Hi Folks,

Been doing a lot of reading lately on the concrete vs. 45-mil liner
issue when setting up a fish pond. I'd like to ask the question in a
slightly different way:

Assume that money is no object (for the moment, at least; I'm sure
I'll come to my senses soon...) Also, assume that I don't have to set
it up myself (I have a competent fish pond installer who can go either
route, and is at this very moment sitting around waiting for me to
make up my mind on which direction to go). Given those two criteria,
I'd like to know, which pond bottom is best in the long run? Since
ease of installation is not a concern, I'd like to hear from people
who have had to live with one or the other for some time. Is
maintenance easier on one or the other? Is one "prettier" than the
other (highly subjective, I know). Does algae grow on concrete and
not come off?

I should mention that I live near San Jose, CA; earthquakes can
happen, although I'm not sure how big a deal this is. I don't get the
extreme temperatures, though (freezing nights are relatively rare,
though it can get up to 100 F on occasion). There are no tree roots
anywhere nearby that I have to worry about.

So, thoughts? Thanks in advance for any input. I've been tearing my
hair out over this crazy issue. Thanks!

Michael

I'm no pond expert but, the single most deciding factor for me in your
situation is the earthquakes. Swimming pools can (and do) crack during
an earthquake and so can concrete ponds (I presume). The liner will
flex and bend with the shaking of the ground and not likely crack.
(Also, it seems to me to be easier to *add* stuff (waterfalls, streams,
bogs, etc.) with a liner than would be with concrete.)

My (non-expert) advice: Go with the liner.

--Bryan


On 8/30/2004 11:05 PM Michael Capone let loose a lemur across the
keyboard and it typed:BR
Hi Folks,

I should mention that I live near San Jose, CA; earthquakes can
happen, although I'm not sure how big a deal this is. I don't get the
extreme temperatures, though (freezing nights are relatively rare,
though it can get up to 100 F on occasion). There are no tree roots
anywhere nearby that I have to worry about.

So, thoughts? Thanks in advance for any input. I've been tearing my
hair out over this crazy issue. Thanks!

Michael

--
************************************************** **********
* Can't see the Forest | Bryan B. *
* Through the Trees? | "Ho, Ho, Ho!" Santa *
* Take it out! | accused as he went *
* (Damn Viruses!) | through his list. *
************************************************** **********

Ok Michael, going with your scenario with money not an object..... I'd
go
with a DragonKote ( http://www.mermaidhouse.com/ ) pond
installation. It's
a spray on pond liner system that is 100% polyurea. Mermaidhouse
know's what
their doing and what it takes to build a functioning koi pond.

Now I know you're going to ask why I'd choose this system over
liner or
concrete so here's why... As mentioned concrete can have issues. It
needs to
be sealed from time to time. If it develops even a hairline crack (and
you're in quake country!) it can be a real bugger to get it fixed.
Liner can
have issues as well, the biggie for me being wrinkles. Wrinkles trap
debris
and milm and even fish! Bottom drains are essential in koi ponds but
if
there are a lot of wrinkles they aren't very efficient (or good for
that
matter) at removing the mulm. A DragonKote pond gives the best of
both.
Depending on the soil conditions, local building codes etc. a
supporting
structure is built. Either a gunite like product is sprayed in/on the
hole
or block is used. Then the DragonKote is sprayed on the supporting
structure
with absolutely NO wrinkles and it can be sprayed right up to/on
skimmers,
bottom drains, etc to there will be no leaking issues. A DragonKote
pond can
be easily expanded as well as the polyurea can stick to itself. I
happen to
have 3 net-friends that have built DragonKote ponds, all are
beautiful,
highly functioning koi ponds. For me, I happen to think this is one of
the
best products out there right now. Out of curiosity you should post
this
question on the pond building forum at http://www.koiphen.com There
are
some professional pond builders in residence there that will gladly
advise
folks. They will help out with filtration designs as well as koi have
very
specific requirements. Even a beautiful looking pond can be a
nightmare if
the filtrations not up to the job and the fish start dying.
Janet in sunny Niagara Falls (posting through Google because for
some reason my replys aren't showing up)


