# UGF vs HOB filtration



## Fishnut2 (Feb 25, 2009)

This should cause a lot of controversy...LOL. Let's compare mechanical filtration, biological filtration, and DO (dissolved oxygen) levels. For larger piranha tanks...I'm going to assume a UGF of at least 18" x 24" would be used. Some people might use a UGF along the entire bottom of the tank. So which filter will hold more solid waste? An 18" x 24" area with 2-3" of gravel? or a 3" x 5" filter pad in a HOB? Some filters will have 2 pads.
Next, which will have more biological filtration...an 18" x 24" plate that's 1/2" thick (some are a full 1")...or the 3" x 5" filter pads? Which has the ability to house more aerobic bacteria? Which has a larger suface area for infusoria?
And finally, which has the ability to reach saturation levels (and above) of DO? Using a powerhead and air diffusor on a UGF, will produce the best results (IMO).

This might be a good one for a poll!

I'll close by saying this. I make my own filters, using a UGF concept. The 100 gallon that my RBs are breeding in, is powered by two home made pot filters...that cost about $6 to make. I'd appreciate your thought on this. Thanks in advance!

This should've been in the tank and equiptment section. Sorry...I'm still a newbie!


----------



## CLUSTER ONE (Aug 2, 2006)

UGF- pros
-they utilize the subrtrate as a media so you dont have to replace it
-they are cheap

cons-they are ugly
- they can cause toxin spikes and trap waste if not cleaned enough
- those tubes look bad
- need a gravel not sand
- cant have most plants
- have to dig up the gravel to clean (redo decor)

hob pros
-easy to clean
- not to expensive
- dont have to redo any decor when changing
- often you can use refillable cartriges or like ac media just wash it in a bucket then reuse it
- way more powerful then a ugf for current
- more surface movement= more oxygen
- lots of different types and sizes

cons-
-you need to buy media
- tank can't be flush with the wall

Well if you can see from my list i like hobs way better. If you in this hobby i dont think you should have the money to replace some 2$ filter floss every month. Just get an aquaclear and the media is good for a long time. UGF are an oldschool method, sure it works, but hob filters are more popular since they are better, create more flow as well as more convienient. ugf may be good for a large system running from air pumps, but i think a sponge would be better since they dont go under the substrate. Ugf's arnt terrible, but i dont like the fact you have to remove them to clean once in a while to get out any trapped debris and if you dont you will pay.
UGF are an old style of filtration and they certainlly do work in their simple concept, however Hob filters are simple as well and IMO they have much better attributes then uGF as well as still not costing to much. In canada an ac500 is like 80$ while a 48x 18 perfecto ugf was 75$ and a 48x 12 was 40$ so they woudl do approximitly the same tank size, but the hobs are better and you dont need to buy an airpump.


----------



## CLUSTER ONE (Aug 2, 2006)

Fishnut2 said:


> This should cause a lot of controversy...LOL. Let's compare mechanical filtration, biological filtration, and DO (dissolved oxygen) levels. For larger piranha tanks...I'm going to assume a UGF of at least 18" x 24" would be used. Some people might use a UGF along the entire bottom of the tank. So which filter will hold more solid waste?* I would say potentially ugf's but thats not a good thing* An 18" x 24" area with 2-3" of gravel? or a 3" x 5" filter pad in a HOB*hob's have less surface area, but more water passes through it so...*? Some filters will have 2 pads.
> Next, which will have more biological filtration...an 18" x 24" plate that's 1/2" thick (some are a full 1")...or the 3" x 5" filter pads* I would say the ugf gets this one, becasue hobs are known to be more mechanical*? Which has the ability to house more aerobic bacteria* like said before ugf are better for biological, but thats only when their clean. If they get dirty it works in reverse*? Which has a larger suface area for infusoria?
> And finally, which has the ability to reach saturation levels (and above) of DO* there is more oxygen exchenge from a moderately sized hob filter then a ugf on the same tank, unless you use some massive airpump.*? Using a powerhead and air diffusor on a UGF, will produce the best results (IMO).
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishnut2 (Feb 25, 2009)

