Biofilters are not needed!

[waynefrcan]

Biofilters not needed? Charles old friend I knew you would be in the mix on this topic lol.

I think they might not be needed, but they are a huge plus to creating clear water.

 

[dieselplower]

I just wanted to move this post over from another thread. It seems we may have conflicting info with info previously posted in this thread. I highlighted a couple notable areas. To me it seems clear in this post that when there is an abundance of nutrients, one solution is more biofiltration. Also please not that the pond being referred to does have several plants in it already.

JohnHuff, on 25 Jun 2013 - 01:56, said:

You have green water and algae because there is an abundance of nutrients. If you don't want to fool around with new filters and such, the two easiest things to do are 1) cut down on the food you are feeding, that's usually the #1 reason for excess nutrients and 2) add a few water hyacinths, duckweed in a hoop or other floating plants. These can suck up nutrients very efficiently and deprive the algae of them. My personal story is that years ago, a cleaning man came and took away all my water hyacinths. Within a couple of days my pond was completely overcome with green algae.

If you want to spend more time, you might want to add/build a mechanical filter with a large filtering capacity. But food and other plants are the key. Some might also suggest UV, but that simply kills the algae, there will still be an excess of nutrients in the pond with nowhere to go.

I've looked at your Easyclear filters and sadly, these store bought systems are not that great for maintenance or useful. They don't provide a lot of biofiltration and are a nightmare to clean.

 

[HTH]

I totally disagree that extra is worthless until you need it. Why one run filter at maximum capacity that will be eventually overloaded when you can run two at half capacity and not think twice about them? I feel like we are sort of on the same pave here as well though.... No sense waiting til there is a problem and then scrambling to fix it. I would rather be over filtered and have a cushion thenat the max.

DP you got me all wrong. From my post it should be obvious that I am a big believer in having excess capacity. (Even if I don't do as I say much of the time) My point was that any sort of backup or insurance only comes into play when you need it. (I THINK this is what WB is calling worthless) If or not it is worthless is semantics and keep in mind that WB was making a point.

I also agree with your argument above. One can burn out cleaning too small filters. But if you are cleaning too often I would suggest that you don't have enough filter capacity so the needed capacity is not extra.

The point is that as complexity increases so does the chance for things to go badly. Two poorly designed filters is twice as much trouble. But we if do some failure mode planing during design we can minimize the impact of failures.

Is there anything left to say about the original topic?? Can we all agree on "Some ponds don't need biological filters" and call it settled ?

EDIT: "You have green water and algae because there is an abundance of nutrients."
This is my take on it.

WB has said nutrients have nothing to do with green water based on not being able to measure nutrients when green water is present. The suspended algae is very good at absorbing the ammonia directly so with a sufficient population you will get low or zero readings. His conclusion if logical but flawed.

 

[crsublette]

It's important to hash out such stuff to clarify things.

I know I have made a few mistakes in my posts in the past while I was trying to get a grasp on stuff.

Fortunate and unfortunately, forum posts are preserved for prosperity, that is can be easily found by da Google for anyone. This is why folk need to read what is written on forums, by anyone, with a skeptical open mind so to have the best success possible with fewer problems while having a pond that is their own personal paradise at home.

 

[dieselplower]

DP you got me all wrong. From my post it should be obvious that I am a big believer in having excess capacity. (Even if I don't do as I say much of the time) My point was that any sort of backup or insurance only comes into play when you need it. (This is what WB is calling worthless) If or not it is worthless is semantics

I also agree with your argument above. One can burn out cleaning too small filters.

But WB does make the point that as complexity increases so does the chance for things to go badly. Two poorly designed filters is twice as much trouble. But we if do some failure mode planing during design we can minimize the impact of failures.

Is there anything left to say about the original topic?? Can we all agree on "Some ponds don't need biological filters" and call it settled ?

My apologies for the misunderstanding. This topic has lost its luster eh? Settled

 

[Waterbug]

I generally agree with your statements with the exception of the conclusion about forums. The electronics forum I am part of generally values what is right over anyone's personal opinion. But then that is a lot easier to do in electronics. Things tend to be more more black and white. But I think we can do better here too if we want to.

Some are better than others. I read some C++ forums that are highly moderated to stay on topic and answers are rated by users. However, the level of opinion, or the volume of opinion, is still very high. In forums where I don't know much about the subject almost all opinions appear to me to be fact or knowledgeable. In forums where I know more the "facts" appear more as opinion. That's how I learned about ponds. Started in forums learning lots of facts which over time turned out to be myths and opinions. It's one way to learn, but sure is time consuming.

I'm not suggesting this, or any other forum change. They provide entertainment and an outlet for people to express their opinions which we seem to like. Wikis are more a format for conveying knowledge imo, where the debate takes place behind the curtain. My point is to readers that see all this back and forth and might mistake it all for anything other than people defending their opinions. In generally you rarely see people cite any kind of source to prove their opinion actually has some basis, or to disprove another. Instead various debate tactics are used to "win". Although to date there have been almost 2 trillion forum posts made and not a single confirmed "win" yet. My source?

 

[crsublette]

Case in point... Above being an example of "source" as to showing how preachy soap box posts add to the entertainment and fluff in these forums and definitely do not add to the topic discussion, such as this post, unfortunately, which is quite likely the reason why more knowledgeable folk tend to steer away from these type of venues, unless strictly moderated.