(Michael Capone) wrote in message . com...
Hi Folks,

Been doing a lot of reading lately on the concrete vs. 45-mil liner
issue when setting up a fish pond. I'd like to ask the question in a
slightly different way:

Assume that money is no object (for the moment, at least; I'm sure
I'll come to my senses soon...) Also, assume that I don't have to set
it up myself (I have a competent fish pond installer who can go either
route, and is at this very moment sitting around waiting for me to
make up my mind on which direction to go). Given those two criteria,
I'd like to know, which pond bottom is best in the long run? Since
ease of installation is not a concern, I'd like to hear from people
who have had to live with one or the other for some time. Is
maintenance easier on one or the other? Is one "prettier" than the
other (highly subjective, I know). Does algae grow on concrete and
not come off?

I should mention that I live near San Jose, CA; earthquakes can
happen, although I'm not sure how big a deal this is. I don't get the
extreme temperatures, though (freezing nights are relatively rare,
though it can get up to 100 F on occasion). There are no tree roots
anywhere nearby that I have to worry about.

So, thoughts? Thanks in advance for any input. I've been tearing my
hair out over this crazy issue. Thanks!

Michael

I'd say that the deciding factor should be desired durability. I have
two concrete koi ponds over 17 years old, and see no reason why they
won't last longer than I will. I see no signs of leakage. Of course,
if you're always redoing designs, that durability might be a
disadvantage.

A competent builder will use rebar to reinforce the concrete, so I
wouldn't be too concerned about earthquakes. A 15,000 gallon pool is
a typical pool, while a 1,500 gallon koi pond would be huge (the
larger the srtucture, the more likely it is to be damaged by an
earthquake). If you suffer a quake strong enough to damage a 1000
gallon pond, that will be the least of your problems!!!

PlainBill

On 30 Aug 2004 23:05:44 -0700, (Michael Capone)
wrote:

Hi Folks,

Been doing a lot of reading lately on the concrete vs. 45-mil liner
issue when setting up a fish pond. I'd like to ask the question in a
slightly different way:

Assume that money is no object (for the moment, at least; I'm sure
I'll come to my senses soon...) Also, assume that I don't have to set
it up myself (I have a competent fish pond installer who can go either
route, and is at this very moment sitting around waiting for me to
make up my mind on which direction to go). Given those two criteria,
I'd like to know, which pond bottom is best in the long run? Since
ease of installation is not a concern, I'd like to hear from people
who have had to live with one or the other for some time. Is
maintenance easier on one or the other? Is one "prettier" than the
other (highly subjective, I know). Does algae grow on concrete and
not come off?

I should mention that I live near San Jose, CA; earthquakes can
happen, although I'm not sure how big a deal this is. I don't get the
extreme temperatures, though (freezing nights are relatively rare,
though it can get up to 100 F on occasion). There are no tree roots
anywhere nearby that I have to worry about.

So, thoughts? Thanks in advance for any input. I've been tearing my
hair out over this crazy issue. Thanks!

Michael

He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression, for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
-Thomas Paine

Uhmm... PlainBill..... a 1500 gallon koi pond is only big enough to keep
about 4 koi if one follows the generally accepted rule of 1000 gallons for
the first koi and then 100 additional gallons per fish... I know folks with
25,000 gallons and are thinking of going bigger yet. )
Janet in sunny Niagara Falls

--

"PlainBill" wrote in message
...
I'd say that the deciding factor should be desired durability. I have
two concrete koi ponds over 17 years old, and see no reason why they
won't last longer than I will. I see no signs of leakage. Of course,
if you're always redoing designs, that durability might be a
disadvantage.

