Switched to Carbon Filtration

[The-Raven]

I just purchased a new 29 gallon tank that I'll be setting up tonight with undergravel/carbon filtration.

I'm curious if this will be just as effective, better, or worse that my old sponge filtration.

Any advice or experience with this would be helpful. I was never a fan of my sponge filtration, as when i finally looked in at the sponge, it pretty much had nothing but bits of food and poop. The surface of my gravel had far more of these two items, so I wasn't too impressed. My old filter took water from the middle of the tank, thru the sponge, and just poured it out the top end and back into the tank right above the intake... once again, I wasn't impressed as it seemed to me that just that section of water would be filtered, and there wasn't much circulation.

 

[Tolak]

Part of aquarium maintainance includes vacuuming the gravel. You can never completely eliminate this task, no matter what type of filter, or how many you have.

Your old filter was doing one of the things it was supposed to, removing debris. That is mechanical filtration. The other function is biological filtration. If you were to put carbon in the filter it would also do chemical filtration.

The problem with undergravel filtration is that to completely clean the media, meaning your gravel, you have to pull it out. Depending on the type & quantity of fish, this needs to be done anywhere from once to twice a year. Pulling out sponges once or twice a month is much easier than tearing down an aquarium once or twice a year. If you have never torn down an aquarium set up with undergravel filtration, you will be in for a nasty surprise when you lift out the undergravel plates and see what is under there. Mud puddles are cleaner. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there. Stick with the hang on back filter.

Tolak

 

[The-Raven]

Part of aquarium maintainance includes vacuuming the gravel. You can never completely eliminate this task, no matter what type of filter, or how many you have.

Your old filter was doing one of the things it was supposed to, removing debris. That is mechanical filtration. The other function is biological filtration. If you were to put carbon in the filter it would also do chemical filtration.

The problem with undergravel filtration is that to completely clean the media, meaning your gravel, you have to pull it out. Depending on the type & quantity of fish, this needs to be done anywhere from once to twice a year. Pulling out sponges once or twice a month is much easier than tearing down an aquarium once or twice a year. If you have never torn down an aquarium set up with undergravel filtration, you will be in for a nasty surprise when you lift out the undergravel plates and see what is under there. Mud puddles are cleaner. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there. Stick with the hang on back filter.

Tolak

i had an undergravel sponge filter many many years ago in a small 5 gallon tank and it really wasn't an issue to clean. I already had planned on doing a complete clean of my aquarium once or twice a year already, so your telling me that comes as no surprise. Even if I had a hang on back filter like I already had, I would conduct the same semiannual maintenance, cleaning out the gravel of all of the crap, while still keeping it all wet enough as to not harm any of the bacteria.

Thanks for the assistance though.



I'm still curious as to which filtration system (mech or chem) produces the best results.

 

[Tolak]

Which is better depends on your situation. A tank with larger, messier fish with a good water supply will benefit more from mechanical filtration, which removes debris. If you had smaller fish in a lightly stocked tank, with well water, which is known to have metal contamanents at times, you would be better off with chemical filtration.

There is no reason you couldn't have both types of filtration, many people do. I'll run carbon on a new or newly cleaned tank to remove any chemical residue left from cleaning or manufacturing. After a week I pull it. Good city water supply here, no need to run carbon all the time. My first tank years ago was set up with ugf and a small hob. Lightly stocked 10 gallon, it worked out fine. If that's all I ran on my overstocked 55, it would be a horrible mess. 2 totally different situations.

If you are not a real fan of sponge filtration, look into a cannister. The blow away either ugf or hob filters. Eheims rock, I've got 4 of them running, can't say enough good things about them. You can put whatever type of media in them you like, extend the outflow down to the bottom to keep the gravel clean, sort of an under gravel jet deal. They are a little more costly, but like anything else, you get what you pay for.

Tolak

 

[The-Raven]

Which is better depends on your situation. A tank with larger, messier fish with a good water supply will benefit more from mechanical filtration, which removes debris. If you had smaller fish in a lightly stocked tank, with well water, which is known to have metal contamanents at times, you would be better off with chemical filtration.

There is no reason you couldn't have both types of filtration, many people do. I'll run carbon on a new or newly cleaned tank to remove any chemical residue left from cleaning or manufacturing. After a week I pull it. Good city water supply here, no need to run carbon all the time. My first tank years ago was set up with ugf and a small hob. Lightly stocked 10 gallon, it worked out fine. If that's all I ran on my overstocked 55, it would be a horrible mess. 2 totally different situations.

If you are not a real fan of sponge filtration, look into a cannister. The blow away either ugf or hob filters. Eheims rock, I've got 4 of them running, can't say enough good things about them. You can put whatever type of media in them you like, extend the outflow down to the bottom to keep the gravel clean, sort of an under gravel jet deal. They are a little more costly, but like anything else, you get what you pay for.

Tolak

Well right now I have the carbon running in a 29 gal with only 4 small fish (see my sig)

But I do plan on upping the population slowly but surely to somewhere between 15-20.

2 fish I know I will get in the near future is one clown loach and another albino cory to help clean up the bottom a bit more.

Would getting a few ghost shrimp help keep all of the junk out of the tank? I know it won't get all of it, but every little bit helps (and since the damn things are only 26 cents a piece, I would have no reservations to buying them if I thought they'd help)

 

[NinjaSmurf]

The thing is to syphon the gravel when you do your water changes, about once a week. If I were you I'd add three more albino cories, as they do much better in larger groups and skip the clown, as they eventually get close to a foot long, which would be too much for your tank. Add as many ghost shrimp as you want, they're coold and they do really help.

 

[The-Raven]

The thing is to syphon the gravel when you do your water changes, about once a week. If I were you I'd add three more albino cories, as they do much better in larger groups and skip the clown, as they eventually get close to a foot long, which would be too much for your tank. Add as many ghost shrimp as you want, they're coold and they do really help.

This was helpful information, thanks. I don't want to put too many cories in the tank before I have actual fish, other wise there will be more scavengers than there are things to scavenge. But I will eventually have at least 3 cories and the loach.

As to your objection to the introduction of the loach - I've been told (and have read on nearly every review of them on the internet) that in an aquarium they rarely even reach 6". If you have some kind of proof that they will actually grow that large, I'm more than open to see it.

 

[NinjaSmurf]

clowns


Plus, they should go in groups, so if you have three and they only reach 6 inches that's still a foot and a half worth of fish, also, in every other thread I've seen where someone had a thirty gallon or there about who wanted to get clowns was told no, I just happen to be saying it before anyone else does...

As to the cories, you still have to feed them like any other fish, they sell tablets made for bottom feeders, and they love bloodworms. What other fish were you planning on by the way?

 

[The-Raven]

clowns


Plus, they should go in groups, so if you have three and they only reach 6 inches that's still a foot and a half worth of fish, also, in every other thread I've seen where someone had a thirty gallon or there about who wanted to get clowns was told no, I just happen to be saying it before anyone else does...

As to the cories, you still have to feed them like any other fish, they sell tablets made for bottom feeders, and they love bloodworms. What other fish were you planning on by the way?

Like I said, most online sources say that they grow to a foot, but most of them in captivity they never reach that size - wish the entry on this forum said the same. While I'm now skeptical about buying it, I'm certainly not swayed to say no quite yet.

As to my other fish choices, I already have 3 GW Killies, which are by far the coolest and heartiest fish I've ever had.

I was thinking about getting some tiger barbs again. Once again, this is something that online sources say one thing, but my personal experience says another - as they say that they are aggressive and will kill smaller fish, and not to have them in groups lower than 6. I originally had 6, but the group soon died off to 3, and they were some of the most socal fish I had... they nipped at the fins of some goldfish that I was stupid enough to buy in my early days, but that was the extent of it.

I was thinking about some of the larger tetras (black phantoms, serpaes), or some rasbora hets. But that's just my wish list for now.

 

[NinjaSmurf]

Lol, you just had to pick fish I know nothing about now.... sneaky lol Wish you luck!