730 (Jan 30, 2012)

speedie408 said:


> My take from personal experience with my own "shrimp tanks"... Totally necessary? Probably not for the average shrimp keeper. Does it keep the water crystal clear? Yes.
> 
> I think the whole UGF in shrimp tanks came from Asia, just recently. They use UGF systems hooked up to multiple daisy chained canister filters to maximize bio filtration, used to house high grade shrimp. This actually works very well as breeders such as Gem from 35shrimp in Thailand have publically posted.
> 
> As far as strictly planted tanks go, UGF is not necessary at all IMO. I'll stick with ADA AS or even MTS for this purpose. There is absolutely no need to disturb this type of substrate AT ALL, as long as you have optimal flow with a good canister filter.


I am using UGF with ADA AS but I am not planning to have plant in there. Just moss. I like the way that it is setup with PVC pipes. Since shrimp always stay on the bottom it will be good to have a good filtration at the bottom I guess? Just what I think. LOL but my question is how do you know that it is getting water from all the holes on the pipe. :X


----------



## James M (Jun 21, 2012)

Aquaticfan said:


> Looks like its working pretty good here isnt it?


It does indeed...very nice.


----------



## James M (Jun 21, 2012)

Seattle_Aquarist said:


> Hi Steve001,
> @James M - thanks James! We have some great 'plantheads' at GSAS that grow at lot of the 'rare' and hard to find plants.


Looking forward to making your acquaintance.
I'm just up here on Camano. :icon_smil


----------



## speedie408 (Jan 15, 2009)

sunyang730 said:


> I am using UGF with ADA AS but I am not planning to have plant in there. Just moss. I like the way that it is setup with PVC pipes. Since shrimp always stay on the bottom it will be good to have a good filtration at the bottom I guess? Just what I think. LOL but my question is how do you know that it is getting water from all the holes on the pipe. :X


I had the same question as well. Obviously the holes closest to the inlet will always suck in more water than the ones farthest from the inlet. You need to design a piping setup to where the holes closest to the inlet start out small and get bigger as they get farther away from the inlet. This should balance out the flow going into the little holes.

For me, it's just another way of using a canister filter on my shrimp tank to get the bio-filtration benefits without sucking in shrimplets into a normal filter inlet. For my other tanks without UGF, I modified a sponge filter onto the canister inlet and that works perfectly fine as well.


----------



## Complexity (Jan 30, 2008)

Hey guys... the debate is interesting, but the OP has a very specific question that's not getting answered:



sunyang730 said:


> how do you know that it is getting water from all the holes on the pipe.


Does anyone know the answer?


----------



## sunyang730 (Jan 30, 2012)

Complexity said:


> Hey guys... the debate is interesting, but the OP has a very specific question that's not getting answered:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone know the answer?


GOSH! It is like finally someone realize my question! LOLOLOL, I tried it with a paper towel and it does not seems to pull. I am not sure if there are opening anywhere on the pipe. That will cause some problem I guess? 

Will making the hole near at the beginning smaller and make the one at the end lager help? HUM but how do I know if it is sucking in water :S


----------



## speedie408 (Jan 15, 2009)

Complexity said:


> Hey guys... the debate is interesting, but the OP has a very specific question that's not getting answered:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone know the answer?


Easy! Use invisible substrate. haha *kidding*

I think I answered his question but to elaborate more, water is getting into the holes because you have to use a bigger first layer such as crushed lava rock or Seachem matrix to cover up the UGF piping. This will prevent the smaller shrimp substrate from coming down to plug up the inlet holes/slits. The size of the holes/slits and the power of the filter will ultimately decide weather each inlet hole will be utilized or not. Just think of it working backwards... ie. a spraybar with lots of holes in it: All the holes on that spray bar are the same size but with the right amount of pressure, the flow between them are pretty even. With lower pressure, obviously the holes farthest to the first hole will have the least amount of flow while all the pressure will have already gone out the first fiew holes. Same concept with the inlet, but backards. High suction will utilize all the holes/slits. Low suction, probably not.

