"Derek Broughton" wrote in message
...
ebruvold wrote:

The filter is an Aquascape "BIOFALLS" filter. The contractor who put
it in suggested not to clean that often as it would kill off the
benefial bacteria. I believe the recommendation was to change out the
filter once a year. It looks generally clean (or at least not clogged
and too soiled).

Note how "Biofalls" and "Contractor" appear so close together... I'm not
much of a fan of contractor-based solutions. Biofalls just seem to me to
be another way to separate recreational ponders from large amounts of
money.

I am using supposedly beneficial bacteria - the Aquascape Clear
bacteria plus SAB enyme. I haven't tried (but thinking) Barley (which
as I understand it I can place either in the pond or in the water
course. I am tyring to get the lillies to cover at least 60% of pond.
...
Woudl just like to see the bottom of my pond at some point ;-)

Frankly, short of a UV treatment system, I doubt you'll ever see the bottom
- and it's not something I'd aim for. It's unnatural, and it limits the
hiding places for fish. Being able to see a couple of feet into the pond
is good enough for me.
--
derek

Hmmm. I've never used UV and I've always been able to see the bottom of my pond
(45" deep). If I use a UV filter, will I be able to see 'past' the bottom? lol

"George" wrote in message
news:wT9_d.144483$4q6.122051@attbi_s01...
snip
Don't feel too bad. People with superior filters still have problem with
pea
soup. They still need to resort to using UV filter to remove it. If you
want a
quick solution, get one installed.

Hmmm. If the filter is so superior, why do they have pea green soup for
water?
I only had this problem once, immediately after I set up my pond three
years
ago. I haven't had it since.

As for bacteria products, I have no idea. I've never used them.

They work, and work well.


I disagree. I get an algae bloom EVERY YEAR. When the VF takes off, the
water clears within days. My neighbor, who uses a biofilter only, added a VF
last year, and had clear water for the first time.

I am not anti-UV, I just don't have a need for it.


--
BV
Webporgmaster of iheartmypond.com
http://www.iheartmypond.com
Help IHeartMyPond.com, by doing all of your eBay shopping via our
eBay Affiliate Link: http://www.kqzyfj.com/click-1609574-10357516.
It doesn't cost you anything, but an extra click!

I use a veggie filter and can always see the bottom of mine also. My
pond is 3 foot deep. Oh by the way this is rebeljoe on someone elses
box.

George wrote:

Hmmm. I've never used UV and I've always been able to see the bottom of
my pond
(45" deep). If I use a UV filter, will I be able to see 'past' the
bottom? lol

Perhaps :-)

I don't believe in UV either, but I have never expected to see the bottom of
my pond (about the same depth, perhaps a little more). I can see it just
fine in the early spring, and occasionally in the summer, but algae's a
normal part of a pond. It doesn't bother me.
--
derek

"George" wrote in message
news:rTl_d.79368$Ze3.26190@attbi_s51...

"Derek Broughton" wrote in message
...
George wrote:

Hmmm. I've never used UV and I've always been able to see the bottom
of
my pond
(45" deep). If I use a UV filter, will I be able to see 'past' the
bottom? lol

Perhaps :-)

I don't believe in UV either, but I have never expected to see the
bottom of
my pond (about the same depth, perhaps a little more). I can see it
just
fine in the early spring, and occasionally in the summer, but algae's a
normal part of a pond. It doesn't bother me.
--
derek

