| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
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 ___________________ |
"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 |
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 |
"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" 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". |
"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. |
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// |
" George" wrote: "Gary" wrote in message roups.com... I think it is a matter of personal choice, depending on the size of your pond and the look you want to achieve. If you choose to go with rocks, you will not be able to keep them clean, so don't even try. Algae will grow on them, unless you use a strong algaecide, clorox, etc, and do not plan on having any plants or fish. (I call this the "swimming pool" look.) I prefer a more natural look and have a layer of fairly large river rocks covering the bottom of my pond (600 gal., Rubbermaid stock tank, 6 ft. diameter X 2 ft. deep). It gives the fish (esp. the little ones) good hiding places. The "gunk" does settle down in between the rocks, but the plants love it. I have a water lily that hopped the pot years ago, in favor of rooting under the rocks in the bottom of the pond. In the spring, I clean the pond out by shoving the end of a syphon hose down in between the crevaces of the rocks to pull some of the debris out. Also, I use a pond enzyme powder about once a month in the summer. The water is almost always clear, and fish and plants are healthy. This has worked well for me for over 10 years. Hope this helps, Gary I've even seen some ponders incorporate sunken logs into their ponds to give it a wild look. Hello, I would think a constant trickle of fresh water would keep the pond natural. Other wise the fish food and pooping will turn it into a glorified cesspool. __________________________________________________ _____________________________ Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com The Worlds Uncensored News Source |
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 ___________________ |
Gary where did you get your stock tank? I got a Rubbermaid stock tank that's
300 gallons and 5'9 inches in diameter and 25 inches deep Part number 4247 . http://rubbermaidcommercialproducts....5141&do=detail "Phyllis and Jim Hurley" wrote in message ... We are with the no rocks cohort. They don't give you all that much surface as compared to plant roots. Easy clean bottom is overwhelmingly best. Jim JGW wrote: We're getting ready to build our new pond. The contractor wants to line the walls and bottom with rocks, which he says will serve as a great huge biofilter. I have read that it's impossible to keep the pond clean with rocks on the bottom, and that they can trap hydrogen sulfide gas. What are your thoughts? Thanks. Joan ___________________ |
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// |
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? |
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. |
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? |
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// |
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. |
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 |
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. |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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// |
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 ___________________ |
"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 |
"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 |
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} |
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// |
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? |
"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/killf..._troll_faq.htm |
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 |
"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!~ |
"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. |
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 |
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/pro...uct%5Fid=10081 Also, since you are thinking of novel screening solutions, you may find this interesting: http://www.aquaticeco.com/index.cfm/.../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// |
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 |
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/pro...uct%5Fid=10081 Also, since you are thinking of novel screening solutions, you may find this interesting: http://www.aquaticeco.com/index.cfm/.../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 |
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 ___________________ |
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,
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 ___________________ |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:19 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FishKeepingBanter.com