It's ultimately sucking in water because you'll have an output with water coming out of it.


----------



## Aquaticfan (Oct 30, 2011)

Speedie is correct in the answer to your question.


----------



## Steve001 (Feb 26, 2011)

Seattle_Aquarist said:


> Hi Steve001,
> 
> I use the UGF for biological filtration and mechanical filtration. The biological filtration capability of UGF's is well known and well documented going back to the old Eureka green tubular UGF's from the 1960's (ask your dad or grandpa).
> 
> ...


Hello to you Seattle_Aquarist.

I have to point out this is a _planted _aquarium forum so the answers should be answered from that position. That's what folks aren't seemingly understanding. How they function in fish only tanks is well understood but not applicable. 

Plants perform all the functions I listed previously exceptionally well, except mechanical filtration.


----------



## HypnoticAquatic (Feb 17, 2010)

Steve001 said:


> Hello to you Seattle_Aquarist.
> 
> I have to point out this is a _planted _aquarium forum so the answers should be answered from that position. That's what folks aren't seemingly understanding. How they function in fish only tanks is well understood but not applicable.
> 
> Plants perform all the functions I listed previously exceptionally well, except mechanical filtration.


 why should it be only form a planted stand point only? we also do just fish and also shrimp only tanks so why not cover whatever there needs are? seems kinda obserd to just go only one way with it dont ya think?


----------



## pejerrey (Dec 5, 2011)

I guess my answer to the original question got buried under all the nay say. 

If answer to the op question:

If there is water coming out of the canister outflow pipe then it is working.

--

To give you a bit of an easier solution to te flow decrease, make a loop. I made square with the UGF pipe, a complete loop, then there is no beginning or end of the UGF pipe. In one of the corners i used a 3 way conection instead of an elbow. The farther I got the more holes I drilled with the same 1/4 inch still bit. I made sure they were all pointing down directly against the glass but they are lifted because of the pipe elbows.
To be more exact is a loop with a pipe in te middle. Looks like a square "8".

Got it? 

Wanna make sure it doesn't clog soon? Make more holes.


----------



## Complexity (Jan 30, 2008)

pejerrey said:


> I guess my answer to the original question got buried under all the nay say.


Unfortunately, I participated in derailing this thread and then watched as the OP couldn't get a word in edgewise. 



> If answer to the op question:
> 
> If there is water coming out of the canister outflow pipe then it is working.


That confirms that it's getting water from at least *some* of the holes. But how does a person know it's getting water from *all* of the holes? Personally, I don't think it's possible.


----------



## pejerrey (Dec 5, 2011)

Complexity said:


> That confirms that it's getting water from at least *some* of the holes. But how does a person know it's getting water from *all* of the holes? Personally, I don't think it's possible.


 Neither is relevant. 

The more holes the merrier! I made like 3 lines of staggered holes, from 1" apart to about 1/2 on the farthest part of the pipes. Even did a couple I holes to the elbows. I used large grain akadama topped with small grain akadama. 
The canister suction is evenly spread and when it starts To clog (if it does) I would probably be replacing the substrate.

I made it thinking to last 4-5 years at the most but I'm thinking to move in 2-3 years which means total tear of the tank. 
Conclusion, it is unlikely that UGF clogging would be an issue for MY set up.


----------



## Complexity (Jan 30, 2008)

Clearly, I'm not crazy about UGFs, but hypothetically speaking... Let's say a person did have one that got clogged. What would be the best way to fix the problem without having to tear down the whole tank to rip the UGF out for a washing?

Blow water/air through it the other way? That sounds disastrous to me, but maybe there's a way?

Maybe configure it from the very start so a flexible hose brush can be pushed through it (assuming it's a small tank)?

Any other way?

It's one thing to plan ahead and design an UGF so it won't get clogged, but we all know not all plans work as a person hopes. Among the hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of people who DIY their own UGF, odds are some of the filters will get clogged. When that happens, what options do they have to fix the problem at that point?


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

I dont like UGF for planted tanks, roots will get in and clog and ruin it. 
Its not stable, nor easily reparable. 

