#1   Report Post  
Old 18-03-2012, 06:42 PM posted to rec.ponds.moderated
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: May 2010
Posts: 104
Default Rocks in the Pond - No

AGAINST ROCKS IN THE POND
The Case for Smooth Bottom Pond Design:
Todo --- North Florida Koi Club,
Past President & News Letter Editor

Recently there has been an ongoing debate on the news group rec.ponds
discussing several ponders preference for ponds with a layer of gravel
across their pond's bottoms. Among their reasons for this are 1) The
light bottom makes the fish easier to see, 2) the gravel is more
attractive than a smooth black liner, 3) what possible difficulties that
may occur due to trapped organic matter can be solved by biological
and/or chemical means.
There are however, real reasons to reconsider the decision to place
gravel in a pond.

The bottom may be lighter in color, but often times this light rock gets
covered with dark green algae, which defeats the intention. The gravel
can get covered with mulm, the dark organic material that is a byproduct
of the natural biological functions of a pond. The mulm can totally or
partially obscure the bottom. Hence, it is an open question how long the
bottom will stay pristine.

As for the aesthetics of the gravel. There is not discussion on taste so
this becomes no real argument for or against this question.

The third point is then the most critical and most contentious. With a
gravel bottom the mulm, fish waste and decaying plant matter from the
pond does not flow quickly to the drain or sump, where it can be removed
from the pond. The gunk gets trapped in the spaces between the stones
and there it sits.

In a properly designed pond the solids produced in it are carried by the
flow of the water down to where the pump can suck the material out and
send it to the filter system where it belongs. (Please note that I do
not imply that a pond with gravel is by definition poorly designed, for
there are many smooth bottom ponds whose specifications do not add to
its efficiency.

However, I do say that no matter what the design, gravel degrades the
efficiency of a pond).

What then, is the detrimental effect of having gravel. The first thing
to remember is that a pond is not an aquarium outside. Gravel, used in
an aquarium has a purpose, it acts as part of the filter system. Water
is drawn through the gravel, mechanically removing debris and providing
a surface for aerobic bacteria which neutralize ammonia and other
byproducts of the aquarium system. The water is then pumped back into
the tank.

In a pond there is not under-gravel filter. Water is not drawn through
the stones, it passes over the top and the mulm that accumulates under
and between the pebbles builds up in an oxygen deficient environment. As
a rule, aerobic bacteria are beneficial and anaerobic bacteria are not.

Anaerobic bacteria survive without oxygen and their byproducts are often
harmful, such as sulfur dioxide, the chemical that give a rotten egg
smell. In addition to these bacteria, other harmful organisms fester in
the goo at the bottom of gravel ponds.

To counter the foulness of the gravel bottom, practitioners say that
chemicals can be used to reduce the mulm to an inert material. There are
other products, such as PondZime which reduces the mulm with enzymes.
The efficiency of these remedies is questionable, not to mention that
even if the crud is neutralized it still continues to accumulate. Hence,
more chemicals must be used to deal with the problem. It seems that a
much better, less costly, and far preferable solution is to have the
pump remove the gunk.

Here, a counter argument says that the mulm is only deposited in the
filter and so it doesn't matter where it sits, in the filter or on the
bottom, it is still in the pond system. This argument fails when the
mechanisms of filtration are known. For in a filter system, water is
passed though the filter, supporting aerobic bacteria just as it is in
the under-gravel filter in an aquarium.

So the issue comes full circle just as water is pumped from a pond, just
to be filtered and returned. The idea of having gravel comes from
aquariums, but as ponds are different than aquariums the function of the
gravel is shifted to the filter system in ponds. Ironically and in
opposition to the logic of some ponders, the gravel becomes detrimental
to the pond.

  #2   Report Post  
Old 19-03-2012, 12:09 AM posted to rec.ponds.moderated
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,503
Default Rocks in the Pond - No

Good oldie picks JB.

Around here (local club) we're of the mindset of no rocks, though we don't
let ourselves get bent out of shape about it. Quite simply we state the
obvious, "you'll have more pond if you remove the rocks" and as we know,
once one puts in a pond they all wish for bigger, right? ;-)

I'll never forget the one ponder who had a pond put in "professionally"
when aquascape first came out. When he got more education on koi, he
removed the rocks and found just how much rock he had paid for... I think
it was something like 2 feet deep in just rocks! Eventually he really got
more serious and made the pond deeper and even added gas heat, so he could
keep his koi comfy thru-out the winter.