You have some very good points Sean. I had to smile at the old school comment...as that hits the point right on the head. Most of my techniques ARE old school. I'll have to get some pics of my home made pot filters. I make them for $3 each. They are basically for bare bottom tanks...and YES, they are definitely ugly. But I use the same substrate that Shedd Aquarium uses in thier filters, and Milwaukee uses to filter thier drinking water. I'll get some pics of the aerobic growth on the outside of the filter. Shedd wasn't clear if it was actually aerobic bacteria...but they did say it was a sign of great aerobic activity. They've only seen it on the "inside" of thier 30' tower filters. 
There are already pics on my site regarding this under misc. and under Shedd - Behind the scenes. www.fishnut2.com It's pics only, I don't try to sell anything there.

http://www.fishnut2.com


----------



## philbert (Mar 8, 2007)

this thread has been made 100 times over. try the search bar. same arguements as always. the UGF is just not as good and efficient as modern filters. the only plus side to then is how cheap they are and imo that usually isn't a good enough reason to chose to use something. they work as stated but aren't as efficient or as easy to clean and maintain as an HOB. just unplug the HOB and pick it up to clean. a lot easier than the UGF.


----------



## Fishnut2 (Feb 25, 2009)

I'm new Phil. I will search the topic. I feel the UGF is way better...but as far as efficiency, it does require a bigger footprint. Cleaning requires a simple gravel vac (which you probably do anyway) and doesn't destroy the aerobic bacteria (under the plate) like cleaning a filter pad will. Granted, you don't destroy all of the bacteria rinsing out the pad. But you will loose a lot.


----------



## CLUSTER ONE (Aug 2, 2006)

philbert said:


> I'm new Phil. I will search the topic. I feel the UGF is way better...but as far as efficiency, it does require a bigger footprint. Cleaning requires a simple gravel vac (which you probably do anyway) and doesn't destroy the aerobic bacteria (under the plate) like cleaning a filter pad will. Granted, you don't destroy all of the bacteria rinsing out the pad. But you will loose a lot.


 a vac will get some out, but if you get a clog or a ball of waste, it will get trapped and not come out.


----------



## Fishnut2 (Feb 25, 2009)

Well, I've tried to explain how I get 2 spawns a week in a couple threads now. But I guess I'm still learning.


----------



## EZmoney (May 13, 2004)

Fishnut2 said:


> I'm new Phil. I will search the topic. I feel the UGF is way better...but as far as efficiency, it does require a bigger footprint. Cleaning requires a simple gravel vac (which you probably do anyway) and doesn't destroy the aerobic bacteria (under the plate) like cleaning a filter pad will. Granted, you don't destroy all of the bacteria rinsing out the pad. But you will loose a lot.


Gravel vacs can only remove the dirt/waste that is in the gravel and can not remove the dirt/waste which is trapped under the UGF filter plate. That is the main reason why I don't use UGF filters.

The beneficial bacteria is in the gravel, not under the plate, because it attaches to the surface of anything that comes in contact with the aquarium water. You won't destroy bacteria when you rinse the filter pads in a bucket of your aquarium water. You will destroy the bacteria if you rinse the pads under you sink faucet because of the chlorine in tap water.

* I see that this thread is a HOB vs UGF debate. What are your thoughts on Canister filters and Wet/dry filters VS HOB vs UGF?


----------



## CLUSTER ONE (Aug 2, 2006)

gamgenius said:


> * I see that this thread is a HOB vs UGF debate. What are your thoughts on Canister filters and Wet/dry filters VS HOB vs UGF?


For me i see starting with the best is wet dry, cannister,hob,internal, sponge, ugf. UGF can deffinitly work, but for the similar cost to a superior filter, they are more of a hasstle then its worth


----------



## EZmoney (May 13, 2004)

sean-820 said:


> * I see that this thread is a HOB vs UGF debate. What are your thoughts on Canister filters and Wet/dry filters VS HOB vs UGF?


For me i see starting with the best is wet dry, cannister,hob,internal, sponge, ugf. UGF can deffinitly work, but for the similar cost to a superior filter, they are more of a hasstle then its worth
[/quote]

I agree.


----------



## the_w8 (Jul 28, 2003)

UGF would definitely be too much of a hassle.


----------



## Fishnut2 (Feb 25, 2009)

Gam,
I have to disagree with you on the beneficial bacteria. I agree that it's in the gravel, but the gravel is the mechanical part of the UG filter(to hold the waste). Most of the aerobic bateria, remains under the plate. I'll show you a pic of aerobic growth under the plate.








