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 Here's the thing though, 3M Color Quartz was originally made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

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

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.