bog, trickle tower, best and/or both?

[brokensword]

I've read and digested many threads of info re bogs and trickle towers. I wonder if one or the other does a better job, or are they about equal in effectiveness? That said, would using both be better than just one or the other? I see a lot of benefit to haviing the oxygen meeting the bio filter for bacterial growth, and wondered if this was an optimum plan versus the underwater nature of a bog.

I built a bog for my pond and haven't had any issues (bar the string algae which I don't think either bog or tt will solve) but was thinking I might also find a way to incorporate a TT, especially if there's a lot of benefit (and I can creatively disguise the beast). I have a lot of plants which should take up the nitrates, so perhaps it's an either or here? Either bog or TT?

I searched, but didn't really find any clear thread relative to this question, so am expecting Addy and WB to be the Ultimate Fighters here (and hope others will chime in too), glaring at each other from opposite corners, their gamefaces fully in view. Heh.


Michael

 

[brandonsdad02]

99.9% of the members on this forum have either a bog or a skippy style filter. There are a few people that have a TT but from what I have read, they aren't very popular. I have a skippy filter and I'm getting ready to add a bog to my pond set up.

 

[brandonsdad02]

Are there any rules to this fight? I got my bet on Addy....j/k. WB has a ton of knowledge about the TT and addy as well as several others have impressive bogs that are to die for.

 

[fishin4cars]

Two completely different filtration systems, I can tell you my plan is to use both along with 1- 4" bottom drain and a cetus sieve. I'm going to run skimmer to the bog, Bottom drain to sieve to the trickle tower. I built the other pond with Bog filter and filter fall unit. That's been working quite well but it's a submerged bio-chamber versus a flow through system. I do have air added to my filter fall unit so I can't see a reason why a flow through trickle tower would be that much different than a up flow, flow through type. But your right, I don't see many people trying both and the question is why?

 

[brokensword]

Are there any rules to this fight? I got my bet on Addy....j/k. WB has a ton of knowledge about the TT and addy as well as several others have impressive bogs that are to die for.

I've heard rumors of Addy's left hook while WB is the cow-puncher's champ, so even money it seems...and watch the magic JW will provide Addy with just a styptic pencil...

 

[Waterbug]

TT converts ammonia and nitrite...
It's a well understood system, very easy to test. Hook it up to a body of water, pour ammonia into the water and sit back and measure the ammonia reduction, the nitrite increase and then the nitrite decrease. You can then work out pretty well how much food can be added and therefore how much of a fish load the filter can handle. Really important for high fish load ponds. This ability to measure ammonia conversion is the basis for a TT being 10-30 times better, pound for pound, than a Skippy or any other static submerged media filter. The test results can be repeated over and over.

Today the TT isn't as popular as it was 5, 10 15 years ago in high fish load ponds. Shower filters are even better for ammonia conversion and in these ponds that's all that matters. High capacity conversion that is almost 100% reliable. Way, way back when Skippy was popular in high fish load ponds this was the biggest problem. As muck started to cover media the bacteria slowed ammonia/nitrite conversion and that was a huge problem. Same for bead filters, and really every static submerged media. Although TT and Shower filters claim to fame is increased O2 and therefore better conversion it's really the 24/7 conversion rate that is more important to high fish load keepers although they don't mention it as often. Not as sexy.

When considering filters you have to consider what's needed. Using the better conversion filter is not always the best choice.

Water gardens normally do not need high capacity ammonia/nitrite conversion. Most don't need any bio filter at all, they measure zero ammonia/nitrite all the time. Fewer fish, smaller fish, waaaay less feed. High fish load ponds can feed 8-12 times per day, pounds and pounds of food per week. It's a different hobby.

So in a water garden a Skippy normally does no harm, may be not needed, but certainly no harm. And people like building them and they look impressive. You will only find Skippy type filters today in the water garden hobby. They have no use on a fish farm or any high fish load pond. That tells you something.

If a person did want a bio filter, or needed one because they were measuring ammonia, a TT is worth consideration for a water garden. You probably don't need the highest capacity a Shower Filter can provide. Showers are pretty noisy, not so easy to hide, etc. TT and Shower filters are directly related so you can make a hybrid if you wanted.

TT may clear a pond of green water and may speed break down of suspended organic matter making water clearer...
This is less well understood. Certainly not every pond with a TT is clear. But there are cases where it seems to be a factor, but no one knows why, and because of that no one knows how to build or size a TT that will clear a pond for certain. The theories are having to do with bacteria killing algae (Norm Meck) or a place for macroalgae to get a foothold which can kill green water algae (my own theory). Another theory is these will reduce nitrates and "starve" algae, but that theory was easily proved wrong. Removing nitrates in high fish load ponds is an important benefit but not in water gardens. Different hobbies.

Streams and falls have long been thought to clear ponds and the TT design is basically a stream in a smaller footprint. The creator of the Bakki Shower was inspired by streams. But then most every pond I see that has a Shower filter also has a UV, so that tells you something.

Bog
For a water garden a bog is my fav filter for beginner water gardens or for people who just want a low maintenance landscape feature.

They're my personal fav for planting marginals, hiding a pond's edge, adding features to a lanscape. The plants are out of the pond and out of the string algae. I can walk around in there dead heading, dividing, etc., without messing up the pond.

I think it can make water clearer at least for some amount of time. I think it gives you the best chance to be able to turn off a UV once a pond has been cleared. Algae and suspended particles can get trapped in all the nooks and crannies so they're a great "settlement tank".

Bogs are poor bio filters pound for pound, but their sear size makes up for that. So they aren't bad bio filters in general.

Again, no one knows why a bog will clear a pond or not clear a pond. The longer the bog I think the better your chances of a beneficial outcome. Just like the longer the stream the better your chances seems.

They're super easy to configure into any shape you want. Loop them around a pond edge, loop them around the yard...no one would even know they were part of the pond. You don't have to dig deep, 12" is plenty. You sure don't need a pipe distribution system under the gravel. These can reduce time water spends moving thru gravel. And that's the name of the game, the longer it takes water to travel thru a bog the better it seems. Big rectangular bogs are not as good imo as long 12" wide bogs which can be looped anyway you like including into a rectangular shape.

Bog downsides...
In a high fish load pond bogs are bad news. They're a perfect home for harmful bacteria. $20,000+ worth of fish motivates a person to limit harmful bacteria. 5 cent feeder fish, not so much.

The trapped suspended particles decompose and become DOCs which in water gardens isn't a huge problem. In high fish load ponds DOCs are a problem for fish health.

There is however a very good chance of DOCs creating foam on the surface one day. Maybe 1 year, maybe 5, maybe 10, maybe never. But your odds go way up with a bog because of the high load of decomposing organic matter. But then many water gardens aren't exactly spotless so you would expect to have DOC issues even without a bog. I certainly wouldn't skip a bog in a water garden for fear of DOCs.

In theory bogs will fill with muck and the entire thing has to be cleaned out. I personally have never seen a bog get to that stage. And I think their ability to trap small particles increases as the bog clogs. But it's something to consider. It would not be a good idea to vacuum a pond and dump the waste into the bog, or pipe a bottom drain directly into a bog. No point filling it with muck faster.

Along with the higher load of decomposition comes an increase in toxic gases and lower O2. I have never believed these toxic gases killed fish in a water garden environment. Not optimal, but water gardens by definition are not optimal for fish. The fish can handle less than optimal conditions. But if you think the toxic gasses are a problem a big would not be for you.

My personal take...
TT and bogs are unrelated. There is overlap, but if you need ammonia/nitrite conversion unreliable choices are not an option.

I would add a TT if I needed ammonia/nitrite conversion. I would add a Shower filter instead if I needed more conversion in a smaller space or I wanted the filter inside a heated space for winter running. Submerged fixed media bio filters is not something I would ever consider.

I would always have a bog, even it wasn't connected to a pond. I have some now here and there throughout the yard. Just the perfect place to plant marginals.

