|
This sounds like a workable solution for the rock bottom ponds. It would
work much more like the undergravel filters of aquariums since you would be pulling water through and then filtering, etc. One caution would be to put sufficient support under the grates to be able to walk on the rocks.You never know when you will have to get in to rearrange pots, catch fish, etc. -- RichToyBox http://www.geocities.com/richtoybox/pondintro.html "Courageous" wrote in message ... We are with the no rocks cohort. They don't give you all that much surface as compared to plant roots. Easy clean bottom is overwhelmingly best. As an aside, my pond build will featuring a sort of false bottom; think egg crates (small pallets really) raised off the bottom, with small flat stones on top of them to hide the egg crates. This is because I want to create a hiding place for certain species that are shy. The design features the bottom drain pulling from under the rocks; my theory here is that small bits of detritus will be pulled to the settling tank. I really have no idea how it will work out. Just this whacky idea I have. Note how if it doesn't work out, the whole thing can just be removed. I then I have a flat bottomed pond. C// |
Good point Rich.
I should have said that my design will be concrete, with the rocks mortared down in -- therefore no voids underneath. IMHO, that should relieve much of the problem because the bottom drains would still be pretty effective. (Of course not as effective as with no rocks at all, but still reasonably effective.) AquaScape doesn't even use bottom drains at all do they? Given the above perspective, don't you think that the water blaster wand could work if it was done judiciously? By that I mean, don't ever let the buildup get out of hand, and even then only do a fraction of the pond at any one time. (?) I respect your point of view -- I know that you have been at this a lot longer than I have! On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 11:52:36 -0400, "RichToyBox" wrote: Unless you remove the fish first, I believe that this would be a very bad idea. The hydrogen sulfide that is produced in the anaerobic conditions is very toxic. Blasting it loose would free the hydrogen sulfide and kill all the fish. The main group of installers of gravel bottom ponds have a requirement that the pond be drained, power washed and restarted each year to work properly. No rocks makes it easy to keep the mulm from building up thick enough to cause the anaerobic breakdown, and it therefore safer for the fish. |
David wrote:
I should have said that my design will be concrete, with the rocks mortared down in -- therefore no voids underneath. IMHO, that should relieve much of the problem because the bottom drains would still be pretty effective. (Of course not as effective as with no rocks at all, but still reasonably effective.) AquaScape doesn't even use bottom drains at all do they? Here's another thought, one I've been pondering every since running across a new substrate craze on some cichlid forums. There's apparently a rather vocal group of cichlid keepers using 3M Color Quartz as a substrate in their tanks. Here's the thing though, 3M Color Quartz was originally made to mix into the plaster lining of pools and concrete of patios to give it a color. See where I'm going here? It's obviously inert enough to work as a substrate in an aquarium and it's meant to be mixed into things like concrete. It comes in a wide variety of colors including natural tones of greys and browns. Why not forgo all the worry about rocks and such and mix this into the concrete to give it a rocky/sandy look. Anyone ever tried this before on the water side of the pond? I've seen something like this several times on the dry edges of a pond to form fake rocks out of the concrete, but can't remember seeing any colored concrete in the actual pond portions. Here's 3M website on the stuff: http://cms.3m.com/cms/US/en/2-125/cFikeFS/view.jhtml |
For a concreted bottom with rock imbedded, the use of a power washer of some
type to clean the rocks would not be a problem. It would remove any algae that grows on the rocks, which is good for filtration, but if some were allowed to build on the sides, then it should be ok. -- RichToyBox http://www.geocities.com/richtoybox/pondintro.html "David" wrote in message ... Good point Rich. I should have said that my design will be concrete, with the rocks mortared down in -- therefore no voids underneath. IMHO, that should relieve much of the problem because the bottom drains would still be pretty effective. (Of course not as effective as with no rocks at all, but still reasonably effective.) AquaScape doesn't even use bottom drains at all do they? Given the above perspective, don't you think that the water blaster wand could work if it was done judiciously? By that I mean, don't ever let the buildup get out of hand, and even then only do a fraction of the pond at any one time. (?) I respect your point of view -- I know that you have been at this a lot longer than I have! On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 11:52:36 -0400, "RichToyBox" wrote: Unless you remove the fish first, I believe that this would be a very bad idea. The hydrogen sulfide that is produced in the anaerobic conditions is very toxic. Blasting it loose would free the hydrogen sulfide and kill all the fish. The main group of installers of gravel bottom ponds have a requirement that the pond be drained, power washed and restarted each year to work properly. No rocks makes it easy to keep the mulm from building up thick enough to cause the anaerobic breakdown, and it therefore safer for the fish. |
The only color that seems to be better than black for a pond, is dark green.