I can usually see the bootm of mine pretty much all year round. I truly
believe
in biofiltration. It works.
=======================================
We also use heavy biofiltration but every spring we still get an algae bloom
for a week or more. I wish I could add more plants to the larger pond but
the koi just rip them out of their pots or knock them over. Only the water
iris and water bamboo survive them. The other plants are in the settling
tank/plant filter.
--
McKoi.... the frugal ponder...
Zone 6 TN
~~~ }((((o ~~~ }{{{{o ~~~ }(((((o

"Sean Dinh" wrote in message
...
They are superior in term of ammonia and nitrite removal. There is still
nitrate left.
George wrote:

Hmmm. If the filter is so superior, why do they have pea green soup for
water?
I only had this problem once, immediately after I set up my pond three years
ago. I haven't had it since.

I might experiment with a possible nitrate solution this year. If you're a
marine aquarium buff, and I am, then you know that everyone is moving completely
away from artificial filtration and moving to natural filters. What this means
is getting rid of all the foam, bioballs, and most any other filter media that
convert ammonia and nitrites to nitrates. What is substituted for these are a
refugium (garden pond people are already doing this with veggie filters), live
rock, and thick sea sand on the bottom with a current flowing over it. The idea
of using the sand substrate for filtration (without using the terrible
undergravel filters that suck up all the gunk in the tank and then let it
decompose on the bottom, adding to the nitrate problem) is that sea sand acts as
a nitrate filter, because the water flow through it is very slow compared to
other filters. With a current flowing over top of the sand (as you wold have in
a natural stream), a slow current is induced in the sand. So it allows for the
growth bacteria that will utilize the nitrates. These bacteria also grow in the
live rock. I know that everyone is against placing rock or any substrate in the
bottom of their ponds for various reasons. What I plan to do is to change the
setup on my main filter by pulling it completely out of the pond (the filter
material is all from porous rock). This will allow more room for the fish to
move around in. It will also allow me to build a fresh water reef on top of an
8 inch coarse, dark sand base. The final modification will be to divert some of
the outflow from the primary filter to allow it to flow slowly over the sand
base and more strongly across the reef structure (this might involve getting a
bigger pump, or a second pump). It works very well for sal****er tanks, so I'm
strongly considering trying this method.

4. Draining and refilling, is just going to give the algae a nice new batch
of water to work in and probably stress everything else. I wouldn't do it.

I think this one is a total myth, more a YMMV.

Every year I have to totally drain my lily pond to get the baby fish and
muck out. So all new (treated) water goes in. That was a week ago, still
perfectly clear. Course I started the filter prior to the clean out so
there would be some bio-bugs in it. I gently rinse the sides, but leave the
fuzz algae attached.... and the clincher, there are no fish in the pond,
just the frogs doing their thing (which feeds the bacteria in the filter).

Now sometimes I have gotten Suspended Algae in this pond, but it had
nothing to do with the new water, it happened later in the summer when the
pH went sky high. 9.0+ and I'd over harvested some string algae (at the
time I didn't have much fuzz algae). The lily pads were thick, but once
that pH goes over 9.0 it becomes very difficult for the higher plants to
remove the nutrients. I'm hoping this year the fuzz algae has a good hold,
so far it is looking good. I also added a pound of baking soda from the
start. ~ 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

"ebruvold" wrote in message
They are LITTLE koi - I think the biggest is about 5-6 inches. Haven't
really fed them much for about 2 weeks. Figured there was enough stuff
for them to munch on in the pondDid give them a bit today - they
gobbled up the food quickly.

In about three years, they will be MUCH BIGGER.

In 3 years, so will his next pond. (Nobody can have just one!)
~ jan

~Power to the Porg, Flow On!~

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 13:04:53 -0800, Sean Dinh
wrote:

Sean, you need to turn off your html. ~ jan

!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"
html
They are superior in term of ammonia and nitrite removal. There is still
nitrate left.
pGeorge wrote:
blockquote TYPE=CITEHmmm.  If the filter is so superior, why do
they have pea green soup for water?
brI only had this problem once, immediately after I set up my pond three
years
brago. I haven't had it since./blockquote
/html

~Power to the Porg, Flow On!~

I did. I found that out earlier this morning when I was
messing around with settings. I didn't realize about that
before.

"~ jan JJsPond.us" wrote:
Sean, you need to turn off your html. ~ jan

"Sean Dinh" wrote in message
...
Hi George,

the only major problem I see atm is hydrogen sulfide gas.
You would need a serious degassing tower to remove it fast.

I have rocks and kitty litter in my pond. I'm hoping the 3
