Newbie Question! How Many More Fish?

[K-Holed]

Changing your powerhead wouldn't give you a massive advantage. You'd increase the flow through the substrate, but the overall area for bacterial growth will remain the same.

I have no empirical evidence to back that statement up, but you will certainly reach a point of diminishing returns.

Kind regards

Jimi

 

[Neesmo]

I would agree with that. At some point your only added filtration will come from another filter

Kyle

 

[Lady Moogie]

Thanks

Did another ammonia test last night and it came back at 0 Guess the tank just needed a few days to adapt to its new occupants - and I've cut down the feeding a bit.

Tried giving them a boiled (no salt), shelled, mushed pea last night. The barbs, tetra & fox all loved it. Really great to see them having something that actually looks nutritious

Have used some more melafix today because of the loose scales(?) on the barbs/fox. Doesn't seem to be getting any worse at least. Perhaps they arrived with it, it was so hard to notice in the first place we may have missed it before.

Everyone seems happy and we've brought the temperature back down to 26°c.

Will see what we do about the extra filter, other half still doesn't think we need more filtration so I guess we'll see how it is after the gravel is vac'd. The water's still clear, tests all come back fine. We've got a nice piece of (non pressed) coal that we've cleaned up to put in the tank, as LFS said this would act as a chemical remover of sorts (they say there's no point buying activated charcoal, this will do the same thing). Funny, for a shop they seem awfully keen to save us money!

 

[BrianM41]

Thanks

.

. We've got a nice piece of (non pressed) coal that we've cleaned up to put in the tank, as LFS said this would act as a chemical remover of sorts (they say there's no point buying activated charcoal, this will do the same thing). Funny, for a shop they seem awfully keen to save us money!

Correct me if I am wrong , did you mean charcoal instead of coal ? First let me state that I worked in the coal industry , running tests on coal for electric power companies so I know a little something about coal . Coal and activated carbon/charcoal are two different animals . Coal as a filter media in an aquarium would be close to useless , just a chunk of black rock . Coal is not porous , activated carbon/charcoal is . This is why it is used as a filter media . Act. carbon is manufactured in such a way that it becomes porous and when water pass through/around it the particles in the water become trapped in these pores . Activated carbon has a dull finish because it is porous , coal is shiny because it is not porous thus light reflects off of it . Cheap knock off carbon media like what is sold in some big box stores try to pass off crushed coal as activated carbon . If it has a shiny surface , then it is close to useless , if it has a dull finish then it is good to go .

 

[waterdrop]

One design goal in any filter is to handle the trade-off between the benefits of higher overall flow rate in the tank vs. the flow being too high within the filter box. Its usually a goal to get the water slowed down and randomized in direction while its within the media container section of the filter box. What this means for a UGF is that placing too high a pump flow on the filter will lessen the slow-down through the gravel bed. This will not be a problem for the bacteria as what they want most is simply the ammonia and the fresh oxygen, calcium and iron brought by the tap water. What the greater flow might do is lessen the effectiveness (which is already poor) of the mechanical filtration function of the UGF, the smaller debris will simply be sucked through and shot back out into the tank.

I would also call repeat attention to OM47's comment that for a UGF to be effective, the gravel cleans need to be frequent and the bed (the gravel) needs to be leveled so that no one "hot spot" develops where all the water is going through. The worst part is the periodic need for somehow cleaning the undertray area. Its ideal if a siphon hose can be pressed against the plate holes (after moving the gravel aside) and the mulm and other debris sucked out from under.

The comparison with HOBs really does present interesting contrasts. Maintenance is indeed a large difference with UGFs being a big pain. HOBs really are perhaps the very best, even slightly easier than ECs and they can accomplish all 3 functions, mechanical, chemical and biological filtration. But HOBs are also a source of a fair amount of troubles in that their overall media volume can be too small. In this regard, the UGF is really superior for biofiltration in that its volume is much larger. HOBs vary by model. Many have too small a media volume but others in the larger sizes are ok. Its less a problem for experienced aquarists who understand to be more patient with smaller filters but its sometimes more of a problem for beginners, who get unexpected mini-cycles with smaller HOBs and internals. This is where the EC really shines because it brings the media volumes back up to size, offering larger filtration beds that do a better job and handle fish additions better.

~~waterdrop~~

 

[BrianM41]

I used to be into UGFs' . They were just too much of a hassle and added undue stress on my fish when I needed to do a complete tear down of my aquascape to give it a good cleaning under the plates . I didn't want clunky boxes hanging from my set-ups either , but the ease of care of my HOBs' won out . I have a Penguin 330 on each of my 30 gallons . They have slots for four different types of media , two in front and two in back . I use floss and sponges in the front slots to remove the big stuff and bio-max ceramic rings in the back slots . The sponges and bio-max rings are great places for beneficial bacteria to live and grow along with the bio-wheels . I never use activated carbon so all I need to do is rinse them off in my fish bucket and slip them back in and I am good to go . I will use the floss and sponges till they fall apart. Cleaning my substrate has never been easier after getting rid of my UGFs also . I will never go back to UGFs and I used to swear by them .

But is really up to one's personal preference . If one is willing to remain dedicated and do the extra work to keep it clean underneath the UGF plates , then they will have great biological filtration .

 

[Lady Moogie]

Thanks for the coal advice Brian - to be honest I didn't entirely take in the detail about coal etc when the LFS guy was talking about it - went a bit over my head, but the other half took it in. I could have sworn that the LFS guy said it the opposite way around - the dull, preformed chunks are useless and a nice shiny block of non-pressed stuff is what we need. Guess he was wrong!

I've got a few little lumps of manufactured charcoal briquettes (about 2" square by an inch deep) if that's better than what my other half brought home yesterday. To be honest I don't know if that was coal or charcoal, I hadn't really realised there's a difference (sorry, bit blonde here!).

It's good to know we may be able to clean under the UGF plate with the vac if we can clear enough gravel away down the sides. I hope it doesn't disturb the fish too much. I'm more and more learning towards putting in the HOB (the suction bracket arrived today) and when that's had time to establish, remove the UGF's tube & powerhead and just be rid of the thing. Seems like a lot of hassle really for beginners like us with just the one tank.

 

[OldMan47]

The charcoal briquets made for a barbeque are worse than useless. They are often manufactured to make lighting them easy which means they are soaked in coal oil. (starter fluid) You don't want that nasty stuff in a fish tank, leave it for the barbeque.