Alas, they moved to a house w/o a pond and putting in another wasn't his
top priority, so the fish stayed with the new owners. They got foreclosed
on and only due to a neighbor did the previous owner find out that the pond
had been left to grow stagnant with all these big koi in it. With the
neighbor's help (power and water) a koi club rescue took place. All the
really big koi were lost, but they did manage to save about 15-20 medium
size ones. One was a gorgeous butterfly that I wish I'd gone on the rescue
trip, but it was Feb. and I had no way to quarantine at the time and wasn't
going to risk not doing it. Why I didn't show up as surely I would have
been tempted.s ~ jan
------------
Zone 7a, SE Washington State
Ponds: www.jjspond.us

  #3   Report Post  
Old 19-03-2012, 01:16 PM posted to rec.ponds.moderated
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Aug 2011
Posts: 216
Default Rocks in the Pond - No

On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 13:42:48 EDT, JB wrote:

AGAINST ROCKS IN THE POND
The Case for Smooth Bottom Pond Design:


I think smooth bottom ponds look like oversize baths. The addition of
rocks, plants and even fishes is needed to make ponds look real!

Steve

--
Neural Network Software. http://www.npsl1.com
EasyNN-plus. Neural Networks plus. http://www.easynn.com
SwingNN. Forecast with Neural Networks. http://www.swingnn.com
JustNN. Just Neural Networks. http://www.justnn.com

  #4   Report Post  
Old 19-03-2012, 01:17 PM posted to rec.ponds.moderated
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Dec 2006
Posts: 880
Default Rocks in the Pond - No

I am a definite NO for rocks anywhere and YES for ecosystem. It seems to m
e, however, that there are as many possible systems as owners! Phyllis and
I aimed for cheap, fast and easy.

The main pond is bare bottomed, sloping very gently to a collection point.
Bare bottom allows the fish and flow to move muck to the filter. The lowe
st point is on the opposite end from the return stream, forcing the flow to
move the length of the pond. The low point has a place for debris that wi
ll not fit the filter (intake is 1/2" screened or above the bottom of the c
ollection well. This pulls water from a bit above the lowest point. -Once
a year-, a simple pool net can be used to remove the big stuff.

The water is pumped to a smooth-bottomed veggie filter filled with fast gro
wing floating plants (e.g. hyacinth, water celery, water lettuce). The veg
gie filter should be 10-20% the size of the main pond. The water goes thro
ugh the filter at about 45 min per water change. The plant roots act as me
chanical filters and bacterial surfaces. The plant growth grab nutrients.
The filtration and slow flow allow the muck to settle to the bottom of the
veggie filter. Water exits at the top of the side opposite the water entr
y point and returns by stream or falls to the pond (aeration).

-Once a year-, in the spring before new growth, the veggie filter is draine
d from its bottom. Around here we just pull the plants, put a dome of 1/2"
mesh over the drain, and let the water run out. Most of the muck simply f
lows out. We add a chaser of pond water to flush what will flow out. What
does not drain is netted out with a pool net. Then the drain is closed, t
he plants tossed in, and the filter refilled. Good for another year.

With this model you NEVER have to drain or even sweep the main pond. Annua
lly, you net the big material from the deepest spot in the main pond. Annu
ally, the veggie filters are drained,flushed with pond water and refilled.
We do three veggie filters and the main pond in about 2 hours. That is al
l for the year for a 4,000 gallon system! At this point, the water is clea
r all year and the fish very healthy (2 deaths in 14 years).

The keys: NO rocks in the pond, enough veggie filters, well set drains.

  #5   Report Post  
Old 20-03-2012, 10:49 PM posted to rec.ponds.moderated
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: May 2010
Posts: 104
Default Rocks in the Pond - No

On 3/18/2012 6:09 PM, ~ jan wrote:
Good oldie picks JB.

Around here (local club) we're of the mindset of no rocks, though we don't
let ourselves get bent out of shape about it. Quite simply we state the
obvious, "you'll have more pond if you remove the rocks" and as we know,
once one puts in a pond they all wish for bigger, right? ;-)

I'll never forget the one ponder who had a pond put in "professionally"
when aquascape first came out. When he got more education on koi, he
removed the rocks and found just how much rock he had paid for... I think
it was something like 2 feet deep in just rocks! Eventually he really got
more serious and made the pond deeper and even added gas heat, so he could
keep his koi comfy thru-out the winter.

I have a neighbor that had her pond professionally installed and it has
small rocks, several inches deep on the bottom. Her pond guy told me
about all the "good bacteria" that would grow there. I could only think
back to my aquarium experience with an under gravel filter where the
gravel did serve as the filter medium; however, you had to pull water
through the gravel and a supporting frame for it to work. Otherwise, it
was just a mulm collecting field that you had to constantly siphon off
to keep clean and the fish healthy.

I've not visited with her in a few years. I'm curious to see what her
thinking is after having this set up for this many years.

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pond Bottom: rocks or no rocks? JGW Ponds 61 17-08-2005 05:05 AM
Seeking advice about brown stains on rocks in pond please george Ponds 9 02-12-2004 04:22 AM
Seeking advice about brown stains on rocks in pond please nb Ponds 12 02-12-2004 04:22 AM
Brown on Pond Waterfall and Surrounding Rocks Jerry G Ponds 9 16-08-2004 03:54 AM
Brown on Pond Waterfall and Surrounding Rocks Jerry G Ponds 0 14-08-2004 03:19 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:10 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 GardenBanter.co.uk.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Gardening"

 

Copyright © 2017