Foamy pond--quick fix???

[sissy]

over feeding fish does not help and using a real poor quality fish food also .I see people who feed there fish 5 or 6 times a day and then wonder why fish and water do not look good

 

[CometKeith]

Meyer. This may sound simplistic but personally I have observed a great number of bodies of water including lakes, oceans, rivers, canals, swamps, etc. In the past few years I have traveled to scores of countries and numerous continents so I am not just basing my experience on just my hometown geography. I have not witnessed the same concentration of fish in any of these bodies of water that I have in my own little pond. I am not including streams or rivers that might have salmon spawning or the like because there is such a large quantity of fresh water being supplied to it at a great rate. This is the basis for my conclusion that my pond has a higher concentration of bio-matter (ie fish) than found in nature or as others would describe as "over stocking" a pond than what is found in nature. So my statement was based on actual observation and not something that I researched. I think some of the most important scientific discoveries were based on "observation" so I do not feel it is wrong to start out that way. If there is some actual research that would contradict my conclusion it would be interesting to see.

 

[sissy]

But comet no one is feeding those fish the food we feed pond fish .Those fish eat wild and natural foods that they find on there own .Here and there you hear so many different peoples opinion on feeding pond fish .I have seen several people here that were told they should feed there fish 5 or 6 times a day and they can't seem to figure out why there water looks so bad .Plus they are over stocked and filters to me are not up to that load ..We don't get all the nice fresh water flowing into our ponds all the time

 

[Meyer Jordan]

Meyer. This may sound simplistic but personally I have observed a great number of bodies of water including lakes, oceans, rivers, canals, swamps, etc. In the past few years I have traveled to scores of countries and numerous continents so I am not just basing my experience on just my hometown geography. I have not witnessed the same concentration of fish in any of these bodies of water that I have in my own little pond. I am not including streams or rivers that might have salmon spawning or the like because there is such a large quantity of fresh water being supplied to it at a great rate. This is the basis for my conclusion that my pond has a higher concentration of bio-matter (ie fish) than found in nature or as others would describe as "over stocking" a pond than what is found in nature. So my statement was based on actual observation and not something that I researched. I think some of the most important scientific discoveries were based on "observation" so I do not feel it is wrong to start out that way. If there is some actual research that would contradict my conclusion it would be interesting to see.

You mis-read my comment. I would agree that compared to natural waterways, Most ponds are 'overstocked'. including yours AND mine.

However the true limiting factor of how much biomass a particular body of water will effectively support is not ulimately the capacity of the said body of water, but rather the level of bio-conversion. This is why I have an issue with biofilter manufacturers. They specify that a particular model is suitable for ponds of X number of gallons, when it should be pounds/kilograms of fish. When biofiltration (and water flow rate) are sized correctly based on a pond's biomass, water changes are not necessary.

 

[Meyer Jordan]

But comet no one is feeding those fish the food we feed pond fish .Those fish eat wild and natural foods that they find on there own .Here and there you hear so many different peoples opinion on feeding pond fish .I have seen several people here that were told they should feed there fish 5 or 6 times a day and they can't seem to figure out why there water looks so bad .Plus they are over stocked and filters to me are not up to that load ..We don't get all the nice fresh water flowing into our ponds all the time

Sissy, where is this 'nice fresh water' that you speak of?

 

[sissy]

Well I hope it is in Va but with all the runoff from farms ,I can't be sure of that .Cow poo and stuff like it has caused problems with the Chesapeake Bay .Sad that our farms can cause this problem .They say it is adding to many nutrients to the water so now all farms have to put up silt fences .Used to be fresher before we over populated the U.S..Houses and asphalt does not allow water to be absorbed .I remember in NJ when they built homes you had a yard and the developers shrunk the yards to almost nothing to fit in more homes .

 

[sissy]

I have always kept only 16 fish all babies go to new homes .For 5000 gallons and only feeding 4 times a week and 2 filters I am doing OK .I don't want more work than already have .I attribute it all to my lava rock and activated charcoal and my koi clay and adding bacteria and OH yes the pond is about 4 feet from my septic tank .Gotta love it free heat in the winter .Not so great for the summer but I learned to deal with that

 

[crsublette]

Just to corroborate what has been said.

Let me play Devil's Advocate. What do you consider over-stocking? Please tell me why you believe this.

