Pond Bottom: rocks or no rocks?

[JGW]

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
___________________

[2pods]

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
> ___________________
>

[Reel Mckoi]

"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>

[Gary]

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

[George]

"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).

[George]

" George" > wrote in message
news:RxSHe.214366$_o.1195@attbi_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".

[George]

"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.

[Courageous]

>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//

[Harry]

" George" > wrote:
>
>"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.
>
>
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 <><><><><><><><>

[Phyllis and Jim Hurley]

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
> ___________________
>

[Cheryl and Rob]

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.com/store.cfm?CFID=6082516&CFTOKEN=18091983&d=3052&c=9071&p=25141&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
>> ___________________
>>
>

[Courageous]

>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//

[David]

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?

[mark Bannister]

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.

[RichToyBox]

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?

[RichToyBox]

This sounds like a workable solution for the rock bottom ponds. It would
work much more like the undergravel filters of aquariums since you would be
pulling water through and then filtering, etc. One caution would be to put
sufficient support under the grates to be able to walk on the rocks.You
never know when you will have to get in to rearrange pots, catch fish, etc.
--
RichToyBox
http://www.geocities.com/richtoybox/pondintro.html

"Courageous" > 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.
>
> 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//
>

[David]

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.

[Cichlidiot]

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

[RichToyBox]

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.
>

[RichToyBox]

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

[Gary]

Sorry for the confusion, folks. I had a brain-fart. My tank is 300
gal., not 600, as I said earlier. I got my stock tank at a Country
General store. This is a chain of farm and ranch supply stores. I
think they went out of business several years ago, but I'm sure other
places, like Murdoch's, would carry the Rubbermaid tanks or could order
what you want. I seem to recall hearing somewhere that Rubbermaid did
make a larger tank, but I'm not sure about that.
Gary

[Harry]

David > wrote:
>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?
>
>
Hello,
Mother Nature doesnot function on "once or twice a year", she functions on
minute by minute when it comes to water. Youare going to have to make up
your mind: are you operating a pond or a cesspool. Fresh water flow MUST
be introduced constantly, and that is all she wrote . . . You want to teach
your fish to live in a cesspool fine, however "enzymes" are what they use
to keep cesspools functioning, and if you are using those "enzymes" youare
operating a cesspool, not a "pond". I would run a simple hose to the bottom
of the cesspool 00ps pond and let the water trickle in 24/7/365. An occasional
"storm" (hurricane every Fall) would "move" the slop up and out (over-flowing
onto land) (you, of course, being the "storm"). And, yes, put lots of huge
rocks on the bottom and all around the pond, as it may help slow down the
soil erosion, thus prevent your house from being sucked into the pond.

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

[Courageous]

>This sounds like a workable solution for the rock bottom ponds. It would
>work much more like the undergravel filters of aquariums since you would be
>pulling water through and then filtering, etc. One caution would be to put
>sufficient support under the grates to be able to walk on the rocks.You
>never know when you will have to get in to rearrange pots, catch fish, etc.

Yes, you really need to use some kind of support pallet for this.

I'm not really trying to turn it into a filter; just a single layer of
hand sized flat-round stones. There will be sufficient gaps to allow
certain kinds of wild life to live, hide under the "false bottom".

I don't think detritus will accumulate down there; a mild pull will
exist from all times from the bottom drain...

C//

[Phyllis and Jim Hurley]

Do we have any ponders who have a bunch of rocks on the bottom of their
ponds? Have any of them tried it 'bare bottomed'? They might be able to
comment on the relative difficulty of maintaining them.

We are really happy with the ease of mainiaing the bare bottom pond.

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
> ___________________
>

[Reel Mckoi]

"Courageous" > wrote in message
...
>
> I don't think detritus will accumulate down there; a mild pull will
> exist from all times from the bottom drain...
========================
Wouldn't these small critters like tiny chorus frogs, pollywogs and newts
get sucked into that bottom drain?
--
McKoi.... the frugal ponder...
My Pond Page http://tinyurl.com/cuq5b
~~~ }<((((o> ~~~ }<{{{{o> ~~~ }<(((((o>

[Reel Mckoi]

"Phyllis and Jim Hurley" > wrote in message
...
> Do we have any ponders who have a bunch of rocks on the bottom of their
> ponds? Have any of them tried it 'bare bottomed'? They might be able to
> comment on the relative difficulty of maintaining them.
=====================
We had gravel in the bottom of our 1st pond that first year. We removed it
the following summer because of all the debris it collected. Cleaning the
pond was impossible with the gravel on the shelves and bottom.
--
McKoi.... the frugal ponder...
My Pond Page http://tinyurl.com/cuq5b
~~~ }<((((o> ~~~ }<{{{{o> ~~~ }<(((((o>

[David]

On 4 Aug 2005 01:07:00 GMT, "Harry" :7501> wrote:

>
>David > wrote:
>>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?
>>
>>
>Hello,
>Mother Nature doesnot function on "once or twice a year", she functions on
>minute by minute when it comes to water. Youare going to have to make up
>your mind: are you operating a pond or a cesspool. Fresh water flow MUST
>be introduced constantly, and that is all she wrote . . . You want to teach
>your fish to live in a cesspool fine, however "enzymes" are what they use
>to keep cesspools functioning, and if you are using those "enzymes" youare
>operating a cesspool, not a "pond". I would run a simple hose to the bottom
>of the cesspool 00ps pond and let the water trickle in 24/7/365. An occasional
>"storm" (hurricane every Fall) would "move" the slop up and out (over-flowing
>onto land) (you, of course, being the "storm"). And, yes, put lots of huge
>rocks on the bottom and all around the pond, as it may help slow down the
>soil erosion, thus prevent your house from being sucked into the pond.
>
>
I see that I have tweaked one of the trolls.
Aw, well ... another 2 millisecond update to my killfile.
How many minutess did it take you to construct your above rant?
Sorry, Harry... {PLONK}

[Courageous]

>Wouldn't these small critters like tiny chorus frogs, pollywogs and newts
>get sucked into that bottom drain?

Possibly. It's a large pipe. It's 3600 GPH through a 4". If it's too much,
they'll end up living in the settling tank. :-)

C//

[David]

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 07:51:43 -0700, Courageous
> wrote:

>
>>Wouldn't these small critters like tiny chorus frogs, pollywogs and newts
>>get sucked into that bottom drain?
>
>Possibly. It's a large pipe. It's 3600 GPH through a 4". If it's too much,
>they'll end up living in the settling tank. :-)
>
>C//
Hi Courageous,
I've been trying to think how to construct a rather large screen dome
to place over the BD to address this problem. ("Large" => reduced
suction per sq.in. => small critters (and fish) can escape more
easily); but screen grid still large enough to permit mulm to pass
thru.

Or perhaps concentric domes of decreasing grid sizes(?)

It's a difficult question isn't it? -- trying to solve two intertwined
but mutually exclusive problems at the same time!

Do you think it's worth experimenting?

[Reel Mckoi]

"Courageous" > wrote in message
...
>
>>Wouldn't these small critters like tiny chorus frogs, pollywogs and newts
>>get sucked into that bottom drain?
>
> Possibly. It's a large pipe. It's 3600 GPH through a 4". If it's too much,
> they'll end up living in the settling tank. :-)
=================================
That may work if they don't have to get past the impeller to get there. You
may find your settling tank full of critters in a few days. :-)) I find
pollywogs in my settling tank at times. I don't know how they get past the
"clam-basket" the pump is in.
--
McKoi.... the frugal ponder...
~~~ }<((((o> ~~~ }<{{{{o> ~~~ }<(((((o>
http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/anti_troll_faq.htm

[Mike Patterson]

I vote No Rocks.

I do, however, have several large rocks to keep the bottom weighted
down.

Before I did so, a heavy rain would cause the liner to float up, then
when the rain quit the pond would be several inches low.

When cleaning the nasty sludge in the spring, gravel would make it
almost impossible.

my two cents worth, good luck.
Mike


On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 14:47:39 -0700, 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
>___________________


Mike Patterson
Please remove the spamtrap to email me.
"I always wanted to be somebody...I should have been more specific..." - Lily Tomlin

[~ jan JJsPond.us]

>"Phyllis and Jim Hurley" wrote
> Do we have any ponders who have a bunch of rocks on the bottom of their
> ponds? Have any of them tried it 'bare bottomed'? They might be able to
> comment on the relative difficulty of maintaining them.

Never have, but sure know a lot that have and removed them after 1 - 2
years. ~ jan


~Power to the Porg, Flow On!~

[San Diego Joe]

"Phyllis and Jim Hurley" wrote:

> Do we have any ponders who have a bunch of rocks on the bottom of their
> ponds? Have any of them tried it 'bare bottomed'? They might be able to
> comment on the relative difficulty of maintaining them.
>
> We are really happy with the ease of mainiaing the bare bottom pond.
>
> 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
>> ___________________
>>
>

I have rocks on the bottom of my pond. I think it just looks better (IMHO),
but they are large rocks - not gravel. I also have a bottom drain that seems
effective.


San Diego Joe
4,000 - 5,000 Gallons.
Koi, Goldfish, and RES named Colombo.

[Derek Broughton]

Mike Patterson wrote:

> I vote No Rocks.
>
> I do, however, have several large rocks to keep the bottom weighted
> down.
>
> Before I did so, a heavy rain would cause the liner to float up, then
> when the rain quit the pond would be several inches low.
>
> When cleaning the nasty sludge in the spring, gravel would make it
> almost impossible.

While I also vote "no rocks", I think there might be something to the idea
that there's a difference between rocks and gravel. Gravel would be worse.
--
derek

[Courageous]

>I've been trying to think how to construct a rather large screen dome
>to place over the BD to address this problem. ("Large" => reduced
>suction per sq.in. => small critters (and fish) can escape more
>easily); but screen grid still large enough to permit mulm to pass
>thru.

>Or perhaps concentric domes of decreasing grid sizes(?)

Unnecessary complexity.

>It's a difficult question isn't it? -- trying to solve two intertwined
>but mutually exclusive problems at the same time!
>
>Do you think it's worth experimenting?

Sure. Why not?

I think that you might start with:

1. Perforated PVC sheet.
2. An ability to draw a circle and cut it cleanly.
3. A dome (to place your hot pvc over, to form it)
4. A heat gun.
5. Elbow grease, safety precautions, and common sense.

I think you'll do fine, and the fabrication won't be as hard as you
think. Here's what you're looking for; it's probably expensive, and
if you hunt locally you'll be able to get it for less:

http://www.usplastic.com/catalog/product.asp?catalog%5Fname=USPlastic&category%5Fname=115&product%5Fid=10081

Also, since you are thinking of novel screening solutions, you may
find this interesting:

http://www.aquaticeco.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/product.detail/iid/8559/cid/2079

Note that it is ever so slightly flexible (firm but somewhat soft). Not perfectly
rigid. It may get slighty deformed in shipping (mind did), but is easily straightened
with heat application (such as slipping it over 4" PVC and putting it in the sun).

C//

[Derek Broughton]

Courageous wrote:

>>
>>Do you think it's worth experimenting?
>
> Sure. Why not?
>
> I think that you might start with:
>
> 1. Perforated PVC sheet.

Oh? Thanks for that link - I've never seen this stuff but pre-perforated
PVC sheet would be really useful for a project I have in mind...

> 2. An ability to draw a circle and cut it cleanly.

Uh-oh! That leaves me out :-)
--
derek

[David]

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 19:02:20 -0700, Courageous
> wrote:

>
>>I've been trying to think how to construct a rather large screen dome
>>to place over the BD to address this problem. ("Large" => reduced
>>suction per sq.in. => small critters (and fish) can escape more
>>easily); but screen grid still large enough to permit mulm to pass
>>thru.
>
>>It's a difficult question isn't it? -- trying to solve two intertwined
>>but mutually exclusive problems at the same time!
>>
>>Do you think it's worth experimenting?
>
>Sure. Why not?
>
>I think that you might start with:
>
>1. Perforated PVC sheet.
>2. An ability to draw a circle and cut it cleanly.
>3. A dome (to place your hot pvc over, to form it)
>4. A heat gun.
>5. Elbow grease, safety precautions, and common sense.
>
>I think you'll do fine, and the fabrication won't be as hard as you
>think. Here's what you're looking for; it's probably expensive, and
>if you hunt locally you'll be able to get it for less:
>
>http://www.usplastic.com/catalog/product.asp?catalog%5Fname=USPlastic&category%5Fname=115&product%5Fid=10081
>
>Also, since you are thinking of novel screening solutions, you may
>find this interesting:
>
>http://www.aquaticeco.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/product.detail/iid/8559/cid/2079
>
>Note that it is ever so slightly flexible (firm but somewhat soft). Not perfectly
>rigid. It may get slighty deformed in shipping (mind did), but is easily straightened
>with heat application (such as slipping it over 4" PVC and putting it in the sun).
>
Thanks C//,
In my mind's eye I have been looking for products like both of these!
And great ideas for fabrication!
David

[Greg Cooper]

I have had a pond lined with river cobble on the sides and pebbles on
the bottom running for 4 years now. It looks very natural and is well
planted with lilies and various marginal plants. THe fish do well the
water has never been green and I have checked the bottom next to the
liner and there is zero accumulated deposits. I do have a strong
water flow giving good cirulation. I am happy with it. I like the
natural appearance. One point though - we paid more for very
attractively coloured river rock. A waste of money - after some months
the rocks grow a nice covering of beneficial algae so dont spend money
on fancy rocks.

Others like their rockless ponds just as much I am sure.

Greg.
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
> ___________________
>

[Greg Cooper]

I have for 4 years now. The sides are lined with river "cobbles"
roughly the size of a brick and the bottom is lined with a few larger
"boulders" for interest and all around with round stones ranging from 3"
down to about 1". Nothing smaller. I think this is important as it
still permits movement of water through. On the bottom the layer is
about 2 -4" of stones.

I like the look, the fish seem to do well the water has never turned
green ever. The pond is netted over (Raccoon defense) but that also
keeps the leaves out. I have never had a problem with accumulations
under the stones and I have checked - I can excavate down to the liner
and it is *Clean* all except a nice slimy bacteria coating.

Occasionally I have had an excess of a kind of feathery algae on the
bottom but I build a "muck Mop" to suck it up. But I have only had to
do this twice in 4 years.

That is my experience.

Phyllis and Jim Hurley wrote:

> Do we have any ponders who have a bunch of rocks on the bottom of their
> ponds? Have any of them tried it 'bare bottomed'? They might be able to
> comment on the relative difficulty of maintaining them.
>
> We are really happy with the ease of mainiaing the bare bottom pond.
>
> 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
>> ___________________
