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//

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 are really happy with the ease of mainiaing the bare bottom pond.

Jim

JGW wrote:
We're getting ready to build our new pond. The contractor wants to
line the walls and bottom with rocks, which he says will serve as a
great huge biofilter. 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?

Thanks.

Joan
___________________

"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