For filtering water...I don't know. For a beginner I think they're a great general filter choice because they're easy, pretty much maintenance free, hard to get wrong choice. Way better than any filter manufactured for the water garden market. For me I think I have better ways to deal with green water and suspended particles, so I might not chose to connect a bog to the pond. Hard to say, depends on the pond.

 

[addy1]

I don't fight, lol, just post results. My bog build was based on monster fish keeping sites, those that keep koi, large koi and lots. I read a lot, made decisions and did my build.

These were taken yesterday, no string algae, no green water, water temperature is around 75-80. It has bounced a little due to the cold wave that brought us all the rain. I have had bogs for years on my other ponds, have not had any of the issues mentioned above.

 

[JohnHuff]

So in a water garden a Skippy normally does no harm, may be not needed, but certainly no harm. And people like building them and they look impressive. You will only find Skippy type filters today in the water garden hobby. They have no use on a fish farm or any high fish load pond. That tells you something.

Here's my take on Skippys. First, the exposed surface area of the media to volume is extremely low in a traditional Skippy. It's really only the outside of the mass of media which is exposed, unless bioballs or other such type of media is used. And once the insides are plugged up, then the flow is just on the outside.

Next, the total mount of surface of media inside Skippys is laughably small compared to the surface area of surfaces inside most ponds they filter. I've seen humongous ponds being filtered by one or two Skippys and there is no way the surface area of the media should be meaningfully functional.

However, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that it works. First of which is the negative evidence from the Skippy site itself. That evidence is that when they cleaned up the gunk inside, it was a mistake. (I think they removed the part on the website which said what happens when they did, they only say not to clean it now.) This type of evidence is more trustworthy than positive evidence that says something works because people selling something will always say that it works, but in this case it wasn't the intention to say that it works, rather, we can infer that because it stopped working when they cleaned it, it must have worked in the first place.

Therefore, I think the sum of the parts is greater than the whole. The most important part I think is the water flow, it's the water flow over the media which is more significant than the amount of media itself. And then it's all the other stuff, the stuff they talk about on their website, it's the algae (micro or otherwise) which is producing something toxic for the other algae, or it's the algae in it that's taking up the nutrients, etc.

Pros: Still, there's a lot of pros to the Skippy. They're easy to build and the website has easy instructions for the beginner down to generic sizing. Most of all, they're low maintenance. We built one for a friend who has no intention of doing any work on his 150 gallon preformed pond and just threw more goldfish into it whenever the old ones died. What else has less maintenance?

 

[Waterbug]

Define "work"...
It's an interesting concept, just say something works rather than how well it works. "Buy this car, it has great gas mileage." Super, I want a car with "great gas mileage", don't you? A few people might be interested to know the actual gas mileage. Say 25 mpg. Wow, that is good. Of these people some might want to do a little more research. When they find cars that get 50-75 mpg and are cheaper to buy they might have a different opinion of whether 25 mpg is indeed "great gas mileage". Knowledge changes the meaning of words in a person's mind.

Skippy filters do certainly work...if the definition is there will be some nitrifying bacteria present and they will be able to convert some amount of ammonia/nitrites. Some small group of people may want to consider "how much" and whether there are better options.

Improving the Skippy...
Not all Skippy filters are the same. Pump 10,000 GPH thru it and the media will stay very clean. Muck dust has very little chance to settle on at least parts of media. Drop the flow down to 2000 GPH, 1000 GPH, 500 GPH and more and more "dust" will settle on the media choking out nitrifying bacteria. If you see a cloud of dust coming off of media when you shake it a little, that's not a place with a lot of nitrifying bacteria. Of course blowing enough water thru a Skippy to keep media clean isn't really a Skippy any more. It would be more of a fluidized bed type filter, just not a very good one.

To that end...switch the static media in Skippy with media for a fluidized filter, throw out some of the parts, and you've converted the Skippy into a fluidized bed filter, as long as there's enough flow (GPH) to actually keep the media moving. That would be a huge conversion rate improvement for any Skippy filter. Of course you'd only need a tank or barrel 1/4 the size that a Skippy needs and you'd still have way better ammonia/nitrite conversion.

