UGF for high nuetrient system???

[tabwyo]

Who here thinks it would be totally crazy to use and under gravel filter for a high nuetrient system? I know, I know, nitrates/trite right?? Well a healthy water change regiment should take care of that. Wouldn't ya think? Running reversable powerheads on the uplift tubes would provide ample flow through a coarse sand bed and that ability to flush the bed on say a monthly basis. The bed itself would provide a great place for micro flora/fuana to thrive. I am mulling around the idea of a non-photosynthetic tank. I understand that the increased nuetrients would make for an increased algae problem. But useing a low intensity light setup should help take care of that. What do yall think??

[pyron88]

Are you talking about FWLR?

[tims]

heheh sorta Tab,
that type system has been used before .. i forget the name of it..
put you will still have an excess nutri. system in the end.reversing the flow may work for a little bit, but i think once the tank establishes it self you will run in to problems

[tabwyo]

Well I have looked for other links and haven't had any luck.

[Wiskey]

There is only one person I know of that was ever able to make a UGF work, and his has been working for like 30 years, it was a total failure for everyone else.

I personally think that it's totally crazy .

Whiskey

[wharyat]

I'm currently running a 50g lightless system (10g main tank, 40g refugium packed full of macro algae), and have found a BB with a refugium works perfectly. I have no nitrates/phosphates, and add constantly around 6 oz of cultured phytoplankton via peristaltic pump per day.

One problem tho, dendronepthya and scleronepthya (carnations) are impossible to keep in captivity. They were the main reson I set the tank up; and they are slowly getting smaller and smaller. Christmas tree coral and, flame scallop, gorgs, and anemones are actually doing really well and growing quite fast.

The algae puts on around 8 oz mass a week , it's working really well; but I cant keep the corals I really want to keep.

[tabwyo]

Ok. I can see the trend here. I understand that many marine aquarist consider themselves "more advance" then thier FW cousins and a UGF is considered a dinosaur by even FW terms. I don't intend to use it as a filter per say. As in I am not going to leave crap in it to eventually rott. Yes I want bacteria to colonize it but I don't want the dertitus to break down in it as it does in FW applications. I could scale up the reverseing of the sand bed to every week with the water changes. I am just not seeing the reason for the knee jerk reaction to the idea of a UGF. Heck back befor my day they were considered standard issue for even SW systems. I think it more lie with husbandry than it does with the equipment.

[Geoff]

how are you going to keep the UGF clean under there? it does not matter which way the flow goes through it detritus will build up under it. you can not get a consistant flow under those things.

i say go for it, set it up. run it for a couple of months, than take it down and see how much detritus is under the UGF. if none than maybe try it long term. if not than keep thinking. detritus is a bugger, it will get everywhere. i have heard that it only takes a couple of hours for detritus to rot and release its nutrients back into the water to be absorbed by the calcium carbonate.

the worse that can happen is that the phosphates will buildup like any other substrated system. eventually needing a complete substrate removal.

G~

[tdwyatt]

Originally Posted by tabwyo

.. I am just not seeing the reason for the knee jerk reaction to the idea of a UGF. Heck back befor my day they were considered standard issue for even SW systems. I think it more lie with husbandry than it does with the equipment.

Heh!

Blood letting was once considered the stardard of practice to remove all those bad humors in medicine as well...


Experience has shown that several methods of SW system husbandry just end up being more problematic thn others, and the UGF was one such system. I started out in SW keeping a tank with coarse gravel and airlifts over a UGF system, it was always a problem in terms of the waste removal and attempts at trying to keep it clean. It ends up being a source of H2S, as the substrate is not fine enough to prevent percolation of the toxin as such, and will not develope the necessary stratification to maintain stable interstitial oxygen gradients to promote denitrification via bacteriological processing of nitrqtes, etc. It ends up being a conbination of all the disadvantabes of a DSB without any of the advantages. All it takes is one small lapse in husbandry and you can write off whatever positive effects your personal care of the system might have been able to promote.


Just curious, why would you WANT to use a UGF, what outstanding characteristic of the UGF process is there that outweighs the multitude of disadvantages??? At least with a DSB there is denitrification and the adsorption of phosphate until the sand becomes phosphate-saturated, and it provides a wonderous biotope similar to those found in many near-shore coral habitats.

[tabwyo]

To address Geoff. Good point. But this being an in the works idea, there is room for modification. A sloped bottom and a drain wouldn't be all that difficult. Especially with acrylic.

TD. The whole idea is to have a purgeable and sustainable substrate. Not a disposable sand bed. I am not talking a deep layer of material here. Say a depth 1-2 inches w/ aggressive flow through the bed. Aerobic environtments are not condusive to the formation of the bacteria needed to produce H2S. I use UGFs in most all of my FW tanks, along with other filtration methods. When tearing down systems with UGFs I have never had a wiff of H2S. But in FW system where I didn't use one, mainly planted tanks, I have always had the distinct rotten egg smell of low concentrations of H2S. I guess the whole point is to find a method to maintain a high neutrient tank w/o haveing to rely on a DSB wich will load up and have to be replaced.

[JennM]

Just say NO to UGF

BTW - my first SW tank came with one - we 'upgraded' to reverse flow

Then we built a home-made sump - didn't win any beauty contests and it's a miracle we never flooded the place.. but I digress...

I think you're thinking along the same lines as a plenum system which later evolved into a DSB system... all of which have lost popularity.

Jenn