Dojo Loach are digging around there to reduce hydrogen
sulfide gas accumulation.

As for nitrate reduction, the simplest is to use a 4' tall
Trickle Tower outside the pond. Since you don't have any
plants in your pond, you won't worry about TT being too
efficient in removing nitrate. Only people like me worry
about having too little nitrate for our water plants.

I do have plants in my pond. I have lillies, irises, and cattails. I don't
have room for a veggie filter. Trickle towers have been shown to produce more
nitrates than they digest (they aren't actually designed to digest nitrates
anyway, contrary to some advertisements seen on aquarium supplier web sites.
They were designed for CO2-O2 gas exchange and to provide a habitat for nitrite
and ammonia reducing bacteria, which tend to convert these compounds into
nitrates), which is why marine aquarium enthusiasts are moving completely away
from them and any mechanical filtration. As for hydrogen sulphide gas buildup,
it is true that this could be an issue. However, if oxygenated water is blown
over the sand bed and around the reef, and one periodically stirs it up, it
shouldn't be too much of a problem. It doesn't seem to be a problem in marine
aquariums, which tend to produce more gases than freshwater environments. The
key is not to let the sand bed go stagnent. Since the bacteria that will be
living in the sand bed and in the water will break down any detritus very
rapidly, and because sand is very porous , any gases produced will out-gas and
be washed out by the water flowing over the sand at a slow rate and be exchanged
in the main filter and on the waterfall with oxygenated water. In addition, the
sand will become a habitat for lots of critters which will no doubt continuously
bore into it. This is good, since it will disturb the bed and help keep it
oxygenated. In addition, since many of these critters reproduce rapidly, the
fish will root around in the sand bed looking for a tasty meal, disturbing the
sand bed even more, adding oxygen to the sand, and reducing the cost of fish
food. All of this is in theory, of course, since I don't know of anyone who has
tried this yet for garden fish ponds. This is why it is an experiment. I
recently (2 months ago)added a refugium to my marine aquarium (which has
macroalgae, live sand, and losts of snails and copopods in it) and added an
additional two inches of live sand to the main tank (for a total of five
inches). The water in my reef tank has remained nitrate-free ever since. The
trick is going to be how to evenly distribute the oxygenated water over the sand
without causing it to become suspended in the water and pile up somewhere. I'm
working on a model for that right now.

George wrote:
I might experiment with a possible nitrate solution this year. If you're a
marine aquarium buff, and I am, then you know that everyone is moving
completely
away from artificial filtration and moving to natural filters. What this
means
is getting rid of all the foam, bioballs, and most any other filter media
that
convert ammonia and nitrites to nitrates. What is substituted for these are
a
refugium (garden pond people are already doing this with veggie filters),
live
rock, and thick sea sand on the bottom with a current flowing over it. The
idea
of using the sand substrate for filtration (without using the terrible
undergravel filters that suck up all the gunk in the tank and then let it
decompose on the bottom, adding to the nitrate problem) is that sea sand acts
as
a nitrate filter, because the water flow through it is very slow compared to
other filters. With a current flowing over top of the sand (as you wold have
in
a natural stream), a slow current is induced in the sand. So it allows for
the
growth bacteria that will utilize the nitrates. These bacteria also grow in
the
live rock. I know that everyone is against placing rock or any substrate in
the
bottom of their ponds for various reasons. What I plan to do is to change
the
setup on my main filter by pulling it completely out of the pond (the filter
material is all from porous rock). This will allow more room for the fish to
move around in. It will also allow me to build a fresh water reef on top of
an
8 inch coarse, dark sand base. The final modification will be to divert some
of
the outflow from the primary filter to allow it to flow slowly over the sand
base and more strongly across the reef structure (this might involve getting
a
bigger pump, or a second pump). It works very well for sal****er tanks, so
I'm
strongly considering trying this method.

TT and nitrate reduction...
http://tinyurl.com/4hlhx

"Elaine T" wrote in message
om...
George wrote:
"Sean Dinh" wrote in message
...

TT and nitrate reduction...
http://tinyurl.com/4hlhx


10 ppm is not acceptable in reef aquariums, and I strongly suspect it does
little good in large freshwater systems (such as garden ponds) with
no/inadequate plants to remove it. Hence, the algae blooms. In a sand bed
that uses a Jaubert plenum, a porous plenum is constructed beneath the bed
with a void space below the bed that is filled with water, anaerobic bacteria
form in the bottom depths of the substrate and in the water below. As
anaerobic bacteria cultivate, they remove nitrates. Anaerobic action produces
a fair amount of heat. The heat warms the water layer below the gravel. The