A competent builder will use rebar to reinforce the concrete, so I
wouldn't be too concerned about earthquakes. A 15,000 gallon pool is
a typical pool, while a 1,500 gallon koi pond would be huge (the
larger the srtucture, the more likely it is to be damaged by an
earthquake). If you suffer a quake strong enough to damage a 1000
gallon pond, that will be the least of your problems!!!

PlainBill

On 30 Aug 2004 23:05:44 -0700, (Michael Capone)
wrote:

Hi Folks,

Been doing a lot of reading lately on the concrete vs. 45-mil liner
issue when setting up a fish pond. I'd like to ask the question in a
slightly different way:

Assume that money is no object (for the moment, at least; I'm sure
I'll come to my senses soon...) Also, assume that I don't have to set
it up myself (I have a competent fish pond installer who can go either
route, and is at this very moment sitting around waiting for me to
make up my mind on which direction to go). Given those two criteria,
I'd like to know, which pond bottom is best in the long run? Since
ease of installation is not a concern, I'd like to hear from people
who have had to live with one or the other for some time. Is
maintenance easier on one or the other? Is one "prettier" than the
other (highly subjective, I know). Does algae grow on concrete and
not come off?

I should mention that I live near San Jose, CA; earthquakes can
happen, although I'm not sure how big a deal this is. I don't get the
extreme temperatures, though (freezing nights are relatively rare,
though it can get up to 100 F on occasion). There are no tree roots
anywhere nearby that I have to worry about.

So, thoughts? Thanks in advance for any input. I've been tearing my
hair out over this crazy issue. Thanks!

Michael

He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from
oppression, for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that
will reach to himself.
-Thomas Paine

That rule is rubbish. 600 gallons is plenty for half a dozen koi and when
they get large enough to be a problem you just rotate them for smaller ones.

Not everyone has an acre of property to fit a 10,000 gallon pond on and
these people should be able to enjoy thier koi without being scared to death
that they need thousands of gallons just for a couple of koi.

Sorry I dont mean to be a jerk, im just sick of people telling me that you
have to have a fricking lake to enjoy koi, when it just aint true.

D

"Janet" wrote in message
...
Uhmm... PlainBill..... a 1500 gallon koi pond is only big enough to keep
about 4 koi if one follows the generally accepted rule of 1000 gallons for
the first koi and then 100 additional gallons per fish... I know folks
with
25,000 gallons and are thinking of going bigger yet. )
Janet in sunny Niagara Falls

--

"PlainBill" wrote in message
...
I'd say that the deciding factor should be desired durability. I have
two concrete koi ponds over 17 years old, and see no reason why they
won't last longer than I will. I see no signs of leakage. Of course,
if you're always redoing designs, that durability might be a
disadvantage.

A competent builder will use rebar to reinforce the concrete, so I
wouldn't be too concerned about earthquakes. A 15,000 gallon pool is
a typical pool, while a 1,500 gallon koi pond would be huge (the
larger the srtucture, the more likely it is to be damaged by an
earthquake). If you suffer a quake strong enough to damage a 1000
gallon pond, that will be the least of your problems!!!

PlainBill

On 30 Aug 2004 23:05:44 -0700, (Michael Capone)
wrote:

Hi Folks,

Been doing a lot of reading lately on the concrete vs. 45-mil liner
issue when setting up a fish pond. I'd like to ask the question in a
slightly different way:

Assume that money is no object (for the moment, at least; I'm sure
I'll come to my senses soon...) Also, assume that I don't have to set
it up myself (I have a competent fish pond installer who can go either
route, and is at this very moment sitting around waiting for me to
make up my mind on which direction to go). Given those two criteria,
I'd like to know, which pond bottom is best in the long run? Since
ease of installation is not a concern, I'd like to hear from people
who have had to live with one or the other for some time. Is
maintenance easier on one or the other? Is one "prettier" than the
other (highly subjective, I know). Does algae grow on concrete and
not come off?