No matter what color the pond is when it is installed, it will build an algae coating that will obscure the pretty colors. -- RichToyBox http://www.geocities.com/richtoybox/pondintro.html "Cichlidiot" wrote in message ... David wrote: I should have said that my design will be concrete, with the rocks mortared down in -- therefore no voids underneath. IMHO, that should relieve much of the problem because the bottom drains would still be pretty effective. (Of course not as effective as with no rocks at all, but still reasonably effective.) AquaScape doesn't even use bottom drains at all do they? Here's another thought, one I've been pondering every since running across a new substrate craze on some cichlid forums. There's apparently a rather vocal group of cichlid keepers using 3M Color Quartz as a substrate in their tanks. Here's the thing though, 3M Color Quartz was originally made to mix into the plaster lining of pools and concrete of patios to give it a color. See where I'm going here? It's obviously inert enough to work as a substrate in an aquarium and it's meant to be mixed into things like concrete. It comes in a wide variety of colors including natural tones of greys and browns. Why not forgo all the worry about rocks and such and mix this into the concrete to give it a rocky/sandy look. Anyone ever tried this before on the water side of the pond? I've seen something like this several times on the dry edges of a pond to form fake rocks out of the concrete, but can't remember seeing any colored concrete in the actual pond portions. Here's 3M website on the stuff: http://cms.3m.com/cms/US/en/2-125/cFikeFS/view.jhtml |
Sorry for the confusion, folks. I had a brain-fart. My tank is 300
gal., not 600, as I said earlier. I got my stock tank at a Country General store. This is a chain of farm and ranch supply stores. I think they went out of business several years ago, but I'm sure other places, like Murdoch's, would carry the Rubbermaid tanks or could order what you want. I seem to recall hearing somewhere that Rubbermaid did make a larger tank, but I'm not sure about that. Gary |
David wrote: On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 14:47:39 -0700, JGW wrote: I have read that it's impossible to keep the pond clean with rocks on the bottom, and that they can trap hydrogen sulfide gas. What are your thoughts? I have been considering this as one possible solution: Has anyone tried, or know of anyone who has tried using a *well-controlled* water-blast wand, (using pressurized pond water), to roil up any settled mulm around the rocks, which would then be pulled out through the bottom drain? This would only be done perhaps once or twice a year, and would of course be expected to temporarily load up the filters, etc. But it seems that this might be one way to permit one to rock the bottom. Any opinions, thoughts? Hello, Mother Nature doesnot function on "once or twice a year", she functions on minute by minute when it comes to water. Youare going to have to make up your mind: are you operating a pond or a cesspool. Fresh water flow MUST be introduced constantly, and that is all she wrote . . . You want to teach your fish to live in a cesspool fine, however "enzymes" are what they use to keep cesspools functioning, and if you are using those "enzymes" youare operating a cesspool, not a "pond". I would run a simple hose to the bottom of the cesspool 00ps pond and let the water trickle in 24/7/365. An occasional "storm" (hurricane every Fall) would "move" the slop up and out (over-flowing onto land) (you, of course, being the "storm"). And, yes, put lots of huge rocks on the bottom and all around the pond, as it may help slow down the soil erosion, thus prevent your house from being sucked into the pond. __________________________________________________ _____________________________ Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com The Worlds Uncensored News Source |
This sounds like a workable solution for the rock bottom ponds. It would work much more like the undergravel filters of aquariums since you would be pulling water through and then filtering, etc. One caution would be to put sufficient support under the grates to be able to walk on the rocks.You never know when you will have to get in to rearrange pots, catch fish, etc. Yes, you really need to use some kind of support pallet for this. I'm not really trying to turn it into a filter; just a single layer of hand sized flat-round stones. There will be sufficient gaps to allow certain kinds of wild life to live, hide under the "false bottom". I don't think detritus will accumulate down there; a mild pull will exist from all times from the bottom drain... C// |
