Biofilters are not needed!

[JohnHuff]

I'm totally with crsublette on this one. Not sure why there is so much butthurt. The thread title was way misleading and he totally owned his side of the debate. If I was a mod I would edit the thread title cause I woululdnt want misinformation on my site.

Unfortunately, you didn't really get what my OP meant, so I don't blame you for agreeing with crsublette.

 

[dieselplower]

Unfortunately, you didn't really get what my OP meant, so I don't blame you for agreeing with crsublette.

Oh I guess its over my head. No-one else could possibly know anything..... Pfffffft.

 

[Becky]

This topic started off as an interesting discussion. Discussion allows people to learn from other people's perspectives and experience - not everyone is right, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. However this does not mean that everyone has the right for their opinions to be accepted. You are all within your rights to disagree with an opinion expressed and to provide a counter argument; this is how everyone learns. But attacking each other instead of the theories expressed is rude and will not be tolerated here.

In short please treat each other as you wish to be treated yourself. If you disagree with a theory, then provide a counter argument to the theory instead of criticising the poster in a personal way. Likewise, if someone disagrees with your theory you should not take it personally.

 

[Mucky_Waters]

That's what I love about this hobby, people have such a passion for it. LOL
Funny thing is, it's usually only threads in this forum that Waterbug is involved in where people start to get so bent out of shape, but he hasn't even participated in this one, so out of curiosity I when back to try and figure out where and how this one went off track. I didn't have to look far, I found the answer in the first sentence of the first post of this thread. John you should know better than to dedicate your thread in such a way. :nono:

 

[Waterbug]

This post is actually for Waterbug, who has said it a few times. I didn't believe it either at first but I've come to the conclusion that biofilters are not necessary for pretty much any pond that has plants in it.

To the point I can no longer read the keys W - O - R - T - H - L - E - S - S on my keyboard anymore.

I didn't read most of the posts so this isn't directed at anyone...

To me it's pretty simple. If you measure 0 ammonia and nitrite you don't need more bio filtering. Whether that specific pond has no dedicated bio filter, a crappy bio filter, a great bio filter or 100 great bio filters. It's simple because you can't drop ammonia or nitrite below 0 no matter what you do.

If you want to know if you have more bio filtering than you need that's super simple too...bypass a filter and see what ammonia does over say a week. If you still measure 0 then that filter wasn't needed.

The concept that a pond can be built with X bio filter or no bio filter and that's going to be perfect for the life of the pond is strange. You tell by measurement, not by predicting the future. To argue about whether a pond has too little or too much bio filtering outside the context of a specific ammonia reading is purely for the enjoyment of debate. It serves no purpose as far as a pond goes.

Never too much filtering...
The concept of "can never have too much filtering" is cute, but also not very useful. Say you add 30 Skippy filters to a 2000 gal pond that has a single goldfish and doesn't actually need any bio filter at all. Hey, more is better, right? Now lets calculate the risk that one of the 30 filters is going to clog and overflow, or a pipe is going to leak, or a tree branch is going to knock something out of whack and water loss results in all the fish dying. It's some number greater than zero. Now calculate the risk on 0 filters. That's easier, 0.

The concept of "can never have too much filtering" has a logic flaw. It makes assumptions which aren't true. People who have run filters and had such a problem are keenly aware of the risk. People who have not had that experience will always be happy to tell anyone who will listen that they've never had a problem and so the risk must be zero. That's confusing opinion with knowledge.

BTW, some ponds don't even need a pump. Fish stay alive, water stays clear. Done it. Easiest pond I ever ran.

Opinion vs Knowledge...
Many people believe many things about bio filters. They kill algae, increase O2, keep the bottom of ponds clean. Is there any point in trying to convince them otherwise? I don't think so. Sure, a few people will do a little research and adjust their thinking, but most are going to be very happy to continue to believe whatever makes them happy. That's OK too. Because that type of pond keeper is never going to be interested in the details. So even if they add more bio filtering there's a really low chance they're also going to measure KH and learn about why it's important or a whole host of issues. Convincing such a person to add a bio filter isn't really going to change the risk to fish. The risk was never bio filter or no bio filter, or filter X or Y. The risk is the keeper's knowledge, or their beliefs in myths.

When opinion is more valued than knowledge there is no learning. Forums have always been, and always will be, a place for expressing and defending opinions at any cost. As far as learning...well, forums are a great place to hear other people's opinions and maybe adopt a few as your own. But that's not actual knowledge. It only feels like knowledge.

