How much room do koi need?

[Lisak1]

What is a faux water garden? How does that differ from a hybrid water garden? Or a true water garden? And how is an Aquascape pond different from any of those? I have an Aquascape style pond, but I also consider it to be a water garden.

 

[carolinaguy]

A faux watergarden is a recirculating koi pond that is heavily focused on a natural look. It has rock and gravel, plants, a waterfall usually, bottom and skimmer drainage, and koi. A hybrid watergarden has a drip system that constantly replaces water at some speed, a true watergarden has a flow through natural water source and is typically a natural lake or pond, a soil bottom, and a diverse mix of plant and animal life. A true aquascapes pond simulates nature and has no bottom drains and usually no skimmer. The high end structures have huge gravel filters. The key to the aquascapes format is no bottom drain and the low fish count. Each of these formats have unique volume per pound ratios, cleaning schedules, water quality measures, disease and mechanical wound issues, and purposes. I call this analytical approach the purposeful pond theory. Because the underlying purposes vary, measurements and maintenance vary. This helps explain the wide variances in water quality measurement, stocking requirements, disease issues to include environmental stresses and the like. For example, aquascapes, champion pond, and true watergarden water per pound ratios are very high relative to display and hybrid measures. Aquascapes cleaning schedules and display schedules could not be more variant.

 

[carolinaguy]

Fish will react to the same levels of a pond parameters regardless of the surrounding environmental configuration. There are different types and forms of Water Features because people have different interests and tastes. The laws governing biochemical reactions do not vary due to design.

i respectfully disagree with this approach. the purposeful pond idea has nothing to do with biochemical reactions and ignores what happens in real pond situations. for example, trying to adjust the ph of a true watergarden is impossible. measuring the nitrogen cycle in a true watergarden is a waste of time. quarantining to prevent viral infections doesnt work. biochemical reactions are the same in all environments. its the environment and purpose about which reaction we pay attention to.

 

[Meyer Jordan]

i respectfully disagree with this approach. the purposeful pond idea has nothing to do with biochemical reactions and ignores what happens in real pond situations. for example, trying to adjust the ph of a true watergarden is impossible. measuring the nitrogen cycle in a true watergarden is a waste of time. quarantining to prevent viral infections doesnt work. biochemical reactions are the same in all environments. its the environment and purpose about which reaction we pay attention to.

Sounds like exactly what I stated only in different words.
I would also think that anything that is constructed or fabricated is "purposeful".

 

[carolinaguy]

No. All we need here is a fundamental definition of what quality is in a koi pond. Your interpretation has no quality valence and as such cannot work for a specific application. For example, clean for a roadbed is different than clean for a parking lot which is different from clean on a sidewalk, and different for the foyer of a hospital, which is less quality than for a patient walkway. The next definition for a patient room is higher but not good enough for the surgical suite which is ineffective for a clean room for electronics. This is a spectrum for a quality measure. No one would pay for the clean room standard applied to a roadbed. The definition I use in the purposeful pond is "fitness for use". Your definition is one size fits all or quality is absolute. Simply not true. A championship pond definition of quality cannot be applied to a display pond, but that is exactly what happens all the time. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Meyer Jordan]

Your definition is one size fits all or quality is absolute.

That is not what I said. I stated that the laws controlling the biochemical parameters are absolute. Design or means of fabrication/construction will not alter them.

 

[Meyer Jordan]

As far as putting labels on things, you should be well aware of the fact that, especially in this industry, people are going to call something what they want to call it which, I must agree, does make communication difficult at times.

 

[carolinaguy]

That is not what I said. I stated that the laws controlling the biochemical parameters are absolute. Design or means of fabrication/construction will not alter them.

That's okay. It appears we are talking past each other. I'm done if you are.

 

[Lisak1]

Well, I can tell you've put a lot of thought into your naming conventions, but as Meyer mentioned - two people will call the same pond two different things. For example an Aquascape style pond is frequently referred to as an eco-pond (which you don't mention in your list) or a water garden pond. (And for the record, I've never seen an Aquascape pond built without a skimmer - they have been manufacturing skimmers for the pro and DIY installation market for many, many years and recommend them for all pond installations.) And I'm not really sure why you include natural ponds with a list of man-made water features if you're talking "purposeful ponds".

But anyway, ultimately I don't think the fish care what you call the water they live in, as long as the quality is maintained to the degree that it supports their health and growth. Which I believe is Meyer's point - a fish is a fish is a fish. The koi that live in one pond could just as happily live in another because the conditions that keep them thriving will be the same.

 

[Mitakuye]

The laws governing biochemical reactions do not vary due to design.

That is not what I said. I stated that the laws controlling the biochemical parameters are absolute. Design or means of fabrication/construction will not alter them.

The koi that live in one pond could just as happily live in another because the conditions that keep them thriving will be the same.