warmer water flows upwards, displacing cooler water above the gravel. This
action moves water through the plenum at very slow rates. The slow movement
of water through the gravel helps to prevent dangerous hydrogen-sulfide gases
from forming in the plenum. The deep gravel bed also provides a home for
burrowing motile invertebrates which feed on solid organic mulm and detritus.
The idea here is to move away from systems that required heavy maintenance to
prevent nitraqtes from getting too high. Trickle filters work great in
removing nitrogen compounds over a limited time period before they must be
maintained (i.e., cleaning pre-filters, etc). Sand beds with a Jaubert
plenum usually never have to be cleaned because, if it is properly
constructed, there is no build up.

http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.u...?article_id=21
Jaubert plenums have been tried in large FW planted tanks shortly after they
became popular in sal****er. It is much harder to get a population of
denitrifying bacteria in FW that does not include sulfur reducing bacteria and
generally attempts at denitrification in FW crash and burn. Sulfur reducing
bacteria establish in the plenum, poison the water, and fish start showing all
sorts of bizarre diseases in what otherwise seems to be a healthy system.

--
__ Elaine T __
__' http://eethomp.com/fish.html '__

Do you have a link to any papers on this? I found a web site this evening that
describes the set up and it seems to suggest that it works very well, at least
in freshwater aquariums. It also recommended to use 2-3 mm diameter gravel
instead of sand. Since we are talking about a lot more water, I am considering
using even larger gravel (probably something slightly smaller than peah gravel).
I've also read elsewhere that fears of crashing and burning are unfounded if it
is done properly. Of course, like any experiment, I'll have to monitor it.
Sulphur-reducing bacteria could become a problem if the substrate becomes
completely anoxic. But most sulpur-reducing bacteria are anoxic. The idea of
using a live gravel bed in a garden pond must take into considerations all of
the needs of the bateria that will live there. De-nitrifying bacteria are
anoxic, while ammonia reducing and nitrite-reducing bacteria are aerobic. The
idea is to get all three types growing in the same substrate. So can we expect
these three bacteria to live viably together? The answer is yes, IF oxygentated
water is induced to flow just above the gravel (parallel to it), which will
induce flow/exchange within the gravel, but at a low rate. I suspect that my
hogs (fish) will also root around in it enough looking for food that it will get
enough oxygenation. But I plan to come up with a way to create the current flow
a few inches above the gravel. I already have a very thin layer of gravel on
the bottom (I had extra gravel when I built my biofilter, and I wanted to add a
little color to the bottom of the pond), and they do root around in what I
already have there. But I will certainly take your advice at heart before I
make any final decisions. Thanks for the advice. Oh, and after reading that
article, and your advice, I will probably lose the plenum and just build the
substrate right on the bottom. Here is the link to the site I found:

http://www.athiel.com/lib/lg-fw.html

Here is another one about gravel filtration (as opposed to undergravel
filtration):

http://www.athiel.com/lib/ugfilterarticle.htm

Just read the part about gravel filtration.

"~ jan JJsPond.us" wrote in message
...
Cement blocks like pavers or cinder blocks?

Definitely not cinder (I don't think).... more like cement block, but they
have more holes, decorative? You can see them at my website by clicking on
*Lily Pond Photos*

I've looked at your site before, but had forgotten the Lilly Ponds. Very
attractive, but I see how they might continue to leach with all the
decorative area. But after 5 years, I would think the concrete would have
aged enough.

I would have assumed that
anything underwater would have sealed over and anything above would have
aged sufficiently. Maybe the acid washing is keeping the blocks porous
and
the leeching continues.

Could be. I quit putting acid in, added 4 lbs. of baking soda and then did
4-6 water changes of 20-25% over 10 days (this was recommended by the
experts on the KHA board) it worked. Plants were happy after that. Frogs
never were bothered, amazingly. ~ jan

Oh, the acid went in the water. Still, isn't acid etching what one does
to open the pores of concrete for adhesion of various coatings? But, you
obviously know what you're doing and how to correct the problem if it
continues.

http://users.owt.com/jjspond/

Could be. I quit putting acid in, added 4 lbs. of baking soda and then did
4-6 water changes of 20-25% over 10 days (this was recommended by the
experts on the KHA board) it worked. Plants were happy after that. Frogs
never were bothered, amazingly. ~ jan

Oh, the acid went in the water. Still, isn't acid etching what one does
to open the pores of concrete for adhesion of various coatings? But, you
obviously know what you're doing and how to correct the problem if it
continues.

I can only hope (I know what I'm doing) some days it's definitely
questionable. ;o) ~ jan

~Power to the Porg, Flow On!~