|
Hi John, just got home and see you have the long answer! LOls
I think that it would be best to see the general objections are two:
1) the physical size ( gallons and depth) of the rock bottomed water features being called koi ponds. And --
2) the issue of the rocks themselves and their tendency to trap and hold organic material of all kinds. The rest is a decaying zone in a closed environment. Lots of variables here- number of fish, size of pond, location of pond etc.
In a certain sense, a large rock bottom pond is 'better' based on stocking issues. But also 'WORST" based on the fact that turning all that water over rapidly is difficult and therefore the whole pond becomes a settlement system.
In a proper koi pond, the idea is to shape the floor so that bottom drains, along with returning water ( from the filters) all work together to insure that ALL organic material gets to a prefilter or sump ( where you WANT a zone for things to get trapped and/or settle out). There, they can all be flushed away and reduce the overall load of organic content within a system.
When you have a gravel or rock bottom, and a lateral flow of water from one end of the pond to the other- you have a river current within a greater body of water that actually encourages waste settlement within teh more quite layers and parameters. The result is a gravel bad that is turning the pond into a ever porgression eutrophication model.
Since koi are big and also very dirty animals they represent the greatest polluters of all temperate water fishes. Compared to goldfish, they have large body mass and very long guts that produce massive amounts of organic waste.
JR
|