Foamy pond--quick fix???

[brokensword]

Meyer:
I was just mentioning the skimmer in that I do use it but don't clean it often enough to get full effect. That is, the ONLY filter I have for the saltwater aquarium is the live rock and crushed coral substrate. I use the skimmer mainly to get out any floating algae that I've dislodged from the glass, etc. I do think protein skimmers are a good addition even if I don't use mine as well as I could.

I figure I don't need a skimmer on the pond because it's enclosed. I have very little that floats on the surface and I net that out occasionally. But I would certainly use one if my pond was open. I've seen protein skimmers (and articles) and always thought that would be a good pond addition but seems it's a bit more difficult to make work on freshwater. And what I saw seemed seemed to have a larger-than-I-want footprint.

 

[crsublette]

Thanks Charles I looked at it. It is an interesting tool, but it seems like it's main function is to tell you how much food to feed each day not how big of a bioload a given pond can comfortably support. Incidentally it tells me to feed 7 grams of food per day to my fish.

Don't understand how you interpreted the calculator telling you what to feed... Nothing about the calculator tells you much too feed....

You tell the calculator how much you feed within a single setting once per 24 hours, etc, etc,.. so it can determine the volume of biofilter medium necessary according to etc, etc, etc...


The calculator only tells you "total volume media" needed to accommodate X, Y, Z, etc., etc., variables....

Also, the calculator assumes the bio-filter construction has only 50% efficient nitrification conversion rate. So, gives significant wiggle room to apply the calculator to most, if not all, DIY'd bio-filters, that is assuming there is appropriate particulate filtration. At the least, the calculator gives a minimum baseline...

 

[crsublette]

--The feeding rate of 1.2% is locked in and does not change when you alter the temperature level. It should. I would use the chart included in the feeding article I posted. https://www.gardenpondforum.com/articles/to-feed-or-not-to-feed.12/

Locked? I was able to change the 1.2% "feed rate as % of body weight" when altering the temperature level without issue.

 

[crsublette]

based on what I've read above and elsewhere, it seems people always want to apply mechanical filtration to most contained systems. So, what if I said I have been keeping saltwater fish and corals for over 10 years now without anything but natural filtration?

Then I would say.... you are doing what works for your situation and that's awesome.

For me, this is a proof of some sort that nature can do the job just fine if I don't overfeed and don't totally neglect the system. This is what I've tried to do with my pond, relying on a small aerator,waterfall, short stream, and bog all while feeding a handful of food once a day.

Bogs are supplemental mechanical and biological filtration. Waterfall, short stream, and small aerators are supplemental water movers and oxygenators.

Filtration does not have to be an expensive, elaborate device nor something that is put into a pit/closet nor something that is bought from a store... Check out post#36 from my aquaponic thread.

The point of the calculator is to help folk who do not want to primarily rely on the ecosystem or want to build a biofilter as an insurance policy to protect against "accidental" ammonia/nitrite spikes.

 

[Meyer Jordan]

Locked? I was able to change the 1.2% "feed rate as % of body weight" when altering the temperature level without issue.

The feed rate does not automatically change when the temperature entry is altered. It remains at 1.2%. Granted this calculator was devised for Aquaculture facilities where water temperature is controlled. Even so, to be accurate, it should change the feeding rate of 1.2% (which btw is not the accepted industry rate) as temperature changes and fish size changes. Fingerlings are always fed a higher percent of total mass than an adult fish.

 

[crsublette]

... not how big of a bioload a given pond can comfortably support...

I think you are setting an impossible standard since we're talking about hobbyists here. The best you'll find are unreliable plant to fish to pond volume ratios, which are much like the fish inch per gallon rules..

This would be incredibly tough for hobbyists to judge. There are more mass balance equations that involves determining a pond's passive denitrification, microbrial consumptions, plant consumptions, etc etc, but this goes far beyond the scope of any info that would be given to a hobbyist.

 

[crsublette]

The feed rate does not automatically change when the temperature entry is altered. It remains at 1.2%. Granted this calculator was devised for Aquaculture facilities where water temperature is controlled. Even so, to be accurate, it should change the feeding rate of 1.2% (which btw is not the accepted industry rate) as temperature changes and fish size changes. Fingerlings are always fed a higher percent of total mass than an adult fish.