The growth was IDed by someone at Shedd Aquarium. They used the term aerobic growth, instead of aerobic bacteria. I believe aerobic bacteria is microscopic. But they did say that this aerobic growth only grows in areas of excellent aerobic activity. They've only seen it inside thier tower filters.

Here it is again, on the outside of one of my home made pot filters.


----------



## Ægir (Jan 21, 2006)

I used an UGF for about a year and a half, then i took it out and looked what had accumulated... I can see them being ok filtration for a short period of time, but need regular maintainance to clean the debris from underneath... I would rather open my canister and clean it over removing all the gravel and water from my aquarium to do a cleaning... I couldnt even keep that thing clean with weekly gravel vacs and using a powerhead to blow out crap by pointing it backwards down the tube

UGF are outdated technology in my opinion


----------



## Fishnut2 (Feb 25, 2009)

Well,
I'm seeing a trend here. Nobody that posted likes the UG filters. But I noticed nobody has spawned the piranha that posted. Or at least didn't get the banner yet. It seems to be a preference...depending on how you have your tanks setup. My home made pot filters are really designed for bare bottom tanks. They would EXTREMELY ugly in a show tank. But for breeding, they work for me. In fact my other 2 colonies of RBs have (home made) canister filters. And even though the water is crystal clear...I haven't had a single spawn in those tanks yet.
I really DO appreciate your comments. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this with me. That's how I learn, by sharing experiences with others.


----------



## EZmoney (May 13, 2004)

Well, I do see a lot of bacteria growth under your plate which is respectable. And, if you are using them in a bare bottom tank, as you say, then it would be far easier to maintain them. IMO once they are buried under 2-3 inches of gravel, waste and dirt can only be removed thru a complete breakdown of the tank and then their benefits are null. I am also not a fan of HOB filters and won't use them on tanks larger than 20 gallons. I believe that as much if not more bacteria can be cultivated in a canister which is easier to maintain and has a higher turnover rate(i think).

Sidenote- only one of the other posters in this thread keeps the breedable rpbs so that is a moot point.

With all that being said, I am still a big fan of anything DIY. I would love to see you post your DIY pot filters and canister filters in the site's Tank and Equipment Forum


----------



## Fishnut2 (Feb 25, 2009)

The only reason I mentioned breeding, is that I figure breeding suggests good water quality. The DIY pot filters are for BB tanks, and all the gravel is contained inside the pot. Cleaning takes 60 seconds in a 5 gallon bucket. They only need cleaning, once a month. My breeding tank has two DIY pot filters, surrounded by gravel. It's very unsightly for a show tank, but works well as a breeding setup.

If there was more interest in the home made filters...I'd gladly take 1-2 hours for pics and a good article. But there doesn't seem to be much interest at all. I knew some people would like other systems. The manufacturers spend a TON of money to promote thier products. I just wanted to share, what works for me.


----------



## Ægir (Jan 21, 2006)

Fishnut2 said:


> The only reason I mentioned breeding, is that I figure breeding suggests good water quality. The DIY pot filters are for BB tanks, and all the gravel is contained inside the pot. Cleaning takes 60 seconds in a 5 gallon bucket. They only need cleaning, once a month. My breeding tank has two DIY pot filters, surrounded by gravel. It's very unsightly for a show tank, but works well as a breeding setup.
> 
> If there was more interest in the home made filters...I'd gladly take 1-2 hours for pics and a good article. But there doesn't seem to be much interest at all. I knew some people would like other systems. The manufacturers spend a TON of money to promote thier products. I just wanted to share, what works for me.


So "Pot filters" are basically the same thing as a Wet/Dry filter... You are promoting Aerobic bacteria growth in a separate compartment (using bio-balls or gravel is the same thing as a media and using a 5 gal bucket is your "sump")... I dont see how you can say theres no interest in sumps and wet/dry filters....

Everybody agrees a wet/dry is the best form of filtration... and lots of people build them, just not in a 5 gal bucket. You cant compare an UGF to a sump or wet/dry filter.


----------



## EZmoney (May 13, 2004)

Fishnut2 said:


> If there was more interest in the home made filters...I'd gladly take 1-2 hours for pics and a good article. But there doesn't seem to be much interest at all. I knew some people would like other systems. The manufacturers spend a TON of money to promote thier products. I just wanted to share, what works for me.


How bout just a few pics to start and not a whole article. You can show off your DIY equipment. I for one like to admire others' hard work and ingenuity. Not everyone will jump on the bandwagon and begin making their own filters, but sharing does inspire people to be creative. Please share!


----------



## Fishnut2 (Feb 25, 2009)

Skunk,

I didn't explain that well enough. The pot filter is a margerine container, with that round UG I posted, filled with red flint gravel. I only use the 5 gallon bucket once a month...during cleaning. I fill the bucket (twice) and swirl the gravel around twice...dumping off all the dirty water. The only other thing I do is clean the air inlet with a toothpick, and check the airline so it doesn't fall off. (about 60 seconds to clean) There is no sump, no electric, no cartridges or filter elements. It all runs off air, and the media is the gravel.

This is the entire pot filter:


----------



## Fishnut2 (Feb 25, 2009)

The red flint gravel is used by Shedd Aquarium in thier tower filters. Of course, they have different stages, ranging from red flint sand, to coarser gravel then what I use. The city of Milwaukee, (Wisconsin) uses it to filter thier drinking water. One other nice thing, is that it won't change your PH.


----------



## EZmoney (May 13, 2004)

Fishnut2 said:


> This is the entire pot filter:


Dude that is awesome! I am assuming that this whole setup is submerged in the tank. As you said, it would be unsightly in a show tank, but I can see it having purpose in other situations. For instance, if one needed to quickly setup a hospital tank, you could just scoop out gravel from an established tank and be good to go. Also, I am thinking that this pot filter could maybe work well in a fry tank.

*Here is the new topic for discussion in this thread-* I would not consider this as a normal UGF. It uses UGF components and principles yet it is self-contained and easily removed from the tank for servicing. I would like to label this as some ugf/internal filter hybrid. 
Let's discuss


----------



## Fishnut2 (Feb 25, 2009)

You know Gam...it's ironic that you mentioned this for a fry tank. Because that's the only situation I believe that a sponge filter is better. This filter will hold 4-5 times the waste that a sponge filter will. But for fry, I believe a sponge may be better. And here's why.
The surface area of this filter, will produce infusoria...just like a sponge filter. But the surface area is smaller on this type of filter. Because of the pot holding the media...the only surface area, is the exposed gravel on the top.. For fry, I believe that sponge filter is better, as the entire exterior of the sponge, can produce infusoria.


----------



## AmazonAddict (Jan 20, 2009)

I believe with anything other than a fry tank a UGF would not be nearly enough filtration for use in a piranha tank. And even for a fry tank it would be better to use a sponge filter to limit the excessive current.


----------



## blbig50 (Jan 1, 2009)

I don't believe the current is very strong with a UGF to begin with, that is one reason why people use their powerheads connected to the UGF.

Fishnut, awesome man. I really wan't to learn more about your filtration/set up.


----------



## CLUSTER ONE (Aug 2, 2006)

AmazonAddict said:


> I believe with anything other than a fry tank a UGF would not be nearly enough filtration for use in a piranha tank. And even for a fry tank it would be better to use a sponge filter to limit the excessive current.


 Wouldn't even even use it on a fry tank since alot of fry can be very messy so most peopel will do a bare bottom tank and a sponge filter.


----------



## Dr. Giggles (Oct 18, 2003)

The one thing that I do like about UGF's is that the under-current seems to me a more of a natural feel to the fish. Haven't had one in 30 years. I may just start one for shits and giggles in a 40G :laugh: Probably would not be a bad thing for a small serra.


----------



## Fishnut2 (Feb 25, 2009)

Big,
That is the whole filtration/setup. After adding pics, there's really nothing else I can say about them. They are that simple. I can add that I've bred close 200 types of cories, several types of africans, synos, zebra plecos, guppies, rams, apistos, BN plecos, oscars, and piranhas...all with these filters. Some of the tougher cories were Barbatus, gossei, duplicareus, black aneus, similus, adolfoi, metae, sterbai, albino sterbai, pygmaeus and Robustus. There's no way all of those different fish would breed, with inadequate filtration.

So if you want try a cheap DIY filter ($3) for a bare bottom tank...this is it! Times are tough for some people. This is a way to cut expenses for those that need to watch thier pennies. Spend it on a better quality food for your fish.


----------