My prefilter sponge gets clogged often, flow is drastically reduce, I clean or replace it. 
UGF holes get full of roots or mulm or soil? Then you better have fun tearing the whole tank up and replanting - which is a misery if you have a substrate like aquasoil that muds up when handled wet. 
Don't bother unless your doing 6" deep substrate with nothing but shrimp active substrate and moss!


----------



## Steve001 (Feb 26, 2011)

HypnoticAquatic said:


> why should it be only form a planted stand point only? we also do just fish and also shrimp only tanks so why not cover whatever there needs are? seems kinda obserd to just go only one way with it dont ya think?


We don't need to consider the efficaciousness, because we all know ugf's work in fauna tanks only. Understanding the impact a typical flow rate ugf has on the chemistry taking place within the substrate should be considered foremost. 

Water within the substrate must circulate and exchange with the water in the main tanks volume but at a greatly reduced rate. So slow must the flow rate be that it would be undetectable. This mimics processes to some extent that occur naturally in aquatic plant biotopes. Pumping significant amounts of oxygenated water into the substrate via the ugf might sound good but it's not, it screws up the *redox potential* and cation exchange of the substrate. After some searching this so far is the best article that does not rely so much on opinion explaining why ugf's aren't suitable ( if used with typical flow rates).

http://www.thekrib.com/Plants/Fertilizer/roots.html


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Jun 15, 2008)

Hi Steve001,



> We don't need to consider the efficaciousness, because we all know ugf's work in fauna tanks only. Understanding the impact a typical flow rate ugf has on the chemistry taking place within the substrate should be considered foremost.


I guess I should rip those plants out of the two tanks in post #27 since UGF's work in fauna tanks only. If an aquatic plants sole method of absorbing nutrients was through the roots the hypothesis promoted in the 16+ year old thread referenced might be correct. However, many of our stem plant species absorb the majority of their nutrients through their leaves and stems; the roots are more of a method the plant utilizes to stay in place.

There are plant species that are known to be heavy 'root feeders' such as Cryptocornes, Echinodorus, possibly Microsorum pteropus, and other species that evolved in nature spending extended periods emersed during their 'dry season'. The extended emersed period caused the species to evolve with a thick cuticle layer on the leaves to avoid excessive loss of water. The thick cuticle layer makes nutrient absorption through the leaf difficult so roots become the primary method of nutrient uptake.

Obviously our tanks are not nature. In nature there are minimal nutrients available to the plants in the water column and the richest source of nutrients is the soil substrate. However, in our aquariums many of us feed our plants through the addition of nutrients (ferts) to water column. An alternative hypothesis might be that using a UGF is an improvement on nature. A UGF results in a constant flow of the nutrient rich water from the water column through the root zone resulting in better growth than would be experienced in nature. The tread referenced did mention that a lack of circulation through the substrate could result in the formation of poisonous gasses such as hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and methane. 

On a side note; I like TheKrib.com and use it regularly as reference material. It is not however a scientific paper, but rather the compilation of an e-mail list written by hobbyists just like us. I know Erik Olson personally, he was the webmaster for TheKrib. He is an active AGA and GSAS member and still very involved with aquatic plants and planted aquariums.


----------



## pejerrey (Dec 5, 2011)

Chlorophile said:


> I dont like UGF for planted tanks, roots will get in and clog and ruin it.
> Its not stable, nor easily reparable.
> 
> UGF holes get full of roots or mulm or soil? Then you better have fun tearing the whole tank up and replanting - which is a misery if you have a substrate like aquasoil that muds up when handled wet.
> ...


 How many times this happen to you?

My substrate is indeed at least 5-6" lol!