>>

[Phyllis and Jim Hurley]

Greg,

Thanks for commenting. How big is your pond and how do you filter it?
I am interested that there is no muck on the bottom. Where does it go?
Was there muck when you did your muck mop?

Jim

Greg Cooper wrote:
> I have for 4 years now. The sides are lined with river "cobbles"
> roughly the size of a brick and the bottom is lined with a few larger
> "boulders" for interest and all around with round stones ranging from 3"
> down to about 1". Nothing smaller. I think this is important as it
> still permits movement of water through. On the bottom the layer is
> about 2 -4" of stones.
>
> I like the look, the fish seem to do well the water has never turned
> green ever. The pond is netted over (Raccoon defense) but that also
> keeps the leaves out. I have never had a problem with accumulations
> under the stones and I have checked - I can excavate down to the liner
> and it is *Clean* all except a nice slimy bacteria coating.
>
> Occasionally I have had an excess of a kind of feathery algae on the
> bottom but I build a "muck Mop" to suck it up. But I have only had to
> do this twice in 4 years.
>
> That is my experience.
>
> Phyllis and Jim Hurley wrote:
>
>> Do we have any ponders who have a bunch of rocks on the bottom of
>> their ponds? Have any of them tried it 'bare bottomed'? They might be
>> able to comment on the relative difficulty of maintaining them.
>>
>> We are really happy with the ease of mainiaing the bare bottom pond.
>>
>> 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
>>> ___________________
>>>

[Greg Cooper]

Hi Jim:

My pond is about 900 Gal and has a skimmer and pump at one end pumping
around into a Aquascape biofall planted across the tope with watercress.

Mostly I think there is little or no muck because it is efficiently
broken down biologically. This year, after two years I lifted all the
filter material out of the biofalls and drained all the water out. I
expected to find material had accumulated on the bottom but there was
surprisingly little.

Granted I have lots of plants around the margins and my nine fish are
not that big yet. I do add Lymozyme every week and a anaerobic
bacterial agent in the winter.
It also helps that little leaves get past the net and what do get
removed by the skimmer.

When I used the "muck mop" it was to remove a excess of soft feathery
algae that was growing across the bottom to a height of about 3" so I
could not really see the rocks anymore. I used the Muck mop to suck
most of the algae up. That seemed to establish a different equilibrium.

Cheers.


Phyllis and Jim Hurley wrote:
> Greg,
>
> Thanks for commenting. How big is your pond and how do you filter it? I
> am interested that there is no muck on the bottom. Where does it go?
> Was there muck when you did your muck mop?
>
> Jim
>
> Greg Cooper wrote:
>
>> I have for 4 years now. The sides are lined with river "cobbles"
>> roughly the size of a brick and the bottom is lined with a few larger
>> "boulders" for interest and all around with round stones ranging from
>> 3" down to about 1". Nothing smaller. I think this is important as
>> it still permits movement of water through. On the bottom the layer is
>> about 2 -4" of stones.
>>
>> I like the look, the fish seem to do well the water has never turned
>> green ever. The pond is netted over (Raccoon defense) but that also
>> keeps the leaves out. I have never had a problem with accumulations
>> under the stones and I have checked - I can excavate down to the liner
>> and it is *Clean* all except a nice slimy bacteria coating.
>>
>> Occasionally I have had an excess of a kind of feathery algae on the
>> bottom but I build a "muck Mop" to suck it up. But I have only had
>> to do this twice in 4 years.
>>
>> That is my experience.
>>
>> Phyllis and Jim Hurley wrote:
>>
>>> Do we have any ponders who have a bunch of rocks on the bottom of
>>> their ponds? Have any of them tried it 'bare bottomed'? They might
>>> be able to comment on the relative difficulty of maintaining them.
>>>
>>> We are really happy with the ease of mainiaing the bare bottom pond.
>>>
>>> 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
>>>> ___________________
>>>>

[Phyllis and Jim Hurley]

Greg,

Your comment plants a seed of insight for me. We have about 10 koi,
full grown and half a dozen goldfish. The main pond is 2900 gal and the
berm ponds another 1000. There is a significant amount of muck that
gets caught in the berm veggie filters. If they did not get it, the
pond would. It simply does not 'go away', tho it is easy to drain out
by opening the 2" bottom drains.

I wonder if successful 'rocking' depends on the filtering out of waste.

We have an open cement bottom in the main pond. The koi constantly stir
the muck and it goes down the drain and up into the veggie filters.
Only pine needles build up in the main pond...and they generally find
their way down to the drain area (an old septic tank with the pump 4"
off the bottom).

Jim

Greg Cooper wrote:
> Hi Jim:
>
> My pond is about 900 Gal and has a skimmer and pump at one end pumping
> around into a Aquascape biofall planted across the tope with watercress.
>
> Mostly I think there is little or no muck because it is efficiently
> broken down biologically. This year, after two years I lifted all the
> filter material out of the biofalls and drained all the water out. I
> expected to find material had accumulated on the bottom but there was
> surprisingly little.
>
> Granted I have lots of plants around the margins and my nine fish are
> not that big yet. I do add Lymozyme every week and a anaerobic
> bacterial agent in the winter.
> It also helps that little leaves get past the net and what do get
> removed by the skimmer.
>
> When I used the "muck mop" it was to remove a excess of soft feathery
> algae that was growing across the bottom to a height of about 3" so I
> could not really see the rocks anymore. I used the Muck mop to suck
> most of the algae up. That seemed to establish a different equilibrium.
>
> Cheers.
>
>
> Phyllis and Jim Hurley wrote:
>
>> Greg,
>>
>> Thanks for commenting. How big is your pond and how do you filter it?
>> I am interested that there is no muck on the bottom. Where does it
>> go? Was there muck when you did your muck mop?
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> Greg Cooper wrote:
>>
>>> I have for 4 years now. The sides are lined with river "cobbles"
>>> roughly the size of a brick and the bottom is lined with a few larger
>>> "boulders" for interest and all around with round stones ranging from
>>> 3" down to about 1". Nothing smaller. I think this is important as
>>> it still permits movement of water through. On the bottom the layer
>>> is about 2 -4" of stones.
>>>
>>> I like the look, the fish seem to do well the water has never turned
>>> green ever. The pond is netted over (Raccoon defense) but that also
>>> keeps the leaves out. I have never had a problem with accumulations
>>> under the stones and I have checked - I can excavate down to the
>>> liner and it is *Clean* all except a nice slimy bacteria coating.
>>>
>>> Occasionally I have had an excess of a kind of feathery algae on the
>>> bottom but I build a "muck Mop" to suck it up. But I have only had
>>> to do this twice in 4 years.
>>>
>>> That is my experience.
>>>
>>> Phyllis and Jim Hurley wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do we have any ponders who have a bunch of rocks on the bottom of
>>>> their ponds? Have any of them tried it 'bare bottomed'? They might
>>>> be able to comment on the relative difficulty of maintaining them.
>>>>
>>>> We are really happy with the ease of mainiaing the bare bottom pond.
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>> ___________________
>>>>>

[Roy]

While its usually agreed on that rocks in the bottom of a loi or GF
pond is not a good idea, its strange that rocks in a sal****er setup
is good, and bio balls are not desireable in the filter, but its the
trend to remove bio balls and filter type mats and just put in more
live rock rubble in their place........I probably has to do with the
type of rocks normally used in SW setups as compared to what is used
in a fish pond........I wonder how long its going to be until LFS //
Pond Suppliers etc start selling "Live Rock" for koi ponds.

Ponders do basically the same thing but in a different environment
with lava rock and trickle towers that live rock in a SW setup does by
being totally submerged.......

==============================================
Put some color in your cheeks...garden naked!
"The original frugal ponder"
~~~~ }<((((o> ~~~~~~ }<{{{{o> ~~~~~~~ }<(((((o>

[David]

Hi Jim,

I had forgotten that your piping goes directly from the sump into the
veggie filters. IMHO, a vortex settlement, or even a static
settlement tank, with bottom a bottom drain, between the sump and the
veggie filters would help this problem immensely. Further, for me
anyway, I am designing in mechanical filtration (brushes, matala,
etc.), and then bio-conversion (fluidized kaldness), between the
vortex and the veggie filter/stream. JMO, FWIW, YMMV....

David

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 07:22:57 -0500, Phyllis and Jim Hurley
> wrote:

>Greg,
>
>Your comment plants a seed of insight for me. We have about 10 koi,
>full grown and half a dozen goldfish. The main pond is 2900 gal and the
>berm ponds another 1000. There is a significant amount of muck that
>gets caught in the berm veggie filters. If they did not get it, the
>pond would. It simply does not 'go away', tho it is easy to drain out
>by opening the 2" bottom drains.
>
>I wonder if successful 'rocking' depends on the filtering out of waste.
>
>We have an open cement bottom in the main pond. The koi constantly stir
>the muck and it goes down the drain and up into the veggie filters.
>Only pine needles build up in the main pond...and they generally find
>their way down to the drain area (an old septic tank with the pump 4"
>off the bottom).
>
>Jim
>

[Courageous]

>While its usually agreed on that rocks in the bottom of a loi or GF
>pond is not a good idea, its strange that rocks in a sal****er setup
>is good, and bio balls are not desireable in the filter, but its the
>trend to remove bio balls and filter type mats and just put in more
>live rock rubble in their place........I probably has to do with the
>type of rocks normally used in SW setups as compared to what is used
>in a fish pond........I wonder how long its going to be until LFS //
>Pond Suppliers etc start selling "Live Rock" for koi ponds.

In sal****er, particularly reef tanks, nitrates are a problem. Nitrates
form particularly well with bio ball set ups, hence these are starting
to be not used in sal****er tanks.

As for the substrate, one thing about ponds is that they tend to have
lots of external stuff (example, leaves) getting into them. This creates
a maintenance issue.

One can have the same issue in an aquarium... but the bottom is smaller.


C//

[Phyllis and Jim Hurley]

David,

You are right about the benefit of a settling tank/area and vortex!

Our lines are not quite direct into the veggie filters. The water goes
thru several steps, which include some settling and vortex motion:

1. The pump is down 7' in the bottom of the deep well (old septic
tank). It is in a 5 gal bucket with 1/2" holes all round. This guards
the pump as it is not supposed to have solids more than 1/2". The pump
bucket is on bricks, so it is 4" off the bottom of the septic tank.
That tank gets most of the pine needles etc. I scoop it out each
spring. In effect, it is our solid filter. Larger solids settle in it.
It is not, however, vortexed.

2. The lines go into 55 gal upflow barrels with strapping tape in mesh
bags above the vortexed (think angled entrance) entry lines. The few
solids getting to the barrels settle in the barrels and virtually no
solids of any size go on to the veggie filters.

3. The water exits the barrels into one of two veggie filter systems:

-The left system :

-passes through a 4' x 4' x 18" pond (again on an angle to promote some
circular, vortex motion). The pond is loaded with veggies.
-It then passes into a 4' x 8' x 18" veggie pond (angled entrance, again).
-At the end of the long pond, it falls down our U-shaped falls or our
adjustable-flow bypass pipe (less water over the falls means less
evaporation),
-Then through the small pond at the base of the falls, and
finally it reenters the main pond via an 8' stream (far from the deep well)

The right system:

-has two barrels that feed into opposite ends of
-a 4' x 8' x 18" pond (angled entrances for vortex circulation).
-After the pond, the water drops over our step falls and
-reenters the pond via an 8' stream (also far from the deep well).

The bottom of each pond is concave to gather muck, drains at the low points.

You can see the berm layout on our website.

The water takes 20 min to go through the right side and 45 on the left.
The result is really good sedimentation. The second pond on the left
has lots less sediment than the first pond.

In effect, the deep well is my mechanical sedimentation area for
everything larger than 1/2" and for lots of other stuff. The barrels
and ponds get the fine muck. They have solids only when their plants
die or pine needles and cones fall in. When I drain them, I sometimes
have to pull out the cones, etc.

Long response to a short point.

Be sure to post pics of your layout when you get it up and running.

Jim



David wrote:
> Hi Jim,
>
> I had forgotten that your piping goes directly from the sump into the
> veggie filters. IMHO, a vortex settlement, or even a static
> settlement tank, with bottom a bottom drain, between the sump and the
> veggie filters would help this problem immensely. Further, for me
> anyway, I am designing in mechanical filtration (brushes, matala,
> etc.), and then bio-conversion (fluidized kaldness), between the
> vortex and the veggie filter/stream. JMO, FWIW, YMMV....
>
> David
>
> On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 07:22:57 -0500, Phyllis and Jim Hurley
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Greg,
>>
>>Your comment plants a seed of insight for me. We have about 10 koi,
>>full grown and half a dozen goldfish. The main pond is 2900 gal and the
>>berm ponds another 1000. There is a significant amount of muck that
>>gets caught in the berm veggie filters. If they did not get it, the
>>pond would. It simply does not 'go away', tho it is easy to drain out
>>by opening the 2" bottom drains.
>>
>>I wonder if successful 'rocking' depends on the filtering out of waste.
>>
>>We have an open cement bottom in the main pond. The koi constantly stir
>>the muck and it goes down the drain and up into the veggie filters.
>>Only pine needles build up in the main pond...and they generally find
>>their way down to the drain area (an old septic tank with the pump 4"
>>off the bottom).
>>
>>Jim
>>
>
>

[Phyllis and Jim Hurley]

I was looking at the extended discussion of rocks-or-no-rocks. It is
amazing for its length and its civility on an issue with such diversity.

Good show, pond friends.

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
> ___________________
>

[Angrie.Woman]

~ jan JJsPond.us wrote:
>>"Phyllis and Jim Hurley" wrote
>>Do we have any ponders who have a bunch of rocks on the bottom of their
>>ponds? Have any of them tried it 'bare bottomed'? They might be able to
>>comment on the relative difficulty of maintaining them.
>
>
> Never have, but sure know a lot that have and removed them after 1 - 2
> years. ~ jan
>
I did not put in rocks because of what I read here. Every time I
cleaned it I thought "Boy, was *that* the right choice!"

A

[Nedra]

I had to make this decision last week as the guys were finishing up my
pond rehab. They asked me if I wanted the bottom of the pond rocked
and of course, I said No. The size rock was 1 - 2 inches. This was the
size rock that was in my veggie filter - that was a devil to clean out
and remove the rocks.
I do think it looks better when the bottom is rocked using Large rocks
as opposed to using gravel. I'll revisit this subject when the weather
turns a lot cooler.

Here are some pictures of the rehabbed pond: (Not in final yet) :)
http://community.webshots.com/user/nedra118

Nedra in Missouri
zone 6

[David]

Jim,

Thanks for the expanded description. I understand/remember better
now.

Hmmm...

Seems to me that you've pretty well got the bases covered, and that
each component is pretty much doing its job. It sounds like the muck
in the VFs is mostly resulting from debris falling and being blown in,
and from the plants that naturally die off. Given that, I'm not sure
that you can do much more than you have already done. You certainly
aren't going to hang a debris net over the VFs.

With the bottom drains in each of the VF pools, for perodic flushing,
it appears to me that you have about reduced maintenance to the
minimum already. (And it really doesn't sound so bad anyway.)

But you have now set me to thinking, regarding my own design. For a
VF, I have been thinking in terms of a well-planted meandering stream
that ultimately flows into the ponds. This however will be subject to
the same concerns that we have just discussed. But it is rather
difficult to install bottom drains in a meandering stream. So when I
flush the VF, unlike with your design, everything then goes straight
into the ponds! Clearly, I need to put some thought into this issue
now...