I should mention that I live near San Jose, CA; earthquakes can
happen, although I'm not sure how big a deal this is. I don't get the
extreme temperatures, though (freezing nights are relatively rare,
though it can get up to 100 F on occasion). There are no tree roots
anywhere nearby that I have to worry about.

So, thoughts? Thanks in advance for any input. I've been tearing my
hair out over this crazy issue. Thanks!

Michael

He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from
oppression, for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that
will reach to himself.
-Thomas Paine

That rule is rubbish. 600 gallons is plenty for half a dozen koi and when
they get large enough to be a problem you just rotate them for smaller ones.

Not everyone has an acre of property to fit a 10,000 gallon pond

10000 / 8 = 1250 cu ft

15 x 15 x 5.5 feet

Andrew Burgess wrote:

That rule is rubbish. 600 gallons is plenty for half a dozen koi and when
they get large enough to be a problem you just rotate them for smaller ones.





Not everyone has an acre of property to fit a 10,000 gallon pond



10000 / 8 = 1250 cu ft

15 x 15 x 5.5 feet






I have 8 Koi and 6 goldfish in my 1200 gallon pond in the greenhouse.
They have been happy and content and range from 4 - 16 inches in
length. I am currently enlarging the pond to 2800 gallons but the key
is water quality and filtration in my opinion. I also have a 380,000
gallon (approx) pond in my front yard and it fits in a little over a
third of an acre 180' by 80' by 3.5' average depth 8' max.

Bob in North Alabama

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 18:39:35 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Burgess
wrote:

===That rule is rubbish. 600 gallons is plenty for half a dozen koi and when
===they get large enough to be a problem you just rotate them for smaller ones.
===
===Not everyone has an acre of property to fit a 10,000 gallon pond
===
===10000 / 8 = 1250 cu ft
===
===15 x 15 x 5.5 feet
===


Lets see on an acre you could make a one acre pond and hold
approcimately 1.5 million gal of water if its only 4 feet deep or so
IIRC.

I have a friend that inherited 4 common goldfish when his father died.
They are so big they can not move in their typical gold fish type
bowl. He uses water straight from the tap, and changes it abaout once
a week. Only uses an airstone, no filter.........been like that for a
long long time. Can't say I agree with how they are, but his fish
appear healthy. I offered him the opportunity to put them in my pond
and his reply was just as soon as I get bored with them or they start
to die then you can have em........At the least it would be awfull
nice of him to give them a new home of even a 10 gal $29.00 Wal MArt
setup so they would have some fin room! Even the poor old Bettas sold
in a cup of water is IMHO not nice. The wifes Bettas each have a
filtered 5 gal home.
Visit my website: http://www.frugalmachinist.com
Opinions expressed are those of my wife,
I had no input whatsoever.
Remove "nospam" from email addy.

Roy goldfish are not koi. Goldfish will pretty much live, if not thrive in
what most would classify as sewer water. Koi on the other hand will not.
Janet in sunny Niagara Falls

--

"Roy" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 18:39:35 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Burgess
wrote:

===That rule is rubbish. 600 gallons is plenty for half a dozen koi
and when
===they get large enough to be a problem you just rotate them for
smaller ones.
===
===Not everyone has an acre of property to fit a 10,000 gallon pond
===
===10000 / 8 = 1250 cu ft
===
===15 x 15 x 5.5 feet
===


Lets see on an acre you could make a one acre pond and hold
approcimately 1.5 million gal of water if its only 4 feet deep or so
IIRC.

I have a friend that inherited 4 common goldfish when his father died.
They are so big they can not move in their typical gold fish type
bowl. He uses water straight from the tap, and changes it abaout once
a week. Only uses an airstone, no filter.........been like that for a
long long time. Can't say I agree with how they are, but his fish
appear healthy. I offered him the opportunity to put them in my pond
and his reply was just as soon as I get bored with them or they start
to die then you can have em........At the least it would be awfull
nice of him to give them a new home of even a 10 gal $29.00 Wal MArt
setup so they would have some fin room! Even the poor old Bettas sold
in a cup of water is IMHO not nice. The wifes Bettas each have a
filtered 5 gal home.
Visit my website: http://www.frugalmachinist.com
Opinions expressed are those of my wife,
I had no input whatsoever.
Remove "nospam" from email addy.