"Courageous" wrote in message ... I don't think detritus will accumulate down there; a mild pull will exist from all times from the bottom drain... ======================== Wouldn't these small critters like tiny chorus frogs, pollywogs and newts get sucked into that bottom drain? -- McKoi.... the frugal ponder... My Pond Page http://tinyurl.com/cuq5b ~~~ }((((o ~~~ }{{{{o ~~~ }(((((o |
"Phyllis and Jim Hurley" wrote in message ... Do we have any ponders who have a bunch of rocks on the bottom of their ponds? Have any of them tried it 'bare bottomed'? They might be able to comment on the relative difficulty of maintaining them. ===================== We had gravel in the bottom of our 1st pond that first year. We removed it the following summer because of all the debris it collected. Cleaning the pond was impossible with the gravel on the shelves and bottom. -- McKoi.... the frugal ponder... My Pond Page http://tinyurl.com/cuq5b ~~~ }((((o ~~~ }{{{{o ~~~ }(((((o |
On 4 Aug 2005 01:07:00 GMT, "Harry" :7501 wrote:
David wrote: On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 14:47:39 -0700, JGW wrote: I have read that it's impossible to keep the pond clean with rocks on the bottom, and that they can trap hydrogen sulfide gas. What are your thoughts? I have been considering this as one possible solution: Has anyone tried, or know of anyone who has tried using a *well-controlled* water-blast wand, (using pressurized pond water), to roil up any settled mulm around the rocks, which would then be pulled out through the bottom drain? This would only be done perhaps once or twice a year, and would of course be expected to temporarily load up the filters, etc. But it seems that this might be one way to permit one to rock the bottom. Any opinions, thoughts? Hello, Mother Nature doesnot function on "once or twice a year", she functions on minute by minute when it comes to water. Youare going to have to make up your mind: are you operating a pond or a cesspool. Fresh water flow MUST be introduced constantly, and that is all she wrote . . . You want to teach your fish to live in a cesspool fine, however "enzymes" are what they use to keep cesspools functioning, and if you are using those "enzymes" youare operating a cesspool, not a "pond". I would run a simple hose to the bottom of the cesspool 00ps pond and let the water trickle in 24/7/365. An occasional "storm" (hurricane every Fall) would "move" the slop up and out (over-flowing onto land) (you, of course, being the "storm"). And, yes, put lots of huge rocks on the bottom and all around the pond, as it may help slow down the soil erosion, thus prevent your house from being sucked into the pond. I see that I have tweaked one of the trolls. Aw, well ... another 2 millisecond update to my killfile. How many minutess did it take you to construct your above rant? Sorry, Harry... {PLONK} |
Wouldn't these small critters like tiny chorus frogs, pollywogs and newts get sucked into that bottom drain? Possibly. It's a large pipe. It's 3600 GPH through a 4". If it's too much, they'll end up living in the settling tank. :-) C// |
On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 07:51:43 -0700, Courageous
wrote: Wouldn't these small critters like tiny chorus frogs, pollywogs and newts get sucked into that bottom drain? Possibly. It's a large pipe. It's 3600 GPH through a 4". If it's too much, they'll end up living in the settling tank. :-) C// Hi Courageous, I've been trying to think how to construct a rather large screen dome to place over the BD to address this problem. ("Large" = reduced suction per sq.in. = small critters (and fish) can escape more easily); but screen grid still large enough to permit mulm to pass thru. Or perhaps concentric domes of decreasing grid sizes(?) It's a difficult question isn't it? -- trying to solve two intertwined but mutually exclusive problems at the same time! Do you think it's worth experimenting? |
"Courageous" wrote in message ... Wouldn't these small critters like tiny chorus frogs, pollywogs and newts get sucked into that bottom drain? Possibly. It's a large pipe. It's 3600 GPH through a 4". If it's too much, they'll end up living in the settling tank. :-) ================================= That may work if they don't have to get past the impeller to get there. You may find your settling tank full of critters in a few days. :-)) I find pollywogs in my settling tank at times. I don't know how they get past the "clam-basket" the pump is in. -- McKoi.... the frugal ponder... ~~~ }((((o ~~~ }{{{{o ~~~ }(((((o http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killf..._troll_faq.htm |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:09 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter