[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ufg vs RFUG
- To: <Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com>
- Subject: Re: ufg vs RFUG
- From: Thomas Barr <tcbiii at earthlink_net>
- Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 10:13:42 -0500
- In-reply-to: <200302141048.h1EAmntt015916 at otter_actwin.com>
- User-agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022
> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 04:13:40 +0000
> From: "Matt & Jenn Birckbichler" <matt_n_jenn at hotmail_com>
> Subject: ugf vs. rugf
> I just bought a new 55gal aquarium. I want to use a ugf filter because is a
> great biological filter. Witch is better for a planted aquarium ugf or rugf?
> If it is run as a rugf does it do just as good a job as a biological filter?
> advantages disadvantages. opions please.
RFUG have always done better IME/IMO but a particular types are key for
I used CPVC or PVC pipe grids with the tubes about 1.5 to 2 inches apart
with holes drilled in them. These work the best for planted tanks.
But your first reason for wanting a UG filter is somewhat misplaced. With a
planted tank, the biological filter are the plants. That's a main reason why
to keep plants in the first place.
If you want a plant tank, take care of the plant's needs. Bacteria play a
much reduced role in the nitrogen cycle and are only a "back up".
By providing optimal nutrients within the water column for healthy plant
growth(this provides an even playing field for comparing two or more
substrates against eachother), changing the substrate to try different mixes
showed Flourite to be the best in many set ups with most every plant
Generally I've had best plant growth without using RFUG's using Flourite or
Onyx, a bit of ground peat to the bottom layer and some mulm that collects
in the substrate.
You will have better results using this substrate vs any RFUG or UG, with
plants. A canister filter and the plants will work well for all the bio
filter you will ever need.