David

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 15:48:15 -0500, Phyllis and Jim Hurley
> wrote:

>David,
>
>You are right about the benefit of a settling tank/area and vortex!
>
>Our lines are not quite direct into the veggie filters. The water goes
>thru several steps, which include some settling and vortex motion:
>
>1. The pump is down 7' in the bottom of the deep well (old septic
>tank). It is in a 5 gal bucket with 1/2" holes all round. This guards
>the pump as it is not supposed to have solids more than 1/2". The pump
>bucket is on bricks, so it is 4" off the bottom of the septic tank.
>That tank gets most of the pine needles etc. I scoop it out each
>spring. In effect, it is our solid filter. Larger solids settle in it.
> It is not, however, vortexed.
>
>2. The lines go into 55 gal upflow barrels with strapping tape in mesh
>bags above the vortexed (think angled entrance) entry lines. The few
>solids getting to the barrels settle in the barrels and virtually no
>solids of any size go on to the veggie filters.
>
>3. The water exits the barrels into one of two veggie filter systems:
>
>-The left system :
>
>-passes through a 4' x 4' x 18" pond (again on an angle to promote some
>circular, vortex motion). The pond is loaded with veggies.
>-It then passes into a 4' x 8' x 18" veggie pond (angled entrance, again).
>-At the end of the long pond, it falls down our U-shaped falls or our
>adjustable-flow bypass pipe (less water over the falls means less
>evaporation),
>-Then through the small pond at the base of the falls, and
>finally it reenters the main pond via an 8' stream (far from the deep well)
>
>The right system:
>
>-has two barrels that feed into opposite ends of
>-a 4' x 8' x 18" pond (angled entrances for vortex circulation).
>-After the pond, the water drops over our step falls and
>-reenters the pond via an 8' stream (also far from the deep well).
>
>The bottom of each pond is concave to gather muck, drains at the low points.
>
>You can see the berm layout on our website.
>
>The water takes 20 min to go through the right side and 45 on the left.
> The result is really good sedimentation. The second pond on the left
>has lots less sediment than the first pond.
>
>In effect, the deep well is my mechanical sedimentation area for
>everything larger than 1/2" and for lots of other stuff. The barrels
>and ponds get the fine muck. They have solids only when their plants
>die or pine needles and cones fall in. When I drain them, I sometimes
>have to pull out the cones, etc.
>
>Long response to a short point.
>
>Be sure to post pics of your layout when you get it up and running.
>
>Jim
>
>
>
>David wrote:
>> Hi Jim,
>>
>> I had forgotten that your piping goes directly from the sump into the
>> veggie filters. IMHO, a vortex settlement, or even a static
>> settlement tank, with bottom a bottom drain, between the sump and the
>> veggie filters would help this problem immensely. Further, for me
>> anyway, I am designing in mechanical filtration (brushes, matala,
>> etc.), and then bio-conversion (fluidized kaldness), between the
>> vortex and the veggie filter/stream. JMO, FWIW, YMMV....
>>
>> David
>>
>> On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 07:22:57 -0500, Phyllis and Jim Hurley
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Greg,
>>>
>>>Your comment plants a seed of insight for me. We have about 10 koi,
>>>full grown and half a dozen goldfish. The main pond is 2900 gal and the
>>>berm ponds another 1000. There is a significant amount of muck that
>>>gets caught in the berm veggie filters. If they did not get it, the
>>>pond would. It simply does not 'go away', tho it is easy to drain out
>>>by opening the 2" bottom drains.
>>>
>>>I wonder if successful 'rocking' depends on the filtering out of waste.
>>>
>>>We have an open cement bottom in the main pond. The koi constantly stir
>>>the muck and it goes down the drain and up into the veggie filters.
>>>Only pine needles build up in the main pond...and they generally find
>>>their way down to the drain area (an old septic tank with the pump 4"
>>>off the bottom).
>>>
>>>Jim

[RichToyBox]

Nedra,

It looks very good. I know you will enjoy it.
--
RichToyBox
http://www.geocities.com/richtoybox/pondintro.html

"Nedra" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I had to make this decision last week as the guys were finishing up my
> pond rehab. They asked me if I wanted the bottom of the pond rocked
> and of course, I said No. The size rock was 1 - 2 inches. This was the
> size rock that was in my veggie filter - that was a devil to clean out
> and remove the rocks.
> I do think it looks better when the bottom is rocked using Large rocks
> as opposed to using gravel. I'll revisit this subject when the weather
> turns a lot cooler.
>
> Here are some pictures of the rehabbed pond: (Not in final yet) :)
> http://community.webshots.com/user/nedra118
>
> Nedra in Missouri
> zone 6
>

[kathy]

Nedra!!
Looks great!
Glad to see the pictures.

k :-)

[Phyllis and Jim Hurley]

Hi Nedra,

The redo looks great!

Jim

Nedra wrote:
> I had to make this decision last week as the guys were finishing up my
> pond rehab. They asked me if I wanted the bottom of the pond rocked
> and of course, I said No. The size rock was 1 - 2 inches. This was the
> size rock that was in my veggie filter - that was a devil to clean out
> and remove the rocks.
> I do think it looks better when the bottom is rocked using Large rocks
> as opposed to using gravel. I'll revisit this subject when the weather
> turns a lot cooler.
>
> Here are some pictures of the rehabbed pond: (Not in final yet) :)
> http://community.webshots.com/user/nedra118
>
> Nedra in Missouri
> zone 6
>

[Phyllis and Jim Hurley]

David,

Thanks for the reply. Here are the thoughts that fly by my mind as I
think about your post. No cents worth for free. Take or leave them as
it suits you.

I have been thinking (no jokes please) and it seems to me that you might
be able to put a pool at the base of your stream and include a
substantial 2" or 3" drain pipe in the bottom of it. That would let you
cut off the flow from the pond, hose off the stream and flush the junk
out the base-of-the-stream pool...as long as it could drain faster than
you are introducing the flush water.

Your meandering stream could be an interesting VF. It would need slow
enough pockets to collect muck. I could see a tension between the
slowness needed to deposit debris and the speed needed for effective
flush. Of course, ponds with drains would help that and leave you only
with the stream beds to flush.

As I think about it, 'well-planted' enough to grab muck might be hard to
flush. Floating plants have the benefit of filtering the water but
allowing the muck to settle. I'm not sure how to pull that off in a
stream. As it succeedded in catching muck, it might become a bog or
develop channels.

We have a fawcet on the pump line that allows us to flush with pond
water. Doing it means reducing the flow to our berm ponds. The valve
system makes that easy. I just reduce flow til I have a sufficient
pressure on the hose.

I also have a 1 1/2" pipe that allows me to have the pump dump directly
back into the pond. The benefit of that is that I can cut all flow to
the berm and still circulate water in the pond.




