peter hillman
Let me think for minute....
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2015
- Messages
- 1,260
- Reaction score
- 1,398
- Location
- Reno N.V.
- Hardiness Zone
- 3-5
- Country
Could it be dead algae? That can be very adhesive.
Could it be dead algae? That can be very adhesive.
This is a pre-formed 350 gallon fiberglass basin. Thanks, Steveareno
Hi
It could be calcium deposits , once it takes hold it could be very difficult to remove.
Myself if it is not leaking and once water is it and not very noticable with plants in it and a few rocks. I would leave it be as scraping at it could cause even more damage.
I would also say if you are going to have fish and plants I would not use strong chemicals like that.
Because any residue could harm your fish and plants and the build up of the beneficial bacteria.
Ruben
Thanks. I will stick with my original assessment. The only other explanation would be that this is biofilm. If it is biofilm instead of degradation nothing short of sand-blasting will remove it.
Definitely not big enough for koi!This is a pre-formed 350 gallon fiberglass basin. Thanks, Steveareno
Looking at your photos again, it appears that this problem does not cover the entire bottom of the basin. Is this so?
Definitely not big enough for koi!
koi will get to big for your pond stick with a fantail or 2
Could it be dead algae? That can be very adhesive.
Thing is you clean it and it will never stay clean ,I would just leave it and forget it .Good muck will cover it if you decide on fish and you will never see the black liner again any way .
Hi Meyer,
Thanks again for your gracious efforts on my behalf. Yes, you are correct; the debris do not extend over the entire bottom. Where the water return jets flow there are no debris. It's as if the force of the flowing water does not allow any debris to collect. Similarly, the debris do not collect immediately around the bottom drain where the sucking force speeds up the water as it returns to the pump, because the drain has a top cover. Does this give you an additional clue?
So from the above info, am I correct in assuming that the surface areas that you are having problems with were, in fact, covered by other sediment (debris) that has since been removed and the surface areas that are not affected have been relatively free of sediment (debris)?
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.