Carolinaguy was not implying the "laws" were changed or varied according to pond design/etc. Carolinaguy is talking about consequences of design/purpose impacting quality thus number of fish. Context determine the law's consequences and consequences determine quality and number of fish allowed.

View attachment 97675

Not to mention the fact that it's more frequently quotes as "per inch of fish" - which is still problematic, but somewhat more reasonable to determine how many inches of fish I have versus how many pounds.

I would never rely on this data since fish, even of same species, grow in different girths and lengths primarily dependent on genetics within the same species. Weight of an adult fish can vary anywhere from 100~500 grams or even more or weight may stall out at 200 grams, at a particular length, due to an abnormality in the same specie. If able to catch the fish to measure it, then able to easily weight it. I would not even rely on the length/weight charts often found on koi hobby websites.

 

[Mitakuye]

The minimum is 10 gallons per pound of fish.

I cringe at simple "rule of thumbs" unless it is an absolutely constant due to allowance of extreme examples, such as what Lisak1 wrote, but I agree this would ensure a healthier environment versus the other "rule of thumbs" that are determined by length or gallons.

Weight, at least, reflects an aspect of fish food consumption. Fish that feed, converts feed to protein and increases weight/growth, protein/growth produces waste, waste management determines on the environment's health, environment's health determines performance of the fish, operator's purpose determines the desirable fish performance. Simple.

Side note... I would only use body size (length/girth) to determine how I grade fish, to size the drain orifices, and how much water movement is needed to ensure fish body conformity.

 

[Mitakuye]

As an example a championship pond owner will say that ammonia must always be zero. In my display pond, the ammonia level never got below 0.125 during high summer feeding no matter what I did. Then I talked to a nationally known koi farm manager who laughed my reading off and said his grow tanks never get below 1.0 with no residual effect to the fish. Huh? The grouping helps to make sense of this information.

I agree, different "groups" have different expectations and compromises of fish performance and it is easier to understand when the context is provided.

Farm managers has to balance cost and fish performance so this requires a compromise to meet the business/customer expectations. Champion koi managers are allowed higher costs due the higher value of their livestock, but I would suggest they even have a limit.

Owner's purpose, or "grouping", is the ultimate determining factor.

 

[Mitakuye]

To add to my previous post.

If Owner's purpose is lower maintenance, low capital expenditures, then this dictates fewer fish and/or more cost of surface/depth space dedicated to pond/plants/etc.

Interesting conversation. Thanks for allowing me to contribute to this.

 

[Meyer Jordan]

Carolinaguy was not implying the "laws" were changed or varied according to pond design/etc. Carolinaguy is talking about consequences of design/purpose impacting quality thus number of fish. Context determine the law's consequences and consequences determine quality and number of fish allowed.

A properly designed and constructed pond of any type will not negatively impact quality. And maximum mass of fish (if your are talking fish load) is directly determined by flow rate and available SSA. If you are talking about fish density (number of fish per unit of volume), this is specie specific.

I would never rely on this data since fish, even of same species, grow in different girths and lengths primarily dependent on genetics within the same species. Weight of an adult fish can vary anywhere from 100~500 grams or even more or weight may stall out at 200 grams, at a particular length, due to an abnormality in the same specie. If able to catch the fish to measure it, then able to easily weight it. I would not even rely on the length/weight charts often found on koi hobby websites.

Then what would you rely on? Each specie of fish has a typical growth rate based on water quality and food amount/content. Of course there are variations from any norm, but a general consensus is used in many different disciplines. Condition Factor is also an aspect of each fish that can be considered. In science and medicine, norms are constantly being used.
In determining total projected fish mass, some sort of benchmark means of weight/length must be available. Individual current weights of fish is useless in that it does not yield what this fish will weigh at full maturity unless the fish is already at its mature size.
Fish load and density for optimum quality must be determined on what the length/weight of the extant number of fish will be at some future date. For this some form of reliable guideline is necessary.

 

[Mitakuye]

A properly designed and constructed pond of any type will not negatively impact quality. And maximum mass of fish (if your are talking fish load) is directly determined by flow rate and available SSA. If you are talking about fish density (number of fish per unit of volume), this is specie specific.

I am not here to argue. I am fine with agreeing to disagree.

Correct, a proper design entails there will not be any negative impacts.

Flow rate and SSA is predetermined by desired livestock density to maintain and how to most effectively utilize this. To be more specific, flow rate is determined as a function of fish mass and pollution/oxygen/etc concentrations (i.e., mass transport). For a steady mass balance, the in's must equal the out's.

I never met an engineer that built a system based on a flow rate, rather than maximum potential livestock density.

Generally, "rule of thumbs" as Carolina talked about are extreme "generalities". I thought we were talking the subject was "generalities", rather than specie specific.