So D, are you actually going to tell someone that has come to love their
wetpets that are now 24" or 30" long that they now have to get rid of them?
I seriously think not. What are you going to do with them? With little known
about KHV not many (if any at all) would be willing to take them off your
hands, let alone pay for them. You can add to the mix the number of
parasites, bacteria and diseases that we do know about with koi and
basically you are going to be SOL. We're not talking about 6" or even 12"
goldfish here... we're talking about pond pigs that should, in proper
conditions grown to be 30" or even 36" long! It's really not hard to get the
water volumes needed to keep koi healthy, it means digging deeper. Here in
zone 6b it's not recommended to even think about keeping koi unless you dig
5.5' to 6' deep. Koi don't do well in water below 40 degrees...
Janet in sunny Niagara Falls

--

"Dsybok" wrote in message
ink.net...
That rule is rubbish. 600 gallons is plenty for half a dozen koi and when
they get large enough to be a problem you just rotate them for smaller
ones.

Not everyone has an acre of property to fit a 10,000 gallon pond on and
these people should be able to enjoy thier koi without being scared to
death
that they need thousands of gallons just for a couple of koi.

Sorry I dont mean to be a jerk, im just sick of people telling me that you
have to have a fricking lake to enjoy koi, when it just aint true.

D

"Janet" wrote in message
...
Uhmm... PlainBill..... a 1500 gallon koi pond is only big enough to keep
about 4 koi if one follows the generally accepted rule of 1000 gallons
for
the first koi and then 100 additional gallons per fish... I know folks
with
25,000 gallons and are thinking of going bigger yet. )
Janet in sunny Niagara Falls

--

"PlainBill" wrote in message
...
I'd say that the deciding factor should be desired durability. I have
two concrete koi ponds over 17 years old, and see no reason why they
won't last longer than I will. I see no signs of leakage. Of course,
if you're always redoing designs, that durability might be a
disadvantage.

A competent builder will use rebar to reinforce the concrete, so I
wouldn't be too concerned about earthquakes. A 15,000 gallon pool is
a typical pool, while a 1,500 gallon koi pond would be huge (the
larger the srtucture, the more likely it is to be damaged by an
earthquake). If you suffer a quake strong enough to damage a 1000
gallon pond, that will be the least of your problems!!!

PlainBill

On 30 Aug 2004 23:05:44 -0700, (Michael Capone)
wrote:

Hi Folks,

Been doing a lot of reading lately on the concrete vs. 45-mil liner
issue when setting up a fish pond. I'd like to ask the question in a
slightly different way:

Assume that money is no object (for the moment, at least; I'm sure
I'll come to my senses soon...) Also, assume that I don't have to
set
it up myself (I have a competent fish pond installer who can go
either
route, and is at this very moment sitting around waiting for me to
make up my mind on which direction to go). Given those two criteria,
I'd like to know, which pond bottom is best in the long run? Since
ease of installation is not a concern, I'd like to hear from people
who have had to live with one or the other for some time. Is
maintenance easier on one or the other? Is one "prettier" than the
other (highly subjective, I know). Does algae grow on concrete and
not come off?

I should mention that I live near San Jose, CA; earthquakes can
happen, although I'm not sure how big a deal this is. I don't get
the
extreme temperatures, though (freezing nights are relatively rare,
though it can get up to 100 F on occasion). There are no tree roots
anywhere nearby that I have to worry about.

So, thoughts? Thanks in advance for any input. I've been tearing my
hair out over this crazy issue. Thanks!