Surface Area - 1995's Hottest Thing in Bio Filters
Many, many moons ago bio filters were all about surface area. More surface area, better filter. That's all anyone ever talked about. In the past 10-15 years you hardly hear anyone talk about surface area any more. The problem was the surface area was being covered with muck dust which made surface area meaningless. Concept was sound, execution wasn't.

People moved to filters which washed media clean and increased O2 allowing fewer nitrifying bacteria to convert ammonia/nitrite at a higher rate. Trading surface area years ago for less surface area but higher 24/7 bacteria conversion was a huge improvement.

Easy building & maintenance...
Skippy filters are fun to build no question, at least for me. I also like doing the Times crossword. But easy?

Skippy instructions. In what world is that easy? I lead a very simple life so maybe I'm not the best judge. But if I just go by the number of steps, the number of parts, the number of tools needed...it just doesn't add up to simpler than other, better, filters. And the other filters can be 1/4 the size and still provide better ammonia/nitrite conversion. This doesn't really seem even close to me.

Fluidized bed instructions:
1. Buy a tank or barrel.
2. Drill hole in side of tank, add bulkhead fitting and outlet pipe to pond.
3. Put screen over outlet.
4. Run hose from pump into top of tank down to the bottom.
5. Dump in fluidized bed media.
6. Turn on pump.
7. Replace or clean media every 3-5 years.

Step 2 is too complex for most people since they don't have 2" or whatever hole saw, or a drill that can take one. And using a large hole saw in a curved barrel not so easy if this is the first hole a person has ever drilled. There was a discussion in this very forum where someone was hammering a person not into DIY that they should build a Skippy and that it was so easy. The poster kept saying they didn't even have a drill but this concept apparently is too foreign for some to accept.

TT instructions:
1. Lay some liner on the ground next to the pond, overlapping liner into pond.
2. Push dirt under edges of liner to form a shallow pool.
3. Pile, stack, rocks on liner.
4. Run pump hose to top of pile.
5. Turn on pump.
6. Replace or clean rocks every 3-5 years.

Shower Filter instructions:
1. Buy a few of these plastic window box planters at any big box garden center for about $6 each.

2. Use a lighter or match to burn/melt holes in the bottom of each.
3. Fill first one with rocks 3/4 full.
4. Place in a shallow spot in pond, like a plant shelf, stream, waterfalls pool.
5. Fill next box 3/4 full with rocks and stack inside first box.
6. Repeat step 5 until you have 2 or 3 boxes above the water surface.
7. Run pump hose into top of top box.
8. Cut/drill/burrn holes into part of hose that inside box. Clamp end of hose if needed.
9. Trun on pump.
10. In boxes above water replace or clean media every 3-5 years.

Or buy one of these plastic stackable planters from Home Depot for $37 and fill with rocks. Holes are already in them, although you can add more.

BTW, burning/melting holes in plastic is way stronger than drilling holes, The molten plastic forms a ring around the hole which stops it from splitting. Drilled holes tend to split the plastic over time.

Skippy filters are easy to build and low maintenance...
Compared to Paris Hilton.

If a person thinks a Skippy is easier and cheaper to build, easier to maintain, and meets their conversion needs then super duper you're the perfect candidate to become a proud Skippy owner. But good luck trying to convince others. They're certainly out there. But also expect to meet a lot of people who are going to look beyond "they work".

 

[brokensword]

So, the basic benefit of the trickle tower would be to more easily reduce ammonia into its essentials, and therefore a better filter mechanism for high end fish keepers/sellers. That means without much ammonia present, I'd not even need a TT and the bog is just fine. Which is what I thought, but figured if the TT gave better quality, I might figure a way to create and disguise one. WB, you describe using a pile of rocks and letting the water run down over them...ah, you mean like my waterfall then...so, maybe I already DO have a TT, hey?