Opinions are fun, but I think they also make pond keeping much harder than it has to be.

 

[HTH]

First off welcome back waterbug you have been missed.

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.

Regarding excess capacity. A ridiculous amount is ridiculous. But some is good, surely enough to allow for fish growth etc. An effort should be made to create and install filters in such a way that they are failure tolerant.

 

[JohnHuff]

Welcome back, Waterbug!

 

[dieselplower]

Well there is another big leap, calling it worthless. If a pond is heavily stocked, to the point when there are readings of ammonia and nitrate, would a biofilter not have use?

 

[HTH]

Well there is another big leap, calling it worthless. If a pond is heavily stocked, to the point when there are readings of ammonia and nitrate, would a biofilter not have use?

Extra is always worthless till you need it. So is saving money for retirement or emergencies.

But waterbug made a good point. The more complex it gets the more there is to go wrong. But one has to temper this After all there was a reason that the space shuttle had 5 computers with 4 of them redundant. I want my filters to be like that. I want to be able to leave home for a week or two and not be called back because there was a single failure. They need to fail gracefully. That means a single failure does not stop it from working. It may be running on one instead of two identical filters but still safe. Something like that.

 

[dieselplower]

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.

 

[crsublette]

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.

Exactly the point.

Since I would rather side with the "better safe than sorry" crowd, then the "norm" should not be, " I do not need a bio-filter ", even in a watergarden.

The entire reason for Waterbug's quite lengthy response proves the point that bio-filter's are actually not worthless and extra filtration does has it place. If bio-filters were truely worthless, then no elaborate explanation would be required to clarify the issue. The same applies to aerating a pond or circulating the water in the pond. If folk want to continue to suggest bio-filters are truly worthless in a watergarden, regardless of the environment in the watergarden, then, eventually, there's a point where folk just have to agree to disagree due to the reality folk choose to reside; this debate eventually becomes not much different than the debate between modern day medicine and holistic medicine.

Are there watergardens that may never need a bio-filter? Yep. Are there watergardens that may need a bio-filter? Yep. Is there a benefit to being over filtered? Yep. Is there a point of being over filtered is worthless? Yep.

The problem with forums, in this particular hobby, is that folk like to treat it like a political talk radio show.

Will folk be helped in this thread? Sure. I believe I might actually reference it to explain the context of when bio-filters may not be needed.

 

[dieselplower]

To the point I can no longer read the keys W - O - R - T - H - L - E - S - S on my keyboard anymore.

I didn't read most of the posts so this isn't directed at anyone...

To me it's pretty simple. If you measure 0 ammonia and nitrite you don't need more bio filtering. (this implies that there is some already? or maybe undesireable pea soup algae are consuming it? what if i dont want algea in my pond?) Whether that specific pond has no dedicated bio filter, a crappy bio filter, a great bio filter or 100 great bio filters. It's simple because you can't drop ammonia or nitrite below 0 no matter what you do.

If you want to know if you have more bio filtering than you need that's super simple too...bypass a filter and see what ammonia does over say a week. If you still measure 0 then that filter wasn't needed. (so if it goes up, then by definition, a biofilter is needed. you just disproved yourself right there)

The concept that a pond can be built with X bio filter or no bio filter and that's going to be perfect for the life of the pond is strange. You tell by measurement, not by predicting the future. To argue about whether a pond has too little or too much bio filtering outside the context of a specific ammonia reading is purely for the enjoyment of debate. It serves no purpose as far as a pond goes.

Never too much filtering...
The concept of "can never have too much filtering" is cute, but also not very useful. Say you add 30 Skippy filters to a 2000 gal pond that has a single goldfish and doesn't actually need any bio filter at all. Hey, more is better, right? Now lets calculate the risk that one of the 30 filters is going to clog and overflow, or a pipe is going to leak, or a tree branch is going to knock something out of whack and water loss results in all the fish dying. It's some number greater than zero. Now calculate the risk on 0 filters. That's easier, 0. (maybe you might want to be overfiltered to protect again unknows, or against a sudden crash in your cycle etc. No?)

The concept of "can never have too much filtering" has a logic flaw. It makes assumptions which aren't true. People who have run filters and had such a problem are keenly aware of the risk. People who have not had that experience will always be happy to tell anyone who will listen that they've never had a problem and so the risk must be zero. That's confusing opinion with knowledge. ("too much filter" did not cause the problem however so your point is flawed as well)

BTW, some ponds don't even need a pump. Fish stay alive, water stays clear. Done it. Easiest pond I ever ran.