I see what you are saying... All good reasons why the feed rate should not be automatically changed to any particular percent. Gives the user flexibility to match their particular situation. I think Mr. Van der Werf was more concerned about using the proper formulas rather than using dynamically changing data entry fields.

"Generally accepted" does not mean "industry accepted". You have to understand the audience Mr. Van der Werf is writing for, that is hobbyist aquaculture facilties, and these folk also do not control their water temperatures as well as you think since can be quite expensive.

 

[Meyer Jordan]

I see what you are saying... All good reasons why the feed rate should not be automatically changed to any particular percent. Gives the user flexibility to match their particular situation. I think Mr. Van der Werf was more concerned about using the proper formulas rather than using dynamically changing data entry fields.

"Generally accepted" does not mean "industry accepted". You have to understand the audience Mr. Van der Werf is writing for, that is hobbyist aquaculture facilties, and these folk also do not control their water temperatures as well as you think since can be quite expensive.

If this calculator was designed for the 'hobbyist', then even more reason that the reading rate should be tied in with the temperature rate ( and fish size, fingerling etc.). Most hobbyist do not have that type of information (feeding rates) readily at their disposal.
Also of concern with this calculator if it is truly for hobbyist, is that although it appropriately allows for the entry of media SSA, most hobbyist do not have ready access to this information either.
This software appears to be more directed to use by the commercial sector.

 

[crsublette]

If this calculator was designed for the 'hobbyist', then even more reason that the reading rate should be tied in with the temperature rate ( and fish size, fingerling etc.). Most hobbyist do not have that type of information (feeding rates) readily at their disposal.

This feeding rate information is readily available at hobbyists disposal thanks to Google and your To Feed or Not To Feed article.

You are assuming conclusions that are not made by the calculator. Your conclusion would be true if the feed rate data field could not be changed, but there is a reason why the calculator allows the user to change this feed rate information.

The calculator does not suggest that temperature and feed rate is not related. Quite a stretch to suggest a lack of a dynamically changing data field indicates the author is suggesting the calculator is assuming temperature does not impact the feed rate.

Also of concern with this calculator if it is truly for hobbyist, is that although it appropriately allows for the entry of media SSA, most hobbyist do not have ready access to this information either.

This would be true for any decision that takes in consideration of the SSA variable. This does not mean SSA should not be considered as a variable within the calculations to help with decision making.

This software appears to be more directed to use by the commercial sector.

Quite the opposite. The biofilter article specifically stated several times the software was not created to be directed to be used by the commercial sector.

This calculator barely scrapes the surface of the actual formulas used by folk within commercial aquaculture facilities.

Hydraulic loading and dissolved oxygen is also quite important as well, which should be kept in mind. The calculator does address this in an "around about" way by assuming a 50% biofilter efficiency. Obviously, this could have been addressed better.

I think safe to say Mr. Van der Werf goal was to create a basic calculator with the bare minimum variables to be expected of a biofilter calculator for hobbyists, which I have not yet found an equivalent nor one better.

 

[Meyer Jordan]

This feeding rate information is readily available at hobbyists disposal thanks to Google and your To Feed or Not To Feed article.

You are assuming conclusions that are not made by the calculator. Your conclusion would be true if the feed rate data field could not be changed, but there is a reason why the calculator allows the user to change this feed rate information.

The calculator does not suggest that temperature and feed rate is not related. Quite a stretch to suggest a lack of a dynamically changing data field indicates the author is suggesting the calculator is assuming temperature does not impact the feed rate.




This would be true for any decision that takes in consideration of the SSA variable. This does not mean SSA should not be considered as a variable within the calculations to help with decision making.




Quite the opposite. The biofilter article specifically stated several times the software was not created to be directed to be used by the commercial sector.

This calculator barely scrapes the surface of the actual formulas used by folk within commercial aquaculture facilities.

Hydraulic loading and dissolved oxygen is also quite important as well, which should be kept in mind. The calculator does address this in an "around about" way by assuming a 50% biofilter efficiency. Obviously, this could have been addressed better.

