Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2005, 11:47 PM
JGW
 
Posts: n/a
Default Pond Bottom: rocks or no rocks?

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
___________________


  #2   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2005, 11:50 PM
2pods
 
Posts: n/a
Default

No rocks


"JGW" wrote in message
...
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
___________________



  #3   Report Post  
Old 03-08-2005, 12:26 AM
Reel Mckoi
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"JGW" wrote in message
...
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?

=======================
They'll look good but I think you're right. They'll collect debris and soon
be a mess. How does he suggest you clean them? I had gravel on the bottom
and shelves of my first pond. Cleaning them was impossible.
--
McKoi.... the frugal ponder...
My Pond Page http://tinyurl.com/cuq5b
~~~ }((((o ~~~ }{{{{o ~~~ }(((((o

  #4   Report Post  
Old 03-08-2005, 12:29 AM
Gary
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I think it is a matter of personal choice, depending on the size of
your pond and the look you want to achieve. If you choose to go with
rocks, you will not be able to keep them clean, so don't even try.
Algae will grow on them, unless you use a strong algaecide, clorox,
etc, and do not plan on having any plants or fish. (I call this the
"swimming pool" look.)
I prefer a more natural look and have a layer of fairly large river
rocks covering the bottom of my pond (600 gal., Rubbermaid stock tank,
6 ft. diameter X 2 ft. deep). It gives the fish (esp. the little ones)
good hiding places. The "gunk" does settle down in between the rocks,
but the plants love it. I have a water lily that hopped the pot years
ago, in favor of rooting under the rocks in the bottom of the pond. In
the spring, I clean the pond out by shoving the end of a syphon hose
down in between the crevaces of the rocks to pull some of the debris
out. Also, I use a pond enzyme powder about once a month in the
summer. The water is almost always clear, and fish and plants are
healthy. This has worked well for me for over 10 years.
Hope this helps,
Gary

  #6   Report Post  
Old 03-08-2005, 12:43 AM
George
 
Posts: n/a
Default


" George" wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s71...

"JGW" wrote in message
...
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
___________________


Some use rocks, some don't. Whether it traps hydrogen sulfide depends on
the nature of the material used. Obviously, if you create a thick silty,
clayey bottom, there is a definite possibility that H2S build up will
occur. If, however, you have good water flow, use large pebbles or rock
in a thin layer (I use 1/2"-3/4" natural-color rounded quartz/chert
pebbles in a thin layer more for appearance than anything else - also the
fish like to root around in the rock), have good filtration, and good
biologic growth, and regularly maintain your pond, you should have no
problems. I think the rock gives it a more natural look. On another
note, if your pond is prone to heavy sludge build up, cleaning can be
tedious, and usually involves scooping up the rock and rinsing it, then
cleaning the bottom. Frequent use of aquazyme or similar products can
significantly reduce sludge build up (the source of sulfide-reducing
bacteria).


That should have read "anerobic, hydrogen sulfide-producing bacteria".


  #7   Report Post  
Old 03-08-2005, 12:49 AM
George
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
I think it is a matter of personal choice, depending on the size of
your pond and the look you want to achieve. If you choose to go with
rocks, you will not be able to keep them clean, so don't even try.
Algae will grow on them, unless you use a strong algaecide, clorox,
etc, and do not plan on having any plants or fish. (I call this the
"swimming pool" look.)
I prefer a more natural look and have a layer of fairly large river
rocks covering the bottom of my pond (600 gal., Rubbermaid stock tank,
6 ft. diameter X 2 ft. deep). It gives the fish (esp. the little ones)
good hiding places. The "gunk" does settle down in between the rocks,
but the plants love it. I have a water lily that hopped the pot years
ago, in favor of rooting under the rocks in the bottom of the pond. In
the spring, I clean the pond out by shoving the end of a syphon hose
down in between the crevaces of the rocks to pull some of the debris
out. Also, I use a pond enzyme powder about once a month in the
summer. The water is almost always clear, and fish and plants are
healthy. This has worked well for me for over 10 years.
Hope this helps,
Gary