----------



## pejerrey (Dec 5, 2011)

Steve001 said:


> We don't need to consider the efficaciousness, because we all know ugf's work in fauna tanks only. Understanding the impact a typical flow rate ugf has on the chemistry taking place within the substrate should be considered foremost.
> 
> Water within the substrate must circulate and exchange with the water in the main tanks volume but at a greatly reduced rate. So slow must the flow rate be that it would be undetectable. This mimics processes to some extent that occur naturally in aquatic plant biotopes. Pumping significant amounts of oxygenated water into the substrate via the ugf might sound good but it's not, it screws up the *redox potential* and cation exchange of the substrate. After some searching this so far is the best article that does not rely so much on opinion explaining why ugf's aren't suitable ( if used with typical flow rates).
> 
> http://www.thekrib.com/Plants/Fertilizer/roots.html


 You just can't use a 1996 email to back up your opinion! Lol 

Filtration methods have changed a bit, I dot think they had canisters like we have today, right? 

The krib is like the bible then and belief has more importance than facts. Because all the planted tanks with UGFs out there don't exist. There is quite a few examples in this thread already.

I don't mean to be rude but I needed to point that out. Let's be scientific instead of dogmatic. 

I just can't ignore the fact that I have 2 heavily planted tanks with DIY UGF filters and I'm somewhat an impossible being? Lol! 

The bottom line is that the problem with UGFs is in the users end. 

I'm not promoting the use of them, just pointing out that there is TABU about it.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

pejerrey said:


> How many times this happen to you?
> 
> My substrate is indeed at least 5-6" lol!



Well I dont use a UGF so it happens to me never. 

But mainly i mean that in situations where you are on the low side for filtration, such as in my 20g shrimp tank with an eheim 2211, when the pre filter gets clogged then it slows down dramatically to a trickle. 
That is an easy fix though. 

In contrast if your pre filter is 6" of substrate with crypt roots and bacopa roots and hairgrass or whatever you end up choosing as your plants... Those roots will get in the UGF holes, so will mulm and dirt and it can get pretty packed in there. You may be able to blow dirt out of the holes but roots aren't going anywhere. 
Now that isn't an easy fix, and if that causes my flow to reduce to a trickle then I am going to be a very unhappy camper when I have to tear up my somewhat scaped shrimp tank.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

sunyang730 said:


> Wow I didn't realize the post become a debate~Lol thank you all for your input. I am keeping shrimp and I want to setup the one like Liam with PVC. I just want to know how to make sure that the filter is strong enough to get the water from all the holes I made. But how can I make sure it does that is my question. Lol thanks all for your recommendation!


Haha, the OP got more than they expected

You can use CPVC which is about 1/2 the size of standard 1/2" PVC to make a grid, might cost 10$ or so, I used 1/16" holes and spaced them about every 3 to 4 cm apart, a little more than 1" apart on the bottom of the grid.

You can glue some wood or cork to the tube heading down under the gravel to hide it. 

I also drilled a small burp hole at the top where the tubing comes in to the tank, this allows air to burp out rather than being forced under the grid/gravel, this helps prime the filter when you clean it etc much better.

I used Reverse Flow UG filters for about 20 years.
You will read or see me attack the notion that heater cables are in some way superior or ADA PS is helpful based on increasing flow under the gravel and I use RFUG's as a good illustration of this.

Since you can adjust the flow rates, under like the Heater cables of ADA PS, this makes observations much more robust as to whether or not the theory works.........or.....rather........ they do not have any impact at all either way(which has been the case from what I've seen and heard argued for the last 20 years on the topic).

I'm no fan of the plates, by the pipes work well and do not tangle the plants' roots much. Do you need them? No, not at all, but some like them and they work as well as heater cables and power sand at a fraction of the cost and you can adjust them.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

pejerrey said:


> You just can't use a 1996 email to back up your opinion! Lol
> 
> Filtration methods have changed a bit, I dot think they had canisters like we have today, right?
> 
> ...


No one is calling you an impossible being - they are saying the methodology isn't great, the benefits aren't really there, etc. 

Loads of UGF's exist and work to the extent that they are capable. 
Problem solved. 

How do you know if its working though?

Well then you need to define what you want out of your filtration.

In my case, I want plants that sway so that detritus doesnt rest on them, I don't want to see much poop all over my substrate, etc. 

If the UGF filter isn't doing that it isn't working for me, but it may be doing what it is designed for!