And I was only funnin' ya, Addy; I've read enough to know you're a firm believer in bogs--it's your thread in the DIY forum that began my own attempt, so you're preaching to the choir here. I like low maintenance (as I already have too many flower gardens to keep up with as well as the pond now), so bog is good.

Didn't mean to flame any filter wars, was only interested in why one would use a TT or a bog, why not both, or which one worked better. Seems its horses for courses, in this case. Since my pond is enclosed, I dont' get the same kind of debris and not a lot to rot at pond's bottom. But from what I've read, I'd go with the trickle tower first before using a skippy type setup, I think; again, less work, probably better water quality. Just my two cents.

Thanks for the discussion, all.


Michael

 

[brandonsdad02]

WB define "work".

Reading your post was work. Most people do this as something we enjoy. It seems that you sometimes over think things too much..

 

[Waterbug]

So, the basic benefit of the trickle tower would be to more easily reduce ammonia into its essentials, and therefore a better filter mechanism for high end fish keepers/sellers. That means without much ammonia present, I'd not even need a TT and the bog is just fine.

Exactly. No bio filter will lower ammonia and nitrites below zero.

TT can do other things, and may improve water beyond ammonia/nitrites. But these TT systems are more complex and really have to be tuned to a specific pond. For example some people say they can get a TT configured to convert nitrate to nitrogen + oxygen which out gasses. Water Gardens almost never have a nitrate problem, bad problem in high fish load ponds. TTs can break down small suspended particles making water clearer, but again, the TT has to be configured and tweaked to make it work well enough to be worth while.

Which is what I thought, but figured if the TT gave better quality, I might figure a way to create and disguise one. WB, you describe using a pile of rocks and letting the water run down over them...ah, you mean like my waterfall then...so, maybe I already DO have a TT, hey?

Exactly correct. A TT and Shower Filters are just a way to compress more waterfall/stream into a smaller space.

 

[addy1]

brokensword,

And I was only funnin' ya, Addy; I've read enough to know you're a firm believer in bogs--it's your thread in the DIY forum that began my own attempt, so you're preaching to the choir here. I like low maintenance (as I already have too many flower gardens to keep up with as well as the pond now), so bog is good.

Didn't mean to flame any filter wars, was only interested in why one would use a TT or a bog, why not both, or which one worked better. Seems its horses for courses, in this case. Since my pond is enclosed, I dont' get the same kind of debris and not a lot to rot at pond's bottom. But from what I've read, I'd go with the trickle tower first before using a skippy type setup, I think; again, less work, probably better water quality. Just my two cents.

Thanks for the discussion, all.


Michael

Not a filter war, more of a discussion as to what might work for your pond. Like I have said many times, what works for me, might not work for someone else.

lol Michael, I am happy with my set up, it works for me, I have the room, time, ability to do what I did. Others don't. No need for me to add any other filtration, it all works great the way it is, so why make the effort, time and then have anything I need to clean. Like this no maintenance, well minimal maintenance, pond I have.
Water stays perfect, no algae, minimal muck on the bottom, those plants are sucking that pond dry of any debris.

So why fix something that is not broken? lol

 

[JCschild]

SO a bit off topic, but along the same question.

i have an aprox 2400 gal pond 3 seperate ponds of 800 with 3 waterfalls. now that i think i finally have the bottom waterfall leak fixed its time to add more fish etc.

i have 6 fish in 1 pond nothing larger than 10"
i have absolutely no filters at all. (just ordered a weir that will act as a small upflow bio filter, more to not have the top waterfall spewing water from a 2.5" tube than anything.
when i run my pump for a few days in a row my water is so clean and clear. (yes i intend to have it run continuously from now on.)

i am guessing its in part due to 3 waterfalls? and only 6 fish?

i do see just in the last few days (pump not runing until a day ago) what must be string algae, and also one "clump" of some algae

i do not have a bog either am i just lucky? and yes i feed the fish

Scott

 

[JohnHuff]

WB, your advice to newbies always include building TT's but never sizing.