Help Me Understand Aquascape Biofalls

[Ghous]

Hey guys,

I am designing a 10' x 14' x 3' deep backyard pond. I am contemplating using a wetland filter (30% of the surface area of the pond) with 12" deep pea gravel versus an Aquascape BIOFALLS 6000 which is the largest size you can get. From what I understand, wetland filter is the gold standard of pond filtration and its not hard to see why since it uses such a large surface area to allow the colonization of beneficial bacteria. The Biofalls in comparison is like 2% of the surface area of the pond and has a couple of matala mats and some bio balls to account for the biological filtration which is laughable compared to a bog filter.

Going by size alone and surface area provided for beneficial bacteria, it seems the Biofalls should be extremely inadequate, yet it seems to be a very popular choice among pond keepers. Can somebody help me explain if there is anything else going on in a Biofalls that puts it even in the same league in terms of filtering your pond water? Considering its cost, doing a simple pea gravel bog filter makes the most sense but I am battling tight space and may not have enough for a wetland that would cover 30% of the pond's surface area.

I thought I should maybe fill the Biofalls filter with layers of gravel instead, to get the best of both worlds but its miniscule size compared to the pond surface area makes me wonder if its even worth it. And if we're going that far, then the Biofalls - the way they sell it - provides EVEN LESS surface area than if I filled it with gravel....so really is it just a glorified black bucket?? Is that why every Aquascape contractor needs to revisit the pond they built a year later to flush, drain and pressure wash the heck out of it, because of all the muck that has nowhere to go?

Worse case, I will probably downsize the bog filter and reduce the fish load...but really curious to know how the Biofalls really work if at all...

 

[GBBUDD]

Hey guys,

I am designing a 10' x 14' x 3' deep backyard pond. I am contemplating using a wetland filter (30% of the surface area of the pond) with 12" deep pea gravel versus an Aquascape BIOFALLS 6000 which is the largest size you can get. From what I understand, wetland filter is the gold standard of pond filtration and its not hard to see why since it uses such a large surface area to allow the colonization of beneficial bacteria. The Biofalls in comparison is like 2% of the surface area of the pond and has a couple of matala mats and some bio balls to account for the biological filtration which is laughable compared to a bog filter.

Going by size alone and surface area provided for beneficial bacteria, it seems the Biofalls should be extremely inadequate, yet it seems to be a very popular choice among pond keepers. Can somebody help me explain if there is anything else going on in a Biofalls that puts it even in the same league in terms of filtering your pond water? Considering its cost, doing a simple pea gravel bog filter makes the most sense but I am battling tight space and may not have enough for a wetland that would cover 30% of the pond's surface area.

I thought I should maybe fill the Biofalls filter with layers of gravel instead, to get the best of both worlds but its miniscule size compared to the pond surface area makes me wonder if its even worth it. And if we're going that far, then the Biofalls - the way they sell it - provides EVEN LESS surface area than if I filled it with gravel....so really is it just a glorified black bucket?? Is that why every Aquascape contractor needs to revisit the pond they built a year later to flush, drain and pressure wash the heck out of it, because of all the muck that has nowhere to go?

Worse case, I will probably downsize the bog filter and reduce the fish load...but really curious to know how the Biofalls really work if at all...

The key to fish keeping is good filtration, not over feeding, and not over stocking the pond. What ever the manufacturer recommends what the filter can do i would cut by 1/3 if not in half.

So imho a wetland filter is a very powerful and effective filter. that has one draw back in my eyes and that is the lack of a mechanical filter that can trap solids and be removed regularly. A skimmer has this as does the biofalls or can.

the good news about the wetland filter is it can be in any size or shape even getting the extra surface area by going deeper. but by going deeper can put a higher demand on o2 in the water . my bog is over 6 feet deep with matrix blocks and i pump air to the bottom of the snorkel. this acts like a koi toilet that will draw debris that was pumped into
bog toward the snorkel where it is a foot lower than in the centipede acting as a debris trap. This is the results of a wetland filter

 

[Ghous]

The key to fish keeping is good filtration, not over feeding, and not over stocking the pond. What ever the manufacturer recommends what the filter can do i would cut by 1/3 if not in half.

So imho a wetland filter is a very powerful and effective filter. that has one draw back in my eyes and that is the lack of a mechanical filter that can trap solids and be removed regularly. A skimmer has this as does the biofalls or can.

the good news about the wetland filter is it can be in any size or shape even getting the extra surface area by going deeper. but by going deeper can put a higher demand on o2 in the water . my bog is over 6 feet deep with matrix blocks and i pump air to the bottom of the snorkel. this acts like a koi toilet that will draw debris that was pumped into
bog toward the snorkel where it is a foot lower than in the centipede acting as a debris trap. This is the results of a wetland filter

Hey GBBUDD

Thanks for the quick response and the video shot! That is unbelievable water quality! Definitely convinces me some more to go the wetland filter route!

In regards to the drawback you mentioned about not being able to pull the solids...I do plan to have an intake bay As a pre filter with water going through the gravel and into the pump to get to the bog. This should act as a good mechanical filter I am assuming.

Also plan to use a 2" cleanout pipe that I can drop a flex pipe into and pump out the muck by flushing the gravel from the top once a year or so. My only concern is not having a false bottom with either larger rocks or matrix blocks might possibly hinder the flushing process. Any ideas on that? My main inspiration is Abby's bog filter setup but I know it doesnt have a cleanout at all. Not sure if I should maybe make the bog another 6" deep and utilize that depth for larger rocks with more space in between to trap the solids that try to settle.Trying to stay away from pricey Aqua Blocks!

 

[GBBUDD]

This should act as a good mechanical filter I am assuming.

Not realy it does the same as a wetland but in reverse . I have a combination of everything. I have an extremely large intake bay but I do not use it to pull materials down into the stone . Instead it's an area for debris to settle onto a shallow bottom 17'x8 ' then at the end is a negative edge and a catch pool where the water is pulled down into the rock. The only way to remove the solids is to get in there disturb the rocks and net and vacuum it up a heck of a lot more word than to lift a cover and remove a basket and a couple matala matts.

 

[andybuchan]

Hey guys,

I am designing a 10' x 14' x 3' deep backyard pond. I am contemplating using a wetland filter (30% of the surface area of the pond) with 12" deep pea gravel versus an Aquascape BIOFALLS 6000 which is the largest size you can get. From what I understand, wetland filter is the gold standard of pond filtration and its not hard to see why since it uses such a large surface area to allow the colonization of beneficial bacteria. The Biofalls in comparison is like 2% of the surface area of the pond and has a couple of matala mats and some bio balls to account for the biological filtration which is laughable compared to a bog filter.

Going by size alone and surface area provided for beneficial bacteria, it seems the Biofalls should be extremely inadequate, yet it seems to be a very popular choice among pond keepers. Can somebody help me explain if there is anything else going on in a Biofalls that puts it even in the same league in terms of filtering your pond water? Considering its cost, doing a simple pea gravel bog filter makes the most sense but I am battling tight space and may not have enough for a wetland that would cover 30% of the pond's surface area.

I thought I should maybe fill the Biofalls filter with layers of gravel instead, to get the best of both worlds but its miniscule size compared to the pond surface area makes me wonder if its even worth it. And if we're going that far, then the Biofalls - the way they sell it - provides EVEN LESS surface area than if I filled it with gravel....so really is it just a glorified black bucket?? Is that why every Aquascape contractor needs to revisit the pond they built a year later to flush, drain and pressure wash the heck out of it, because of all the muck that has nowhere to go?

Worse case, I will probably downsize the bog filter and reduce the fish load...but really curious to know how the Biofalls really work if at all...

Hey guys,

I am designing a 10' x 14' x 3' deep backyard pond. I am contemplating using a wetland filter (30% of the surface area of the pond) with 12" deep pea gravel versus an Aquascape BIOFALLS 6000 which is the largest size you can get. From what I understand, wetland filter is the gold standard of pond filtration and its not hard to see why since it uses such a large surface area to allow the colonization of beneficial bacteria. The Biofalls in comparison is like 2% of the surface area of the pond and has a couple of matala mats and some bio balls to account for the biological filtration which is laughable compared to a bog filter.

Going by size alone and surface area provided for beneficial bacteria, it seems the Biofalls should be extremely inadequate, yet it seems to be a very popular choice among pond keepers. Can somebody help me explain if there is anything else going on in a Biofalls that puts it even in the same league in terms of filtering your pond water? Considering its cost, doing a simple pea gravel bog filter makes the most sense but I am battling tight space and may not have enough for a wetland that would cover 30% of the pond's surface area.

I thought I should maybe fill the Biofalls filter with layers of gravel instead, to get the best of both worlds but its miniscule size compared to the pond surface area makes me wonder if its even worth it. And if we're going that far, then the Biofalls - the way they sell it - provides EVEN LESS surface area than if I filled it with gravel....so really is it just a glorified black bucket?? Is that why every Aquascape contractor needs to revisit the pond they built a year later to flush, drain and pressure wash the heck out of it, because of all the muck that has nowhere to go?

Worse case, I will probably downsize the bog filter and reduce the fish load...but really curious to know how the Biofalls really work if at all...

Hey guys,

I am designing a 10' x 14' x 3' deep backyard pond. I am contemplating using a wetland filter (30% of the surface area of the pond) with 12" deep pea gravel versus an Aquascape BIOFALLS 6000 which is the largest size you can get. From what I understand, wetland filter is the gold standard of pond filtration and its not hard to see why since it uses such a large surface area to allow the colonization of beneficial bacteria. The Biofalls in comparison is like 2% of the surface area of the pond and has a couple of matala mats and some bio balls to account for the biological filtration which is laughable compared to a bog filter.

Going by size alone and surface area provided for beneficial bacteria, it seems the Biofalls should be extremely inadequate, yet it seems to be a very popular choice among pond keepers. Can somebody help me explain if there is anything else going on in a Biofalls that puts it even in the same league in terms of filtering your pond water? Considering its cost, doing a simple pea gravel bog filter makes the most sense but I am battling tight space and may not have enough for a wetland that would cover 30% of the pond's surface area.

I thought I should maybe fill the Biofalls filter with layers of gravel instead, to get the best of both worlds but its miniscule size compared to the pond surface area makes me wonder if its even worth it. And if we're going that far, then the Biofalls - the way they sell it - provides EVEN LESS surface area than if I filled it with gravel....so really is it just a glorified black bucket?? Is that why every Aquascape contractor needs to revisit the pond they built a year later to flush, drain and pressure wash the heck out of it, because of all the muck that has nowhere to go?

Worse case, I will probably downsize the bog filter and reduce the fish load...but really curious to know how the Biofalls really work if at all...

Might be worth doing what I have and build in some redundancy for when you get a problem with a pump or filter. One pump goes to wetland and the other to a bio falls (AQUASCAPE or similar). Gives peace of mind and more filtration. As someone mentioned, go dealer with wetland if not so much room. Also recommend the intake bay over skimmer. See vid.

 

[andybuchan]

Hey GBBUDD

Thanks for the quick response and the video shot! That is unbelievable water quality! Definitely convinces me some more to go the wetland filter route!

In regards to the drawback you mentioned about not being able to pull the solids...I do plan to have an intake bay As a pre filter with water going through the gravel and into the pump to get to the bog. This should act as a good mechanical filter I am assuming.

Also plan to use a 2" cleanout pipe that I can drop a flex pipe into and pump out the muck by flushing the gravel from the top once a year or so. My only concern is not having a false bottom with either larger rocks or matrix blocks might possibly hinder the flushing process. Any ideas on that? My main inspiration is Abby's bog filter setup but I know it doesnt have a cleanout at all. Not sure if I should maybe make the bog another 6" deep and utilize that depth for larger rocks with more space in between to trap the solids that try to settle.Trying to stay away from pricey Aqua Blocks!

Boss of AQUASCAPE swapping biofalls for a wetland at his mothers house and confirms wetland much more productive.

 

[Ghous]

Might be worth doing what I have and build in some redundancy for when you get a problem with a pump or filter. One pump goes to wetland and the other to a bio falls (AQUASCAPE or similar). Gives peace of mind and more filtration. As someone mentioned, go dealer with wetland if not so much room. Also recommend the intake bay over skimmer. See vid.

Hey Andy,

Thanks for the video and the write up! Thats a gorgeous setup!

I am heavily inclined towards the wetland filter. I see Greg Whitstock recognizes it filters 10 times more which makes a lot of sense. Goes to show with filtration you just can't over do it our closed system.

Thanks for all your help!

 

[bagsmom]

Hey there! I designed my bog filter with clean-out in mind. I had to use a pick axe to get through hardpan dried out clay, so that (and other space constraints) limited the size and depth of the bog. I didn't have room to use water matrix blocks for that extra water space. I just used rocks in graduated sizes, with largest at the bottom and smallest at the top. It's working very well! I was bored and curious about how it was doing, over a year in. There is string algae and crumbly mulm in the surface gravel but the water going into the pond is super clear. I turned off the pump and dropped a sump into the clean out snorkel. Even after hosing stuff down, the water was VERY clear! I think it is good to pre-plan and have the ability to easily do a clean out -- but I bet you won't need it!!!!!!

 

[j.w]

@andybuchan

 

[Ghous]

Hey there! I designed my bog filter with clean-out in mind. I had to use a pick axe to get through hardpan dried out clay, so that (and other space constraints) limited the size and depth of the bog. I didn't have room to use water matrix blocks for that extra water space. I just used rocks in graduated sizes, with largest at the bottom and smallest at the top. It's working very well! I was bored and curious about how it was doing, over a year in. There is string algae and crumbly mulm in the surface gravel but the water going into the pond is super clear. I turned off the pump and dropped a sump into the clean out snorkel. Even after hosing stuff down, the water was VERY clear! I think it is good to pre-plan and have the ability to easily do a clean out -- but I bet you won't need it!!!!!!

Thats awesome! Looks like you have yours setup like Oz Ponds did. He recently posted a video of his bog filter flush with the same cleanout pipe method which worked great for him! Good to know of a second use case success of this style of system.

I have a feeling having only pea gracel might interfere with the deep cleaning when it is timd for it. I'll probably go a bit deeper and have a layer of bigger rocks then a foot of pea gravel on top.

 

[bagsmom]

Thats awesome! Looks like you have yours setup like Oz Ponds did. He recently posted a video of his bog filter flush with the same cleanout pipe method which worked great for him! Good to know of a second use case success of this style of system.

I have a feeling having only pea gracel might interfere with the deep cleaning when it is timd for it. I'll probably go a bit deeper and have a layer of bigger rocks then a foot of pea gravel on top.

Yes - that's what I did!