Does it pull the detritus down into the substrate? If so how far does it get pulled down before it gets caught and breaks down just like it would in the bio media? 

Are my plants swaying? Do they have poop on them?
Do I now need to add a second filter or a powerhead because the inlet is so restricted by being under 6" of mulm and poop that it can't do the job it would if it were acting like a normal canister filter? 

That is just an example, but you can figure out if its working for you the same way. 

As far as the literal answer goes, it's working if water is coming out at close to the intended flow rate of the filter. 
The bio stuff should happen regardless of flow rate but a higher flow rate would be better for more o2 and chem delivery


----------



## Steve001 (Feb 26, 2011)

pejerrey said:


> You just can't use a 1996 email to back up your opinion! Lol
> 
> Filtration methods have changed a bit, I dot think they had canisters like we have today, right?
> 
> ...





Seattle_Aquarist said:


> Hi Steve001,
> 
> 
> I guess I should rip those plants out of the two tanks in post #27 since UGF's work in fauna tanks only. If an aquatic plants sole method of absorbing nutrients was through the roots the hypothesis promoted in the 16+ year old thread referenced might be correct. However, many of our stem plant species absorb the majority of their nutrients through their leaves and stems; the roots are more of a method the plant utilizes to stay in place.
> ...


Look you two, I said; it was the best article I could find, so far. 

I never said lack of circulation was good did I ? You'll see I stated very low circulation is good. Read what I said again. 

Now both of you go out and attempt to do what I've tried to do and find a scientific article addressing the specific issue of whether high flow rates or very low flow rates are preferred by rooted aquatic plants. Then we can perhaps settle once and for all (at least on this forum) the benefits or not of ugfs.

P.S. I memory serves I recall plants distribute oxygen via the roots into the surrounding substrate.


----------



## pejerrey (Dec 5, 2011)

Chlorophile said:


> No one is calling you an impossible being - they are saying the methodology isn't great, the benefits aren't really there, etc.
> 
> Loads of UGF's exist and work to the extent that they are capable.
> Problem solved.
> ...


Aw, I liked to be an impossible being!! 
I was gonna make myself a spandex suit and use that as my superhero name! Lol!

Come on Man, if you never had one, you have no experience to say that it doesn't work for you, you may be surprised. It's just theory against the real deal man! 

Look at the dirty plants in this picture:









Then please go back to post #28 and enjoy the awesomeness of my tanks. Lol!


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

pejerrey said:


> The more holes the merrier! I made like 3 lines of staggered holes, from 1" apart to about 1/2 on the farthest part of the pipes.
> Conclusion, it is unlikely that UGF clogging would be an issue for MY set up.


A Reverse flow eliminates this potential issue entirely.

In fact.........as Speedie's comment suggest.........you do not have to worry about grain size either with RFUG CPCV grids.....you can use ultra fine sands, you name it, because the positive out flow from the RF UG prevents clogging or both the sediment and the grid itself.

If you use small holes and even spacing, the flow pressure inside the grid will be relatively even throughout the grid, you lose TOTAL flow by having a higher pressure, but it'll be more even.

The trick for RF is having an "anti siphon like" hole in the in coming pipe at the surface of the water to remove any air bubbles from the canister or power head. I used a variable flow on a powerhead with a sponge prefilter.

The idea I had was more based on cycling rates(higher) of bacteria and breakdown or waste into plant usable nutrients. Also, much like a large massive bacterial sand filter or a fluidized bed filter.........the RFUG would work very well.

The issue is really that the plants modify and change all this with their roots, which does the same thing except much better than ANY of these mechanical methods. It's far more natural also, so really, if you have lots of plants, there's no need, but doing so does not harm anything much either.

I prefer less junk, less stuff in the tank that's not needed personally.


----------



## pejerrey (Dec 5, 2011)

Steve001 said:


> Now both of you go out and attempt to do what I've tried to do and find a scientific article addressing the specific issue of whether high flow rates or very low flow rates are preferred by rooted aquatic plants. Then we can perhaps settle once and for all (at least on this forum) the benefits or not of ugfs.


 First I would like to say I'm having lots of fun with this topic and that I don't mean to be a jerk to anyone. 


Why would I go google for others experience if it's working right in front of my eyes in two tanks! 

In my case the UGF is set because of stabilizing Ph, the possibility of mechanical and biological filtration is just a plus. But its run by a canister, doh!
In both tanks I have 2 filters, just one is a UGF. 

I measured ph in my main tank without UGF and would swing greatly between day/night. Then I measured with the UGF in my nano and it did swing but just a tiny bit.

That is scientific method right there. Right?

Because of this I decided To use it in my main tank. Now Stable at 5.4-5.6


----------



## pejerrey (Dec 5, 2011)

plantbrain said:


> A Reverse flow eliminates this potential issue entirely.
> 
> In fact.........as Speedie's comment suggest.........you do not have to worry about grain size either with RFUG CPCV grids.....you can use ultra fine sands, you name it, because the positive out flow from the RF UG prevents clogging or both the sediment and the grid itself.
> 
> ...


Interesting, I will try this in a few years or if I set up a new tank.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Steve001 said:


> We don't need to consider the efficaciousness, because we all know ugf's work in fauna tanks only. Understanding the impact a typical flow rate ugf has on the chemistry taking place within the substrate should be considered foremost.


Agreed.

Thus using a variable flow RFUG would yield the best solution if one wanted to look more into this. 



> Water within the substrate must circulate and exchange with the water in the main tanks volume but at a greatly reduced rate. So slow must the flow rate be that it would be undetectable.


It is quite detectable..........even at very slow flow rates, the problem is arm chair hacks who wanna argue and not test/actually try and demonstrate whether what they say has any validity. I suggested using Redox probes in 1998. I have a custom hand made set of 30 out in garage platinum 1/2 cells heavy duty 1/4" PVC pipe. These are used in the field. 

You can measure various distances from plant roots to see how roots impact very dense clay soils vs no roots.

You can also measure flow rates in larger porous sediments and some have used O2 probes as well. 

A 3rd method is using a tracer dye, such as Rhodamine and then take samples over time and measure the concentrations as they move through the sediment.http://www.ysi.com/parametersdetail.php?Rhodamine-17

Redox probes can be used by hobbyists.
If you wanted to test Rhodamine:
http://www.fondriest.com/fei-rental-rhod-7-d.htm
O2 meters are also available.



> This mimics processes to some extent that occur naturally in aquatic plant biotopes. Pumping significant amounts of oxygenated water into the substrate via the ugf might sound good but it's not, it screws up the *redox potential* and cation exchange of the substrate. After some searching this so far is the best article that does not rely so much on opinion explaining why ugf's aren't suitable ( if used with typical flow rates).
> http://www.thekrib.com/Plants/Fertilizer/roots.html


Tropica did some research on this due to the fact they are Europe's largest and most advance aquatic plant commercial grower. Claus reported around 0.49 liters per DAY per meter^2 was optimal for plant roots. Which is the same as simple diffusion. A set known redox is optimal for plant roots. So they measured redox and then used a dye tracer. 

There is ample research to support and back up these flow rates based on redox in wetland plant systems and how plant roots effect the flow and redox. Entire books in fact(eg Reddy & DeLanue) There is no known heater cable or mechanical flows for plant enhancement that I have ever found that support better root/plant growth.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

pejerrey said:


> Interesting, I will try this in a few years or if I set up a new tank.


I used RFUG before I had plants, it led me into plants in fact.
I liked sand and had fish that preferred it, this method kept the sand cleaner and no vacuuming of the sediment. Sword plants got massive in these systems.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

pejerrey said:


> First I would like to say I'm having lots of fun with this topic and that I don't mean to be a jerk to anyone.
> 
> 
> Why would I go google for others experience if it's working right in front of my eyes in two tanks!
> ...



Each new cohort of hobbyists all seem to go through this, does not matter what I or anyone else tells them about from the past, they have to learn on their own, particularly if they have passion about it.

I mention the past so they have knowledge about that and perhaps will make fewer mistakes and spend much less $ figuring it outroud:


----------



## pejerrey (Dec 5, 2011)

plantbrain said:


> Each new cohort of hobbyists all seem to go through this, does not matter what I or anyone else tells them about from the past, they have to learn on their own, particularly if they have passion about it.
> 
> I mention the past so they have knowledge about that and perhaps will make fewer mistakes and spend much less $ figuring it outroud:


 Seem to go through what? I don't understand your point there man.


----------



## Steve001 (Feb 26, 2011)

pejerrey said:


> First I would like to say I'm having lots of fun with this topic and that I don't mean to be a jerk to anyone.


Me too




pejerrey said:


> Why would I go google for others experience if it's working right in front of my eyes in two tanks!


Opinions on the web are too easy to find. I was suggesting finding a scientific paper describing what actually takes place with in an aquatic substrate with growing submerged plants.



pejerrey said:


> In my case the UGF is set because of stabilizing Ph, the possibility of mechanical and biological filtration is just a plus. But its run by a canister, doh!
> In both tanks I have 2 filters, just one is a UGF.


Ah, but biological filtration isn't the real issue. The real issue is what highly oxygenated water drawn down into the substrate does to the chemical processes that are taking place therein ?


----------



## pejerrey (Dec 5, 2011)

Steve001 said:


> Ah, but biological filtration isn't the real issue. The real issue is what highly oxygenated water drawn down into the substrate does to the chemical processes that are taking place therein ?


 I have no idea where to find such info. It would be interesting to read tho. 
I look at the plants. And as they seem ok, then I'm happy. I was mainly just shooting for stable PH. It worked. Otherwise I wouldn't have done it.

The truth is that is not needed, there is plenty of high end shrimp tanks without UGFs, I did it because I was insecure of how stable the set up I had was. At the end i learned that some ph swings don't really affect cardinias as I thought.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

pejerrey said:


> Seem to go through what? I don't understand your point there man.


Every few years, history repeats itself.
The next batch of hobbyists seems to have to run through the muck all over again and the ones that did learn something have since moved on, leaving nothing but newbies and a few that that are intermediates. Most folks that have been around have long since burned out and really have little to gain in their minds from debating the issues.

Redox is the main driving factor in sediment profiles.

Let me give a few or so references on the topic:
Read through these and gain some knowledge:

Overview:
http://depts.washington.edu/ehuf475/outsoil.htm
downloads.tswj.com/2001/975384.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2794067/

the best text book on the topic perhaps in the world:
http://soils.ifas.ufl.edu/wetlands/publications/Book-ad.pdf
http://books.google.com/books?id=8y...=gbs_selected_pages&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en...age&q=Redox wetland sediments review&f=false

http://soils.ifas.ufl.edu/wetlands/publications/PDF-articles/224.Regulation of organic matter.pdf
PO4:
https://www.soils.org/publications/jeq/articles/30/4/1474 

Labeled NH4 usage:
http://soils.ifas.ufl.edu/wetlands/publications/PDF-articles/25.The role of nitrate diffusion.pdf



This should keep you out of trouble some time.


----------



## pejerrey (Dec 5, 2011)

I guess one day all hobbyists are going to start as experts? Of course that there is going to be newbies! 

I still don't understand why you said that, seems to be your sentence at the end of every thread you participate. 

"I've done it all, I know it all... You guys are newbies and make mistakes, blah, blah... " lol! 

I will read the links, and I appreciate that you still hang in the forums helping out. What I don't appreciate and I consider unnecessary is to be condescending. At least try to be funny!


----------



## James M (Jun 21, 2012)

pejerrey said:


> The bottom line is that the problem with UGFs is in the users end.


No - there are issues/complications with UFG's that are completely mitigated with other filter types.


----------



## Steve001 (Feb 26, 2011)

plantbrain said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Thus using a variable flow RFUG would yield the best solution if one wanted to look more into this.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the agreement.

Yup, I realize very low flow rates can be detected, but just eyeballing it won't suffice.