The Magical 100 Fish in 1000 Litres (although we do not eat our goldfish , the article still applies)

I never cared for the term "over stocked" when no qualifiers are present since, without qualifiers, then those two words can mean so much so to become meaningless.

To simply put it... The term "over stocked" means, at least to me, that fish's biomass waste exceeds the water system's filtration capacity. Of course, if wanting to push further beyond this, then simply talking about physiological concerns of tank dimensions able to safely contain the fish biomass.

Do not quote the Inch/gallon rule as it is flawed.

And this alone is not sufficient... I always ask for clarification when "inch/gallon rule" are mentioned.... Is the "inch/gallon rule" referring to present fish inches or potential fish inches per gallon?

Let's not forget that an eco-system, aquatic or terrestrial, is dynamic and not static. It is ever changing. Water quality will change from hour to hour. Ph rises during the day. Oxygen levels increase during the day. Ammonia levels will rise after fish feed. Temperature is ever changing. Nothing is static, nor should it be. As stated before, Nature provides the required checks and balances to keep an eco-system stable. Rarely, is Man's assistance required.

This reminds me of what Dr. Shimek (of marine biology), as he wrote in his article... with a slight amendment to apply to watergardening.

With all of these levels in place, a coral reef aquarium [or watergarden] is neither more nor less than a small captive analogue of an ecosystem. It meets all the necessary requirements of a small ecosystem, and there are numerous natural ecosystems just as small. Is it natural? It most decidedly is not! Can it be a functional ecosystem? Absolutely! When this functional ecosystem is well set up, it is an efficient and easy way to manage and keep our coral reef [or watergarden] animals [and plants] in the peak of health.

 

[CometKeith]

Charles I like your 100 fish article. It clearly relates the weight of the fish to the gallons of water required. In my opinion though It leaves out a discussion on the required surface area of a pond which is also a key component. It's proven that water in the middle and bottom of deep ponds carry much less dissolved oxygen than the water closer to the surface. Meyer I agree about the importance of the bio-mass conversion rate, and inches per gallon is a way too simplistic of an approach. So many things affect bio-conversion including the amount of food added to the pond, water temperature, etc. that it would be nice if there was a computer program you could put in all the parameters of your pond and fish and it would tell you the correct filtration and maintenance for the pond. I think a lot of us here have learned what to do by trial and error, and knowing what to do to keep our own ponds healthy is sometimes more of an art than a science!

 

[crsublette]

In my opinion though It leaves out a discussion on the required surface area of a pond which is also a key component.

That is covered in another article.... Biofilter Sizing Calculator

Tough to judge the SSA (specific surface area) of a pond... Most always will be a guess... As Mr. Jordan suggested, "benign neglect" can be successful if the pond is large enough, but, again, this most always will be a guess.

I would simply view a pond's SSA as an insurance policy and then build the filtration system to match the required SSA that matches your fish's potential biomass waste output.

It's proven that water in the middle and bottom of deep ponds carry much less dissolved oxygen than the water closer to the surface.

Yep, when stratification is allowed to occur... Water movement is quite important so to avoid stratification.

So many things affect bio-conversion including the amount of food added to the pond, water temperature, etc. that it would be nice if there was a computer program you could put in all the parameters of your pond and fish and it would tell you the correct filtration and maintenance for the pond.

Actually such software does exist called Mass Balance calculators, except not so easily utilized by hobby folk... Much of all of this is quite predictable... Dr. Timmons and James Ebeling have written some good literature for the more advanced enthusiasts. Cornell University also has some excellent articles available.

Applicable to ponds as well...

Ponds simply add "uncertainty" due to being decorated, outdoors, odd layouts thus creating complexity, which is why judging ponds filtration impact will most always be a guess at best... This is all quite fine...

However, personally, I would view the pond's filtration impact just as an insurance policy... kept as a little side note in the background....

I think a lot of us here have learned what to do by trial and error, and knowing what to do to keep our own ponds healthy is sometimes more of an art than a science!

Depends on how you approach it.

 

[Meyer Jordan]

Just to note that the Biofilter Sizing Calculator that Charles supplied the link to is downloadable and fully functioning. Scroll to the bottom of the page. Can be downloaded to Excel.

 

[CometKeith]

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.