Opinion vs Knowledge...
Many people believe many things about bio filters. They kill algae, increase O2, keep the bottom of ponds clean. Is there any point in trying to convince them otherwise? I don't think so. Sure, a few people will do a little research and adjust their thinking, but most are going to be very happy to continue to believe whatever makes them happy. That's OK too. Because that type of pond keeper is never going to be interested in the details. So even if they add more bio filtering there's a really low chance they're also going to measure KH and learn about why it's important or a whole host of issues. Convincing such a person to add a bio filter isn't really going to change the risk to fish. The risk was never bio filter or no bio filter, or filter X or Y. The risk is the keeper's knowledge, or their beliefs in myths.

When opinion is more valued than knowledge there is no learning. Forums have always been, and always will be, a place for expressing and defending opinions at any cost. As far as learning...well, forums are a great place to hear other people's opinions and maybe adopt a few as your own. But that's not actual knowledge. It only feels like knowledge.

Opinions are fun, but I think they also make pond keeping much harder than it has to be.

 

[JohnHuff]

That's what I love about this hobby, people have such a passion for it. LOL
Funny thing is, it's usually only threads in this forum that Waterbug is involved in where people start to get so bent out of shape, but he hasn't even participated in this one, so out of curiosity I when back to try and figure out where and how this one went off track. I didn't have to look far, I found the answer in the first sentence of the first post of this thread. John you should know better than to dedicate your thread in such a way. :nono:

This thread has completed veered from what my OP was meant to say in both content and temperament. The difference between Waterbug and some who shall remain nameless is that WB is sincere in what he says and doesn't care about his delivery. I respect that and should apologize here for tweaking his tail about it in the past.

Another has taken this opportunity to completely veer off target; his goal isn't really about the OP, it's about him being right. His posts have always been like that and in the past I'd simply just leave the threads but for some reason I decided to vent my pique on this one and as you can see, it was not a good idea. I wish I could undo my replies. I just can't stand the meanness and smirkyness. I'm leaving this thread now but thanks at least for a definitive answer from WB.

 

[dieselplower]

I love it when people think they can post something they want everyone to expect as truth, with no supporting documentation, and then get all mad when not everyone agrees. The most off topic post in this thread is the one directly above. Are there any facts in this thread to support that a biofilter is not needed? Nope. In fact, just the opposite.

 

[crsublette]

Folk, just keep in mind, if you ever register ammonia or nitrites, then this does indicate the present bio-filter, or lack of bio-filter, is failing you, that is for a multitude of reasons. Often times, if no other changes are willing to be made to the pond, then the change will definitely be in regards to the subject of the bio-filter, whether be the solution is a bio-filter that is an improved mechanized construction or more plants. That's just a fact folk can not deny.


John, you're an alright guy. I have enjoyed reading your posts, but there will always be moments of adament disagreement, even this hobby is not safe from this.

Funny thing, due to all of the qualifiers Waterbug was listing in attempt to validate his explanation, I completely believe he was definitely not being completely honest and not entirely agreeing with the flat out blanket statement of, "biofilters are not ever needed" for watergardens, as the thread title and OP was suggesting... Then again, the OP still does recommend "just to create a wet-dry biofilter under the waterfall by added gravel and small rocks to the bottom of it and add some plants" ... However, then it is written, "that'll be all the biofiltration you'll ever need".

I am just astounded how folk believe this does not "muddy" the advice to beginners. I just hope my participation here will help to clarify that mud.


Now... this thread has and will likely devolve into some form of a political talk radio show... about biofilters and watergardens! And proves my point why I do not care for about discussing filtration, that is, I guess it is just me being too anal and always wanting to be correct about the subject, to not spread misinformation, so there are fewer problems for the pond owners. There are times when I agree with the KISS rule and other times it simply does not apply.

All forums seriously need an official internet butthurt complaint form, which is alright. I'll completely admit that I have been butthurt a time or two, just look into my post history, when trying to understand how things are... It's all part of the growing process of when passionately becoming involved on forums. :cheerful:


If anyone wants to read my opinion on filtration, then ya can just simply PM me, because I am just not going to do it anymore in these public threads. Talking chemistry, microbiology, pond construction, and plants is easy. Talking filtration is a whole different story.