I've even seen some ponders incorporate sunken logs into their ponds to
give it a wild look.


  #8   Report Post  
Old 03-08-2005, 12:53 AM
Courageous
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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.


The walls will be okay, but depending how you do the floor, the
rock may trap detritus and be difficult to clean. All that stuff
will settle somewhere, in this case between your rocks. I would
think this would be a maintenance issue you'd rather not have.

C//

  #9   Report Post  
Old 03-08-2005, 01:00 AM
Harry
 
Posts: n/a
Default


" George" wrote:

"Gary" wrote in message
roups.com...
I think it is a matter of personal choice, depending on the size of
your pond and the look you want to achieve. If you choose to go with
rocks, you will not be able to keep them clean, so don't even try.
Algae will grow on them, unless you use a strong algaecide, clorox,
etc, and do not plan on having any plants or fish. (I call this the
"swimming pool" look.)
I prefer a more natural look and have a layer of fairly large river
rocks covering the bottom of my pond (600 gal., Rubbermaid stock tank,
6 ft. diameter X 2 ft. deep). It gives the fish (esp. the little ones)
good hiding places. The "gunk" does settle down in between the rocks,
but the plants love it. I have a water lily that hopped the pot years
ago, in favor of rooting under the rocks in the bottom of the pond. In
the spring, I clean the pond out by shoving the end of a syphon hose
down in between the crevaces of the rocks to pull some of the debris
out. Also, I use a pond enzyme powder about once a month in the
summer. The water is almost always clear, and fish and plants are
healthy. This has worked well for me for over 10 years.
Hope this helps,
Gary


I've even seen some ponders incorporate sunken logs into their ponds to


give it a wild look.


Hello,
I would think a constant trickle of fresh water would keep the pond natural.
Other wise the fish food and pooping will turn it into a glorified cesspool.

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

  #10   Report Post  
Old 03-08-2005, 03:04 AM
Phyllis and Jim Hurley
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

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
___________________




  #11   Report Post  
Old 03-08-2005, 04:06 AM
Cheryl and Rob
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Gary where did you get your stock tank? I got a Rubbermaid stock tank that's
300 gallons and 5'9 inches in diameter and 25 inches deep Part number 4247 .
http://rubbermaidcommercialproducts....5141&do=detail


"Phyllis and Jim Hurley" 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.

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
___________________




  #12   Report Post  
Old 03-08-2005, 05:45 AM
Courageous
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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//

  #13   Report Post  
Old 03-08-2005, 07:44 AM
David
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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?
  #14   Report Post  
Old 03-08-2005, 03:09 PM
mark Bannister
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.


There is a recent thread on koiphen discussing this:
http://www.koiphen.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23193

A good points made about rocks it that they will eventually get covered
in biofilm and it is had to tell that they are rocks.

Rocks trap all sorts of bad stuff underneath them. It's just not a good
idea for a closed system like our ponds. If you just had to have rocks
I would make sure they were mortared in so that nothing could get in
cracks or crevices. Don't just set them on the bottom for sure.

Mark B.
  #15   Report Post  
Old 03-08-2005, 05:52 PM
RichToyBox
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
--
RichToyBox
http://www.geocities.com/richtoybox/pondintro.html

"David" wrote in message
...
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?





Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
wet/dry vac to clean pond bottom? O3raledale Ponds 9 09-05-2004 06:05 AM
Keeping the pond bottom clean. Bob Knight Ponds 18 30-08-2003 07:42 PM
What should the bottom of the pond look like. Bob Knight Ponds 4 30-08-2003 01:02 AM
Keeping the pond bottom clean/winter frogs The Suttons Ponds 4 28-08-2003 06:02 PM
Advice on pond bottom (structure) Bob Adkins Ponds 4 11-06-2003 12:20 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:05 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 GardenBanter.co.uk.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Gardening"

 

Copyright © 2017