FishProfiles.com Message Forums |
faq | etiquette | register | my account | search | mailbox |
Bio Wheel vs Under Gravel | |
kudzu Small Fry Posts: 6 Kudos: 2 Votes: 0 Registered: 23-Nov-2005 | I just found a new LFS, and I was explaining my setup to the owner, and he said that I would need to install an undergravel filter to cultivate the bacteria that eats the ammonia/nitrites. I told him that I had a filter that used a bio-wheel for this. And he said that I would still need an under gravel filter. He said that most of the bacteria would be lost when I changed the filter media. I said that the filter media and the bio wheel are separate and the bacteria should remain stable in the bio wheel. He maintained that I *needed* an under gravel filter. A guy at Petco told me that the biowheel would take the place of an under gravel system. So when I set up my tank, I didn't bother with the UGF. Is the bio-wheel insufficient? I'm new to this, and it seems everytime I have a question, I get conflicting answers from books or from the help at LFS. So, I would like to hear from this group, who I trust more than my LFS. Do I need a UGF? I have a 29G Tall, with an Emperor 280 filter. Thanks! |
Posted 26-Jan-2006 11:38 | |
poisonwaffle Mega Fish Posts: 1397 Kudos: 591 Registered: 11-Feb-2003 | The bacteria will live basically anywhere that there is current and food... that includes filter media, filter boxes, biowheels, tank walls (glass or acrylic or whatever the tank is made of), gravel to some degree (though a lot more when there is some sort of under gravel filtration), etc. No, you do not need an undergravel filter. I personally despise them, as they just suck all the extra poo to the bottom of the tank an' under the gravel where it will rot unless you clean them out all the time. Marineland claims that the main advantage of a biowheel is the fact that the bacteria will be exposed to both air and water, and that a biowheel can supposedly hold 70,000 times as many bacteria as a normal filter could. I agree with the first statement, as it is a well known fact that wet-dry filters are one of the better methods of biological filtration... not so sure 'bout the 2nd statement tho, just because it doesn't seem logical, and you don't really need 70,000 times more than yer average bioload. I've personally run multiple biowheels in one tank, and I didn't see much of a difference other than in the amount of noise that the tank made (read: 'SPLASH!'). I ended up taking the biowheels out of the tank after they stopped turning from mineral buildup an' watnot on the blue endcap things... when they stopped, most of the bacteria died, an' there was a rather large ammonia spike, etc. IMO, the best thing you can do is run multiple filters, an' only change one of the filter's media at a time. I've got 4 filters on my 29 (3 HOB's an' a DIY cannister), an' I don't have any problems Short answer to your question - No, you don't need an undergravel filter, or a biowheel for that matter... just some good place for your bacteria to colonize HTH |
Posted 26-Jan-2006 11:38 | |
Donkynutz Enthusiast Posts: 225 Kudos: 225 Votes: 2 Registered: 01-May-2005 | ahhah i have no experience with the UGF but i know preety much everyone here doesnt like them and it does more bad than good, but i will comment on the little happy face licking his lips at the end of the statement about the bacteria, still laughing. |
Posted 26-Jan-2006 11:38 | |
Babelfish Administrator Small Fry with Ketchup Posts: 6833 Kudos: 8324 Votes: 1570 Registered: 17-Apr-2003 | Ditto what waffleyboy said....UGF's are just old and didnt even live up to the hype when they first came out back before I was old enough to hold a fish net . New filters including biowheels and HOB filters are much easier to maintain than a UGF. Additionally since you already have the tank established ther'es really no need to go through the process of tearing down the tank, installing the UGF then re-cycling the tank just so you can have the experience of a UGF. I'm assuming the 280 cycles the water 280 times an hour in that case you've got a perfect ammount of filtration . ^_^ |
Posted 26-Jan-2006 11:38 | |
keithgh *Ultimate Fish Guru* Posts: 6371 Kudos: 6918 Votes: 1542 Registered: 26-Apr-2003 | I think this discussion could go on for ever UGF v others. Many of us still use UGF with great success. As long as they are use correctly, plenty of airation to keep them working they are never a problem. It is when the air is so poor that the water movement is at a very minium this is where problems could and will occur. I have been using them for over 35+ years and I can assure you they are very reliable and easy to use. I have a plactic air stones which never requires replacing just the occasional cleaning, they can be adjusted to release the amount of air released. I also use mine with the Eheim Canister. Have a look in [link=My Profile]http:// www.fishprofiles.com/interactive/forums/profile.asp?userid=6741" style="COLOR: #00FF00[/link] for my tank info [link=Betta 11Gal Desktop & Placidity 5ft Community Tanks]http://photobucket.com/albums/b209/keithgh/Betta%20desktop%20tank/" style="COLOR: #00FF00[/link] Keith Near enough is not good enough, therefore good enough is not near enough, and only your best will do. I VOTE DO YOU if not WHY NOT? VOTE NOW VOTE NOW |
Posted 26-Jan-2006 11:38 | |
kudzu Small Fry Posts: 6 Kudos: 2 Votes: 0 Registered: 23-Nov-2005 | Babelfish, Yeah, the 280 is 280 gallons/hour. Keithgh, I was a little worried that this might be a "religious" issue, somewhat like Mac OS X vs Microsoft vs Linux in the computer operating system world. Mainly, rather than naming the topic _Bio wheel "vs" UGF_, I probably should have titled it: "Is BioWheel Good Enough?" or something like that, getting to the actual question: Typically, is a Bio Wheel sufficient for cultivating bacteria, or does it need help (from a UGF)? I suppose the LFS owner just has a preference for UGF and so he tends to pass this on to his customers. Thanks to all for your help. |
Posted 26-Jan-2006 11:38 | |
sham Ultimate Fish Guru Posts: 3369 Kudos: 2782 Votes: 98 Registered: 21-Apr-2004 | Most of the time you don't even need a biowheel or ugf for bacteria. Maybe if you are heavily stocking the tank but I've never run into a case where there wasn't enough room for the bacteria in my tanks. Right now I have three sparkling gouramis(~2" ) in a 5g with no filtration at all and the other 5g I just pulled the filtration off of to add an extra light. It has 5 ghost shrimp, 3 sparkling gouramis, 3 half grown guppies I couldn't catch, and some trumpet snails to stir the sand substrate. For messy fish or heavily stocked nonplanted tanks a biowheel might be useful but otherwise despite the fact all my hob filter right now are penguin biowheel filters they aren't actually necessary. So long as you don't gravel vac 100% of the tank or change the filter media on the same day you gravel vac you shouldn't remove too much bacteria. Last edited by sham at 15-Dec-2005 15:34 |
Posted 26-Jan-2006 11:38 | |
poisonwaffle Mega Fish Posts: 1397 Kudos: 591 Registered: 11-Feb-2003 | Agreed, keith, if used correctly, UGF's can be decent... but using them correctly involves cleaning all of the crap out of the gravel all of the time, an' creating current in the substrate that plants hate... so I stay away from UGFs. I did to an RUGF (REVERSE UGF) in one of my 10 gals, but it didn't work very well... mainly because my siliconing job sucked, an' I used a sand substrate Now that you mention it, it is a little bit like the mac/ms/*nix debate in the computer world. I personally prefer Linux, but it hates my computer, so I'm living with ms crap until I can get the new Debian (supports my hardware ). |
Posted 26-Jan-2006 11:38 |
Jump to: |
The views expressed on this page are the implied opinions of their respective authors.
Under no circumstances do the comments on this page represent the opinions of the staff of FishProfiles.com.
FishProfiles.com Forums, version 11.0
Mazeguy Smilies