Is love in the Air.. or water??
- Thread starter omojena
- Start date
omojena;3763607; said:
Like I said, probobly something I'm doing wrong. I've always been good at figuring out how NOT to do something right. Maybe my setup just needs some hydroponics and less water changes. Got any pics of your hydroponics setup? I wanna have love in my water too......
DB junkie;3763742; said:Like I said, probobly something I'm doing wrong. I've always been good at figuring out how NOT to do something right. Maybe my setup just needs some hydroponics and less water changes. Got any pics of your hydroponics setup? I wanna have love in my water too......
ill get some pics tomorow while the lights are on but basically here is what i got:
i have an 8' long sump. 42" of the sump are "empty." that is, they dont have any media or anything, just flowing water that get pumped back into the tank. that 42" X 24" space has 7200GPH flowing through it. it is lit by a 48" power compact fixture with 4 x 65watt 10,000K and 6700K lamps. its houses 75% water lettuce, 25% water hyacinth and its beginning to grow its own algae all over the bottom and side walls of the sump. it is lit 14hrs per day on a timer. it seems to be making a HUGE difference over a non-"planted" setup. I started off about 4 weeks ago with about 6 plants and they have grown into well over 50 or so by now. ill try to get some pics tomorrow but i dont want to get too excited because i haven't checked the Nitrates in the tank since ive done it. b4 i added the plants the the nitrates were at about 60ppm before a water change and about 15-20ppm after a water change. we'll see if the plants make a difference. ill check the nitrates tomorrow as well.
I'd like to know IF there is an advantage in obtaining low nitrates via plants as opposed to a drip system? And if so WHY?
I'd tend to think a warm water drip system would be more econical. Should be cheaper then the electricity involved in powering plant bulbs and heating a large body of water.
I'd tend to think a warm water drip system would be more econical. Should be cheaper then the electricity involved in powering plant bulbs and heating a large body of water.
I don't know, because to me most people who do drip's do around 100% a week.. I do that much without a drip. I think the plants would be an added benifit.
Right now i have a bunch of pothos in my sump with a standard flourescent light mounted over the sump. But i have a small 40 gallon sump that is full of scrubbies. The pothos are rooted all in the scrubbies.
I know that hyacinth work real well better than most plants. I could not get them to grow without high powered lights..
Right now i have a bunch of pothos in my sump with a standard flourescent light mounted over the sump. But i have a small 40 gallon sump that is full of scrubbies. The pothos are rooted all in the scrubbies.
I know that hyacinth work real well better than most plants. I could not get them to grow without high powered lights..
I can't speak for everyone with a drip system but I know I'm running significantly more then 100% a week. I'm guessing at least 50% per day. Before the drip I was doing WCs manually everyday and the rays were much less active and didn't seem to eat nearly as much as they do now, making me think they didn't appreciate the fluctuations. There has to be a reason that low nitrate through a planted sump seems to be generally accepted as "better" then low nitrate obtained through a drip. There's several reasons I don't have a planted sump. But maybe if it does something to the water or rays that I don't know about, maybe that would justify the extra needed space, cost of plants, and the initial and monthly lighting costs that a planted sump requires.