David wrote:
> Jim,
>
> Thanks for the expanded description. I understand/remember better
> now.
>
> Hmmm...
>
> Seems to me that you've pretty well got the bases covered, and that
> each component is pretty much doing its job. It sounds like the muck
> in the VFs is mostly resulting from debris falling and being blown in,
> and from the plants that naturally die off. Given that, I'm not sure
> that you can do much more than you have already done. You certainly
> aren't going to hang a debris net over the VFs.
>
> With the bottom drains in each of the VF pools, for perodic flushing,
> it appears to me that you have about reduced maintenance to the
> minimum already. (And it really doesn't sound so bad anyway.)
>
> But you have now set me to thinking, regarding my own design. For a
> VF, I have been thinking in terms of a well-planted meandering stream
> that ultimately flows into the ponds. This however will be subject to
> the same concerns that we have just discussed. But it is rather
> difficult to install bottom drains in a meandering stream. So when I
> flush the VF, unlike with your design, everything then goes straight
> into the ponds! Clearly, I need to put some thought into this issue
> now...
>
> David
>
> On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 15:48:15 -0500, Phyllis and Jim Hurley
> > wrote:
>
>
>>David,
>>
>>You are right about the benefit of a settling tank/area and vortex!
>>
>>Our lines are not quite direct into the veggie filters. The water goes
>>thru several steps, which include some settling and vortex motion:
>>
>>1. The pump is down 7' in the bottom of the deep well (old septic
>>tank). It is in a 5 gal bucket with 1/2" holes all round. This guards
>>the pump as it is not supposed to have solids more than 1/2". The pump
>>bucket is on bricks, so it is 4" off the bottom of the septic tank.
>>That tank gets most of the pine needles etc. I scoop it out each
>>spring. In effect, it is our solid filter. Larger solids settle in it.
>> It is not, however, vortexed.
>>
>>2. The lines go into 55 gal upflow barrels with strapping tape in mesh
>>bags above the vortexed (think angled entrance) entry lines. The few
>>solids getting to the barrels settle in the barrels and virtually no
>>solids of any size go on to the veggie filters.
>>
>>3. The water exits the barrels into one of two veggie filter systems:
>>
>>-The left system :
>>
>>-passes through a 4' x 4' x 18" pond (again on an angle to promote some
>>circular, vortex motion). The pond is loaded with veggies.
>>-It then passes into a 4' x 8' x 18" veggie pond (angled entrance, again).
>>-At the end of the long pond, it falls down our U-shaped falls or our
>>adjustable-flow bypass pipe (less water over the falls means less
>>evaporation),
>>-Then through the small pond at the base of the falls, and
>>finally it reenters the main pond via an 8' stream (far from the deep well)
>>
>>The right system:
>>
>>-has two barrels that feed into opposite ends of
>>-a 4' x 8' x 18" pond (angled entrances for vortex circulation).
>>-After the pond, the water drops over our step falls and
>>-reenters the pond via an 8' stream (also far from the deep well).
>>
>>The bottom of each pond is concave to gather muck, drains at the low points.
>>
>>You can see the berm layout on our website.
>>
>>The water takes 20 min to go through the right side and 45 on the left.
>> The result is really good sedimentation. The second pond on the left
>>has lots less sediment than the first pond.
>>
>>In effect, the deep well is my mechanical sedimentation area for
>>everything larger than 1/2" and for lots of other stuff. The barrels
>>and ponds get the fine muck. They have solids only when their plants
>>die or pine needles and cones fall in. When I drain them, I sometimes
>>have to pull out the cones, etc.
>>
>>Long response to a short point.
>>
>>Be sure to post pics of your layout when you get it up and running.
>>
>>Jim
>>
>>
>>
>>David wrote:
>>
>>>Hi Jim,
>>>
>>>I had forgotten that your piping goes directly from the sump into the
>>>veggie filters. IMHO, a vortex settlement, or even a static
>>>settlement tank, with bottom a bottom drain, between the sump and the
>>>veggie filters would help this problem immensely. Further, for me
>>>anyway, I am designing in mechanical filtration (brushes, matala,
>>>etc.), and then bio-conversion (fluidized kaldness), between the
>>>vortex and the veggie filter/stream. JMO, FWIW, YMMV....
>>>
>>>David
>>>
>>>On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 07:22:57 -0500, Phyllis and Jim Hurley
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Greg,
>>>>
>>>>Your comment plants a seed of insight for me. We have about 10 koi,
>>>>full grown and half a dozen goldfish. The main pond is 2900 gal and the
>>>>berm ponds another 1000. There is a significant amount of muck that
>>>>gets caught in the berm veggie filters. If they did not get it, the
>>>>pond would. It simply does not 'go away', tho it is easy to drain out
>>>>by opening the 2" bottom drains.
>>>>
>>>>I wonder if successful 'rocking' depends on the filtering out of waste.
>>>>
>>>>We have an open cement bottom in the main pond. The koi constantly stir
>>>>the muck and it goes down the drain and up into the veggie filters.
>>>>Only pine needles build up in the main pond...and they generally find
>>>>their way down to the drain area (an old septic tank with the pump 4"
>>>>off the bottom).
>>>>
>>>>Jim
>
>

[Wilmdale]

kathy wrote:

>Nedra!!
>Looks great!
>Glad to see the pictures.
>
>k :-)
>
>
>
Nedra,
NICE!!!!
W. Dale

[Nedra]

A huge thank you to Rich, Jim and Kathy for the lovely compliments!
It's always Grand to hear such nice things :-)

Here is the link in case anyone missed it - -
http://community.webshots.com/user/nedra118

Nedra

[Nedra]

Why - - thank you very much, Dale!
Nedra

[David]

Jim,

Big apologies for not responding more quickly! I've had to rebuild my
computer, and have completely lost touch with everything and
everybody!

I think all of your suggestions are excellent. In fact, I had been
thinking along the same lines -- of drainable pool(s) along the
stream. But especially the one at the base of the stream, before it
enters the main ponds with the fish.

The idea of being able to divert pond water under pressure is already
in there, but this thread has opened up new ideas for application. In
addition to being able to flush the biofilter/converter with pond
water, it can be equally useful for flushing the VF, and for powering
the rock-scrubbing wand described earlier.

Of course all of this, or at least the VF, would have to be done in
small steps over time, or all the water in the pond would be quickly
consumed!

But you are right about the tension between "a VF stream being either
too slow to flush or too fast to collect". So maybe it comes back
again, instead, to having several flushable VF pools interspersed in
the stream. Which, of course, is essentially what you have
(successfully) chosen to do with your berm pools!

Nice thought-provoking discussion.

David

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 18:31:16 -0500, Phyllis and Jim Hurley
> wrote:

>David,
>
>Thanks for the reply. Here are the thoughts that fly by my mind as I
>think about your post. No cents worth for free. Take or leave them as
>it suits you.
>
>I have been thinking (no jokes please) and it seems to me that you might
>be able to put a pool at the base of your stream and include a
>substantial 2" or 3" drain pipe in the bottom of it. That would let you
>cut off the flow from the pond, hose off the stream and flush the junk
>out the base-of-the-stream pool...as long as it could drain faster than
>you are introducing the flush water.
>
>Your meandering stream could be an interesting VF. It would need slow
>enough pockets to collect muck. I could see a tension between the
>slowness needed to deposit debris and the speed needed for effective
>flush. Of course, ponds with drains would help that and leave you only
>with the stream beds to flush.
>
>As I think about it, 'well-planted' enough to grab muck might be hard to
> flush. Floating plants have the benefit of filtering the water but
>allowing the muck to settle. I'm not sure how to pull that off in a
>stream. As it succeedded in catching muck, it might become a bog or
>develop channels.
>
>We have a fawcet on the pump line that allows us to flush with pond
>water. Doing it means reducing the flow to our berm ponds. The valve
>system makes that easy. I just reduce flow til I have a sufficient
>pressure on the hose.
>
>I also have a 1 1/2" pipe that allows me to have the pump dump directly
>back into the pond. The benefit of that is that I can cut all flow to
>the berm and still circulate water in the pond.
>
>
>
>
>David wrote:
>> Jim,
>>
>> Thanks for the expanded description. I understand/remember better
>> now.
>>
>> Hmmm...
>>
>> Seems to me that you've pretty well got the bases covered, and that
>> each component is pretty much doing its job. It sounds like the muck
>> in the VFs is mostly resulting from debris falling and being blown in,
>> and from the plants that naturally die off. Given that, I'm not sure
>> that you can do much more than you have already done. You certainly
>> aren't going to hang a debris net over the VFs.
>>
>> With the bottom drains in each of the VF pools, for perodic flushing,
>> it appears to me that you have about reduced maintenance to the
>> minimum already. (And it really doesn't sound so bad anyway.)
>>
>> But you have now set me to thinking, regarding my own design. For a
>> VF, I have been thinking in terms of a well-planted meandering stream
>> that ultimately flows into the ponds. This however will be subject to
>> the same concerns that we have just discussed. But it is rather
>> difficult to install bottom drains in a meandering stream. So when I
>> flush the VF, unlike with your design, everything then goes straight
>> into the ponds! Clearly, I need to put some thought into this issue
>> now...
>>
>> David
>>
>> On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 15:48:15 -0500, Phyllis and Jim Hurley
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>David,
>>>
>>>You are right about the benefit of a settling tank/area and vortex!
>>>
>>>Our lines are not quite direct into the veggie filters. The water goes
>>>thru several steps, which include some settling and vortex motion:
>>>
>>>1. The pump is down 7' in the bottom of the deep well (old septic
>>>tank). It is in a 5 gal bucket with 1/2" holes all round. This guards
>>>the pump as it is not supposed to have solids more than 1/2". The pump
>>>bucket is on bricks, so it is 4" off the bottom of the septic tank.
>>>That tank gets most of the pine needles etc. I scoop it out each
>>>spring. In effect, it is our solid filter. Larger solids settle in it.
>>> It is not, however, vortexed.
>>>
>>>2. The lines go into 55 gal upflow barrels with strapping tape in mesh
>>>bags above the vortexed (think angled entrance) entry lines. The few
>>>solids getting to the barrels settle in the barrels and virtually no
>>>solids of any size go on to the veggie filters.
>>>
>>>3. The water exits the barrels into one of two veggie filter systems:
>>>
>>>-The left system :
>>>
>>>-passes through a 4' x 4' x 18" pond (again on an angle to promote some
>>>circular, vortex motion). The pond is loaded with veggies.
>>>-It then passes into a 4' x 8' x 18" veggie pond (angled entrance, again).
>>>-At the end of the long pond, it falls down our U-shaped falls or our
>>>adjustable-flow bypass pipe (less water over the falls means less
>>>evaporation),
>>>-Then through the small pond at the base of the falls, and
>>>finally it reenters the main pond via an 8' stream (far from the deep well)
>>>
>>>The right system:
>>>
>>>-has two barrels that feed into opposite ends of
>>>-a 4' x 8' x 18" pond (angled entrances for vortex circulation).
>>>-After the pond, the water drops over our step falls and
>>>-reenters the pond via an 8' stream (also far from the deep well).
>>>
>>>The bottom of each pond is concave to gather muck, drains at the low points.
>>>
>>>You can see the berm layout on our website.
>>>
>>>The water takes 20 min to go through the right side and 45 on the left.
>>> The result is really good sedimentation. The second pond on the left
>>>has lots less sediment than the first pond.
>>>
>>>In effect, the deep well is my mechanical sedimentation area for
>>>everything larger than 1/2" and for lots of other stuff. The barrels
>>>and ponds get the fine muck. They have solids only when their plants
>>>die or pine needles and cones fall in. When I drain them, I sometimes
>>>have to pull out the cones, etc.
>>>
>>>Long response to a short point.
>>>
>>>Be sure to post pics of your layout when you get it up and running.
>>>
>>>Jim
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>David wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hi Jim,
>>>>
>>>>I had forgotten that your piping goes directly from the sump into the
>>>>veggie filters. IMHO, a vortex settlement, or even a static
>>>>settlement tank, with bottom a bottom drain, between the sump and the
>>>>veggie filters would help this problem immensely. Further, for me
>>>>anyway, I am designing in mechanical filtration (brushes, matala,
>>>>etc.), and then bio-conversion (fluidized kaldness), between the
>>>>vortex and the veggie filter/stream. JMO, FWIW, YMMV....
>>>>
>>>>David
>>>>
>>>>On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 07:22:57 -0500, Phyllis and Jim Hurley
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>

>>>>>Your comment plants a seed of insight for me. We have about 10 koi,
>>>>>full grown and half a dozen goldfish. The main pond is 2900 gal and the
>>>>>berm ponds another 1000. There is a significant amount of muck that
>>>>>gets caught in the berm veggie filters. If they did not get it, the
>>>>>pond would. It simply does not 'go away', tho it is easy to drain out
>>>>>by opening the 2" bottom drains.
>>>>>
>>>>>I wonder if successful 'rocking' depends on the filtering out of waste.
>>>>>
>>>>>We have an open cement bottom in the main pond. The koi constantly stir
>>>>>the muck and it goes down the drain and up into the veggie filters.
>>>>>Only pine needles build up in the main pond...and they generally find
>>>>>their way down to the drain area (an old septic tank with the pump 4"
>>>>>off the bottom).
>>>>>
>>>>>Jim
>>
>>

[Phyllis and Jim Hurley]

David,

I have had crashes too. I have that and hate the recovery period too.

Thanks for the reply. It is fun. A wonderful and practical
intellectual exercise.

You are very right about the use of water to flush. Uses pond water up.
We have found that we can in fact use the hose a lot of time as our
3,900 gal volume can absorb a lot of tap water without being bothered
much. The tap water goes in relatively slowly and gets mixed well.

A part of our layout that I love is the effective filtering of muck
without screens that need to be cleaned regularly. Yearly sure beats
weekly!

As our koi have grown, the self-cleaning of the main pool has increased.
They are very effective stirers! The muck in the pools has also
increased (big fish, big stir, big waste).

