Re: Undergravel filters

[IDMiamiBob@aol.com]

In a message dated 97-11-01 14:08:50 EST, Brian writes:

<< 
> IMHO, the UGF has another major flaw in that it limits your choice of
>substrate.  As a basic substrate, sand is *much* better than gravel.
>Plants don't like gravel, and any fish that has a relationship with
>the substrate doesn't like it; they much prefer sand.

In the early eighties, I knew a fellow in Welland, Ontario who had two trios
of what we thought we A. borrellii, but I now suspect were actually A.
viejeta.  He had them in tanks with sand substrates and sponges.  He couldn't
get them to spawn.  I made a deal to trade one trio for some aggie and
bitaenniata fry, took them home, put them in a tank with lots of healthy
plants planted in the gravel of my UGF.  In eight days I had my first spawn,
and three days later the male spawned with the second female.  Over the sand,
these fish had been pale and washed-out in appearance.  One day after getting
over my gravel substrate, they were very colorful.  I accredit this more tthe
fish's attempt tp blend into the white sand and then the dark gravel, than
the texture of the two substrates.  In my experience, I have yet to see
gravel dark enough in color to approximate the dark bottoms of their native
waters.
 
>In my planted tanks, I use a bi-level substrate -- sand above soil.  Try
that with a
>UGF!  Another poster (perhaps the originator) to this thread mentioned
>using a layer of peat over sand, another thing you couldn't do with a
>UGF. 

No, I perhaps couldn't do sand over soil, but I have done sand over a peat
pad.  The filter still got the water through both with only air power.  A
powerhead would probably have helped.  I had to run a box filter full of
carbon on the side to keep the color down.

> Besides, there are filters out there (wet/drys, fluidized bed,
> ....) that are so much more efficient and easier to clean than UGFs
> that I can't understand their attraction.

More efficient?  Surely more complex and expensive. As for efficient, I think
that is for the most part subjective.  And I probably spend less time
cleaning my UGFs over the long haul than you do any of the others.  And I
have never seen a UGF "go sour" as some report experiencing.

Okay, I'm done wasting bandwidth.  In the end, I think it is a question of
what you are trying to achieve and why.  I use power filters.  I use sponge
filters.  I have been using UGFs since they came out and will continue to do
so, because I have never had anything but good luck with them.  I refuse to
spend the big bucks folks want for wet/drys or fluidized beds.  I don't see
the advantages that would justify the expense, at least not for raising dwarf
cichlids, angels and killies.

Bob

PS- Gomberg, are you going to take your turn at flaming me?  You are
conspicuous in your silence here.