Still green....
 

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:42:46 -0400, "BenignVanilla" wrote:

85 gallons seems like a small filter for 4200 gallons...

(Putting on Superior Being hat again, I'm just not getting those more
important things on my list done, so it will take awhile, please be
patient. Apology Accepted if you have no clue what I'm kidding about.)

BINGO! IMSBO. ;o) Whenever you are having to clean your bio-filter more
than once a year, you need more filter. If I had a 4200 gallon pond I'd
have at least 2 of my filters (150 gallons of filter) going on it. Probably
with the current light fish load, 1 would work, but you couldn't blast
4,000 gallons thru it in an hour. Maybe 2,000 - 2,500 using 3"-4" bulkhead
fittings. ~ jan


See my ponds and filter design:
http://users.owt.com/jjspond/

~Keep 'em Wet!~
Tri-Cities WA Zone 7a
To e-mail see website

Still green....
 

our experiences in shading a pond prove it is not a myth.
using a UV without a proper filter might create a problem, but not in an established
pond. algae thrives off the nutrients before they get to the filter to be removed.
Ingrid

MattR wrote:
He says shading the pond to
remove algae is a myth,
A uv filter would also kill the soup type algae and would do it sooner.
But eventually the filter will have to work correctly because the
fish load will increase to the point where ammonia is a problem. Of
course, with 4200 gallons and 2 small koi, 2 tiny koi, and 40 small
fish, this is going to be a few years. Anyway, as soon as the filter is
working the uv filter might not be needed anymore.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.