 

[brokensword]

This is a interesting thread and I thank everyone for it. I did have a thought to throw out;

based on what I've read above and elsewhere, it seems people always want to apply mechanical filtration to most contained systems. Okay. So, what if I said I have been keeping saltwater fish and corals for over 10 years now without anything but natural filtration? Though, I suppose the smallish protein skimmer I use (I clean everything about every 4-6 weeks; 1/3 change the water, and clean the skimmer only then) can be said to be my mechanical filter but I basically rely only on the live rock (and soft corals). For fish, I have the (6) I currently have range in size from 2 to 4 inches. Gallonage is 90, in-tank water movement pumps and aeration added. I would hazard a guess that most would say I'm over-stocked and under-filtered and yet it's worked all this time. This would seem to support the idea that the bacteria inherent in the system, if given proper/enough substrates to colonize, can be enough if combined with proper feeding practices (I feed marine flakes once a day, frozen shrimp twice a week).

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. I've never water changed and only filled the pond up if I get evaporation. I have 70+ goldfish, 20 or so about 10", the rest between 2 and 6, lots of plants, have never added salt or any other chemicals, but do use well water. I've also never tested the water other than for the pH, initially. I tend to rely on observation re how the snails/frogs/fish/turtles are doing. It's been 3 full summers and I'm on to the fourth now. While others are lamenting some winter fish loss, I typically lose maybe 3 a year and haven't lost a large one since the first winter (2). This year, with probably the coldest February in over 140 years for Mi (actual temps; 21 F daytime high avg, 3 F night time avg), I lost 4 fish, all smaller, and I used a pond breather for the first time (since the cold was pinching my air lines as I've buried them beneath the mulch).

 

[Meyer Jordan]

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.

Couple of points concerning this calculator:
--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/
--This is a calculator for aquaculture systems and may work well for a dedicated Koi pond, but will require some tweaking if used for an eco-system pond. It is better than nothing, however.

How did you determine your total fish weight?

 

[Meyer Jordan]

This is a interesting thread and I thank everyone for it. I did have a thought to throw out;

based on what I've read above and elsewhere, it seems people always want to apply mechanical filtration to most contained systems. Okay. So, what if I said I have been keeping saltwater fish and corals for over 10 years now without anything but natural filtration? Though, I suppose the smallish protein skimmer I use (I clean everything about every 4-6 weeks; 1/3 change the water, and clean the skimmer only then) can be said to be my mechanical filter but I basically rely only on the live rock (and soft corals). For fish, I have the (6) I currently have range in size from 2 to 4 inches. Gallonage is 90, in-tank water movement pumps and aeration added. I would hazard a guess that most would say I'm over-stocked and under-filtered and yet it's worked all this time. This would seem to support the idea that the bacteria inherent in the system, if given proper/enough substrates to colonize, can be enough if combined with proper feeding practices (I feed marine flakes once a day, frozen shrimp twice a week).

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. I've never water changed and only filled the pond up if I get evaporation. I have 70+ goldfish, 20 or so about 10", the rest between 2 and 6, lots of plants, have never added salt or any other chemicals, but do use well water. I've also never tested the water other than for the pH, initially. I tend to rely on observation re how the snails/frogs/fish/turtles are doing. It's been 3 full summers and I'm on to the fourth now. While others are lamenting some winter fish loss, I typically lose maybe 3 a year and haven't lost a large one since the first winter (2). This year, with probably the coldest February in over 140 years for Mi (actual temps; 21 F daytime high avg, 3 F night time avg), I lost 4 fish, all smaller, and I used a pond breather for the first time (since the cold was pinching my air lines as I've buried them beneath the mulch).

I basically agree with what you are saying. A properly set-up pond that includes a variety of sub-strates will essentially provide the required bio-conversion needed providing stocking levels are reasonable. Supplemental bioconversion is necessary when the available SSA is not sufficient and/or the stocking levels are high. A wetlands filter (bog) would be classified as supplemental bioconversion.
I may disagree with you on the need for mechanical filtration if you are saying that skimmers are not advisable as part of a pond's filtration system.
Certainly a skimmer would not be practical on a 90 gallon tank, which would be correctly called an aquarium. You don't indicate the size of your pond, but if it is over 500 gallons, it would be considerably easier to maintain with a skimmer.