Jim

David wrote:
> Jim,
>
> Big apologies for not responding more quickly! I've had to rebuild my
> computer, and have completely lost touch with everything and
> everybody!
>
> I think all of your suggestions are excellent. In fact, I had been
> thinking along the same lines -- of drainable pool(s) along the
> stream. But especially the one at the base of the stream, before it
> enters the main ponds with the fish.
>
> The idea of being able to divert pond water under pressure is already
> in there, but this thread has opened up new ideas for application. In
> addition to being able to flush the biofilter/converter with pond
> water, it can be equally useful for flushing the VF, and for powering
> the rock-scrubbing wand described earlier.
>
> Of course all of this, or at least the VF, would have to be done in
> small steps over time, or all the water in the pond would be quickly
> consumed!
>
> But you are right about the tension between "a VF stream being either
> too slow to flush or too fast to collect". So maybe it comes back
> again, instead, to having several flushable VF pools interspersed in
> the stream. Which, of course, is essentially what you have
> (successfully) chosen to do with your berm pools!
>
> Nice thought-provoking discussion.
>
> David
>
> On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 18:31:16 -0500, Phyllis and Jim Hurley
> > wrote:
>
>
>>David,
>>
>>Thanks for the reply. Here are the thoughts that fly by my mind as I
>>think about your post. No cents worth for free. Take or leave them as
>>it suits you.
>>
>>I have been thinking (no jokes please) and it seems to me that you might
>>be able to put a pool at the base of your stream and include a
>>substantial 2" or 3" drain pipe in the bottom of it. That would let you
>>cut off the flow from the pond, hose off the stream and flush the junk
>>out the base-of-the-stream pool...as long as it could drain faster than
>>you are introducing the flush water.
>>
>>Your meandering stream could be an interesting VF. It would need slow
>>enough pockets to collect muck. I could see a tension between the
>>slowness needed to deposit debris and the speed needed for effective
>>flush. Of course, ponds with drains would help that and leave you only
>>with the stream beds to flush.
>>
>>As I think about it, 'well-planted' enough to grab muck might be hard to
>> flush. Floating plants have the benefit of filtering the water but
>>allowing the muck to settle. I'm not sure how to pull that off in a
>>stream. As it succeedded in catching muck, it might become a bog or
>>develop channels.
>>
>>We have a fawcet on the pump line that allows us to flush with pond
>>water. Doing it means reducing the flow to our berm ponds. The valve
>>system makes that easy. I just reduce flow til I have a sufficient
>>pressure on the hose.
>>
>>I also have a 1 1/2" pipe that allows me to have the pump dump directly
>>back into the pond. The benefit of that is that I can cut all flow to
>>the berm and still circulate water in the pond.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>David wrote:
>>
>>>Jim,
>>>
>>>Thanks for the expanded description. I understand/remember better
>>>now.
>>>
>>>Hmmm...
>>>
>>>Seems to me that you've pretty well got the bases covered, and that
>>>each component is pretty much doing its job. It sounds like the muck
>>>in the VFs is mostly resulting from debris falling and being blown in,
>>>and from the plants that naturally die off. Given that, I'm not sure
>>>that you can do much more than you have already done. You certainly
>>>aren't going to hang a debris net over the VFs.
>>>
>>>With the bottom drains in each of the VF pools, for perodic flushing,
>>>it appears to me that you have about reduced maintenance to the
>>>minimum already. (And it really doesn't sound so bad anyway.)
>>>
>>>But you have now set me to thinking, regarding my own design. For a
>>>VF, I have been thinking in terms of a well-planted meandering stream
>>>that ultimately flows into the ponds. This however will be subject to
>>>the same concerns that we have just discussed. But it is rather
>>>difficult to install bottom drains in a meandering stream. So when I
>>>flush the VF, unlike with your design, everything then goes straight
>>>into the ponds! Clearly, I need to put some thought into this issue
>>>now...
>>>
>>>David
>>>
>>>On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 15:48:15 -0500, Phyllis and Jim Hurley
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>David,
>>>>
>>>>You are right about the benefit of a settling tank/area and vortex!
>>>>
>>>>Our lines are not quite direct into the veggie filters. The water goes
>>>>thru several steps, which include some settling and vortex motion:
>>>>
>>>>1. The pump is down 7' in the bottom of the deep well (old septic
>>>>tank). It is in a 5 gal bucket with 1/2" holes all round. This guards
>>>>the pump as it is not supposed to have solids more than 1/2". The pump
>>>>bucket is on bricks, so it is 4" off the bottom of the septic tank.
>>>>That tank gets most of the pine needles etc. I scoop it out each
>>>>spring. In effect, it is our solid filter. Larger solids settle in it.
>>>>It is not, however, vortexed.
>>>>
>>>>2. The lines go into 55 gal upflow barrels with strapping tape in mesh
>>>>bags above the vortexed (think angled entrance) entry lines. The few
>>>>solids getting to the barrels settle in the barrels and virtually no
>>>>solids of any size go on to the veggie filters.
>>>>
>>>>3. The water exits the barrels into one of two veggie filter systems:
>>>>
>>>>-The left system :
>>>>
>>>>-passes through a 4' x 4' x 18" pond (again on an angle to promote some
>>>>circular, vortex motion). The pond is loaded with veggies.
>>>>-It then passes into a 4' x 8' x 18" veggie pond (angled entrance, again).
>>>>-At the end of the long pond, it falls down our U-shaped falls or our
>>>>adjustable-flow bypass pipe (less water over the falls means less
>>>>evaporation),
>>>>-Then through the small pond at the base of the falls, and
>>>>finally it reenters the main pond via an 8' stream (far from the deep well)
>>>>
>>>>The right system:
>>>>
>>>>-has two barrels that feed into opposite ends of
>>>>-a 4' x 8' x 18" pond (angled entrances for vortex circulation).
>>>>-After the pond, the water drops over our step falls and
>>>>-reenters the pond via an 8' stream (also far from the deep well).
>>>>
>>>>The bottom of each pond is concave to gather muck, drains at the low points.
>>>>
>>>>You can see the berm layout on our website.
>>>>
>>>>The water takes 20 min to go through the right side and 45 on the left.
>>>>The result is really good sedimentation. The second pond on the left
>>>>has lots less sediment than the first pond.
>>>>
>>>>In effect, the deep well is my mechanical sedimentation area for
>>>>everything larger than 1/2" and for lots of other stuff. The barrels
>>>>and ponds get the fine muck. They have solids only when their plants
>>>>die or pine needles and cones fall in. When I drain them, I sometimes
>>>>have to pull out the cones, etc.
>>>>
>>>>Long response to a short point.
>>>>
>>>>Be sure to post pics of your layout when you get it up and running.
>>>>
>>>>Jim
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>David wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hi Jim,
>>>>>
>>>>>I had forgotten that your piping goes directly from the sump into the
>>>>>veggie filters. IMHO, a vortex settlement, or even a static
>>>>>settlement tank, with bottom a bottom drain, between the sump and the
>>>>>veggie filters would help this problem immensely. Further, for me
>>>>>anyway, I am designing in mechanical filtration (brushes, matala,
>>>>>etc.), and then bio-conversion (fluidized kaldness), between the
>>>>>vortex and the veggie filter/stream. JMO, FWIW, YMMV....
>>>>>
>>>>>David
>>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 07:22:57 -0500, Phyllis and Jim Hurley
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
>
>>>>>>Your comment plants a seed of insight for me. We have about 10 koi,
>>>>>>full grown and half a dozen goldfish. The main pond is 2900 gal and the
>>>>>>berm ponds another 1000. There is a significant amount of muck that
>>>>>>gets caught in the berm veggie filters. If they did not get it, the
>>>>>>pond would. It simply does not 'go away', tho it is easy to drain out
>>>>>>by opening the 2" bottom drains.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I wonder if successful 'rocking' depends on the filtering out of waste.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We have an open cement bottom in the main pond. The koi constantly stir
>>>>>>the muck and it goes down the drain and up into the veggie filters.
>>>>>>Only pine needles build up in the main pond...and they generally find
>>>>>>their way down to the drain area (an old septic tank with the pump 4"
>>>>>>off the bottom).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Jim
>>>
>>>
>

[~ jan JJsPond.us]

>On 8 Aug 2005 10:40:58 -0700, "Nedra" > wrote:

>Here are some pictures of the rehabbed pond: (Not in final yet) :)
>http://community.webshots.com/user/nedra118
>Nedra in Missouri

I'm a little late to the party, but Nedra, that is the best
hide-the-skimmer job I have ever seen! I wish I had seen it 2-3 months ago
when my sister was asking advice about putting in her new ponds. I had her
go with the no-nitch because the side skimmers can be hard to hide. I'd say
your helpers did something ingenious for pond building there. Very
impressive and gives an awe of mystery to that area. Well done! ~ jan

~Power to the Porg, Flow On!~

[Nedra]

Thanks a million for your reply, Jan.

John and Howard have a business in pond building but were not a bit
hesitant in taking on the job of installing my already purchased
skimmer. I'm thrilled with the job they did on both the skimmer install
and on the waterfall. I'm still looking for rock/s of some sort to put
on top of the skimmer. Got any ideas?

BTW, I have a bright yellow goldfish about 5 inches long that Loves the
Basket inside the skimmer. I always find him lurking around inside and
eating the bits algae ... ?!

Thanks again!

Nedra

[~ jan JJsPond.us]

>and on the waterfall. I'm still looking for rock/s of some sort to put
>on top of the skimmer. Got any ideas? Nedra

Probably not any good ones. ;-) I don't think I'd use rocks.... At least I
assume you have to move this cover periodically for cleaning the skimmer
basket? Maybe a fake rock? Something light anyway. ~ jan

~Power to the Porg, Flow On!~