At a local pond, in I think, Wicomico county Maryland had a population of _Craspedacusta sowerbyi _( a freshwater jellyfish type critter) substrate flow rates where determined to be 100mL (3.3oz) per Hour per Sq. meter in that pond.

Those links should be made into another sticky.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

pejerrey said:


> I guess one day all hobbyists are going to start as experts? Of course that there is going to be newbies!


Therein lies the problem, the advanced folks rarely come around and help in the planted hobby. This is very different compared to the reef side IME. There's very little "pay it forward" happening in the planted hobby comparatively. 

It's tragic that more folks do not research and look things up.
The information is there, but there is a large knowledge gap.
Hopefully more will educate themselves and come to general consensus, then help others later. Folks often thank me for helping them out, I tell them to pay it forward, help out someone else the same way. 



> I will read the links


Read those links, you can learn a great deal from them. Most will skim and get a little bit of it. After I read things a dozen times, and then had others explain in say 3-4 classes, it eventually got through my rather dense brain.

I do not expect anyone to suddenly come back in 1-2 days and know everything and be ready for the exam. But little by little...........post by post, the idea becomes clearer, and you get to know the person better and realize, hey, maybe they are not a douche bag after all.

But maybe I'm just ribbing ya??? :hihi:
I'll keep ya guessing thar..........


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 17, 2008)

I'm skipping pages 2-5 so if this stomps on others posts, I'm sorry. 
If it stomps on someones pet beliefs, too bad. 

The question was, How do you tell if an UGF is working?

The answer is - Presuming an open topped tank stand, wait a few weeks and look under the tank stand and into the bottom of the tank. 

If there is any crud built up under the filter plate, it's working. As to getting the mulm out from under that plate, vacuum your gravel during your water changes. Look under the tank stand, and you can see, by what's not there, what you've removed. Or look in the bucket as you empty it. 

And, for those who said it can't be removed, I remove it by vacuuming my gravel, so obviously - it can be removed. I've had a UGF on a 75g for about fifteen years. One tear down in that time period to change the substrate. I use nearly the smallest power heads I can get to pump from one lift per plate. Or, I stick the intake on an HOB or a canister into the lift tube. 
I do run other filtration on the tank, besides the UGF. It's got too many fish in it for just a UGF. 

Oh, and it's been so heavily planted at times that corys had to swim up, across, and down to move a couple inches sideways. As to health, some of those same corys qualify for senior discounts. 

What about the roots that grow through the plates?
What about them? Some do. Not many though. In this tank, its almost always swords that stick their roots through. Crypts and stems and lot of other things don't. 

Your mileage may vary. 
Objects in mirror may look reversed. 
Objects in mirror may be reversed.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Steve001 said:


> Thanks for the agreement.
> 
> Yup, I realize very low flow rates can be detected, but just eyeballing it won't suffice.
> 
> ...


I think slow progressive Redox probes are the best bet for hobbyists interested in this, the problem is that you need to leave them be for 2-8 weeks in place.
Then they need to be deep in the sediments, not 2-3 inches from the surface of the water, since most probes are 5-6" long and not water proof, this presents a problem. I made 30 or so that are about 24-30" long just for this issue. Cost 700$ though.

But still, a redox meter and probe should be able to answer some questions folks have. It would make a good planted tank test for a student or grads student etc interested in plant ecology for wetlands. This way you could see what the best growth would be in a nursery or a specific plant species etc.


----------



## OVT (Nov 29, 2011)

plantbrain said:


> ... I tell them to pay it forward, help out someone else the same way.


Regardless of any disagreements we might have, helping others is what ensures our survival, not only as hobbyists, but as a human race.

And I have to thank _plantbrain_ for furthering that philosophy, regardless of how much it pains me to do so


----------



## sunyang730 (Jan 30, 2012)

Hi Guys, 

Thank you all for your input and your recommendation once again. I don't want this to go in to a big argument for everyone. I did my research and I know the reason I am using the UGF. LOL, 

Once again, thank you very much.


----------