I think safe to say Mr. Van der Werf goal was to create a basic calculator with the bare minimum variables to be expected of a biofilter calculator for hobbyists, which I have not yet found an equivalent nor one better.

We will just have to disagree. If the instructions for use were available ( the link to these does not work and I could not find them anywhere on the Web) then possibly this calculator would be of positive use for the typical hobbyist. As it is presented, I am afraid it is not. I can see where this could actually cause serious issues for the typical hobbyist. As Cometkeith posted, he determined a feeding level for his fish without knowing exactly what his fish load is. He even questioned the results.

 

[crsublette]

I can see where this could actually cause serious issues for the typical hobbyist.

True for any calculator that is not properly used or used for the wrong purpose....

As an example proving my point below....

As Cometkeith posted, he determined a feeding level for his fish without knowing exactly what his fish load is. He even questioned the results.

Why would Cometkeith use a bio-filter sizing calculator to determine feeding level?

It is a biofilter sizing calculator... Not a "feeding rate" calculator.... Using a biofilter sizing calculator to determine your feeding rate will never work unless all fish are at their final expected potential weight.

If the instructions for use were available ( the link to these does not work and I could not find them anywhere on the Web) then possibly this calculator would be of positive use for the typical hobbyist.

I agree with you about lacking sufficient instruction for beginners or those less detail driven hobbyists.

Personally, I found the calculator self explanatory for biofilter sizing....

 

[CometKeith]

Why would Cometkeith use a bio-filter sizing calculator to determine feeding level?

It is a biofilter sizing calculator... Not a "feeding rate" calculator.... Using a biofilter sizing calculator to determine your feeding rate will never work unless all fish are at their final expected potential weight.

I see my mistake. Total volume of media required was 1 liter and volume of biofilter tank was also 1 liter and I glossed over that and did not even notice that at the bottom because it was all ones. I guess I'm at the lowest level because I have relatively small fish in a 2700 liter "tank". Plugging in different numbers into different cells I can see different results. It seems to react very strongly if the surface area of the media is changed. I'm not quite sure how this could help me. I would need to guesstimate the weight of my fish which I tried, but also my fish at harvest? Also I would have to estimate my media size which may take a little work. I saw the question about media surface area but he doesn't list the little bio-balls I have in my laguna bio-filter. How practical is this for a casual pond keeper and does it even apply to an outdoor pond of koi and/or goldfish?

 

[CometKeith]

We will just have to disagree. If the instructions for use were available ( the link to these does not work and I could not find them anywhere on the Web) then possibly this calculator would be of positive use for the typical hobbyist. As it is presented, I am afraid it is not. I can see where this could actually cause serious issues for the typical hobbyist. As Cometkeith posted, he determined a feeding level for his fish without knowing exactly what his fish load is. He even questioned the results.

Meyer, You are probably right. for a casual hobbyist to benefit from it there would need to be instructions at the very least. That is the first thing i checked on and couldn't find anything. It wasn't clear to me at first it was giving me the volume and sizing of my media in my bio-filter and that is why it seemed to be giving me the amount of food and nothing else. Also it seems that there are many more variables such as presence of algae, plants, temperature, and surface area of the water, type of fish, etc, and each one of these would affect things. It's an interesting attempt to derive a biofilter sizing from certain variables that are easy to quantify, but the direction of this is for fish in tanks for harvesting which doesn't directly apply to our community.

 

[CometKeith]

How did you determine your total fish weight?

I'm not quite sure where i looked up my weights but this looks more reliable, I'm guessing I have about a pound of fish or .45 kg.

http://www.ozarkkoi.com/Goldfish-Weight-Goldfish-Information-sc-97.html

 

[CometKeith]

I agree with you about lacking sufficient instruction for beginners or those less detail driven hobbyists.

Personally, I found the calculator self explanatory for biofilter sizing....

Well it appears to me that both you and Meyer have a leg up on me in terms of your background and would more easily understand something like this because you have both given it sufficient thought. I'm guessing some type of engineer or advanced degree in marine biology for each of you. I have a science degree from a long time ago, but it didn't really help me here. It took me some time to figure it out and I still do not know how to calculate my media size. Also if it spits out an answer how close is it to reality and what is really happening in my outdoor pond?