Michael

He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy
from
oppression, for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent
that
will reach to himself.
-Thomas Paine

The reason I add the 1000/100 rule of thumb to the algae primer is to counter
all the articles I read in popular magazines. Most of them go along the line of
'dig the pond, line the pond, add living jewels, the koi' and that's it!!!
Nothing about filtering, testing the water, a healthy balance, room to grow.
Nada. Drives me nuts. I figure if we (rec.ponds) err on the side of caution a
lot more koi will have half a chance of surviving the ponding fad.


kathy :-)
algae primer
http://hometown.aol.com/ka30p/myhomepage/garden.html

"Janet" wrote:

Roy goldfish are not koi. Goldfish will pretty much live, if not thrive in
what most would classify as sewer water. Koi on the other hand will not.
Janet in sunny Niagara Falls

Don't know if I can agree with you on that one Janet. I don't think the
survival rate of goldfish in sewer water would be any better or worse than
the Koi.

I think the issue is just a question of what works "in general." Roy is
right that he can have Koi in a 600 gallon pond. Is it optimal? No. Are the
fish comfortable? Maybe, depends on filtration, depth and lots of other
things. Also, what happens if filtration breaks down? This is where I think
the rule of thumb applies, if there is no outside action, how many Koi can
you have.


San Diego Joe
4,000 - 5,000 Gallons.
Goldfish, a RES named Colombo and an Oscar.



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 17:02:39 -0400, "Janet"
wrote:

===Roy goldfish are not koi. Goldfish will pretty much live, if not thrive in
===what most would classify as sewer water. Koi on the other hand will not.
=== Janet in sunny Niagara Falls


I know that but what I was making reference to was the part about how
much space to allocate to each fish, and there are recomendations for
all types. I can see how the recomendations are preferred for maximum
benefit, but a lot of fish are kept without regards to the
recomendations, Koi included, and they survive.........
Visit my website: http://www.frugalmachinist.com
Opinions expressed are those of my wife,
I had no input whatsoever.
Remove "nospam" from email addy.

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 14:47:56 -0700, San Diego Joe
wrote:

==="Janet" wrote:
===
=== Roy goldfish are not koi. Goldfish will pretty much live, if not thrive in
=== what most would classify as sewer water. Koi on the other hand will not.
=== Janet in sunny Niagara Falls
===
===Don't know if I can agree with you on that one Janet. I don't think the
===survival rate of goldfish in sewer water would be any better or worse than
===the Koi.
===
===I think the issue is just a question of what works "in general." Roy is
===right that he can have Koi in a 600 gallon pond. Is it optimal? No. Are the
===fish comfortable? Maybe, depends on filtration, depth and lots of other
===things. Also, what happens if filtration breaks down? This is where I think
===the rule of thumb applies, if there is no outside action, how many Koi can
===you have.
===
===
===San Diego Joe
===4,000 - 5,000 Gallons.
===Goldfish, a RES named Colombo and an Oscar.
===
===
===
===-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
===http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
===-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----


As you stated, water and filtraton are the key issues to keeping
fish. I have read somewhere that a fish produces a stop growth hormone
if it starts to outgrow its suroundings...don't know if its true or
not, but look at a lot of the aquarium fishes. The small red / blue
neon tetra's are listed as reaching maturity in 3 years time will be
12" in length........in its natural habitat, but its rare to see any
no matter holw old they are much over 1 to 1 1/4" in an aquarium no
matter how many fish are in it or how old they are. So the stop
growth hormone may be for real.

Crowding fish is just flirting with danger on the fishes part, but
having a large fish in a small uncrowded home without having to
compete for additonal space from other fish is foolish as well, but
certainly not as bad as too many at one time in a given space. Our
fish and game commision has a display tank they carry around to
schools, fiairs etc with one huge large mouth bass in it, that
barely has enough room to turn around, and can only just float there
in place, but its healthy. Is it happy, probably not.......
Visit my website: http://www.frugalmachinist.com
Opinions expressed are those of my wife,
I had no input whatsoever.
Remove "nospam" from email addy.