bead filters as the only BIO filtration?

[mike]

Quote: Originally Posted by Werner Reading up a little on "Ultra Bio Media" sounds like a lot of marketing hype and little scientific fact. "3-5 times the surface area from other media? Poppycock--show me the tests. Or this blurb" Additionally, beneficial bacteria is able to build up into a bacterial matrix due to the excellent interstitial spacing within the media." Really--they reinvented the wheel?

thanks for the link ...

AU.com doesnt even have the surface area available ... its apparently top secret. but i know someone who tried to measure the surface area, and i think it beat the kaldnes media by a little. the main difference here being, the UBM is sinking

[Arthur]

Aragorn,

The Aqua UV Ultima II is a very good filter (3rd generation design). They work as advertised with a low fish load for the nominal volume they can handle. The Aqua UV materials do not talk of fish load; this is where most inexperienced people fall into the trap.

Filter sizing by pond volume is just one element of the equation: one must consider environmental polution (leaves, pollen, pine needle, dust, etc.) and most importantly the fish load. The bio-filtration capacity of the filter system must be able to handle the ammonia released by the fish respiration and the protein (mostly) in from their food intake (some installations I know have a filter volume that is 2-3 times the volume of the pond itself).

I recommend a bead filter as mechanical filtration in front of a biological filter such as Bakki Shower, J-mat chamber, and/or Kaldnes moving media (such as Art Lembke's system). Providing they are flushed fequently, in that position, bead filters work very well indeed.

If you are limited in space and must rely on bead filtration only, a dual system (ideally of equal capacity) is much better. Thus each system can backfulshed on alternate days. This reduces the yo-yo effect on ammonia levels due to the flushing of some of the nitrifying bacteria during the backflush.

[mike]

Quote: Originally Posted by Arthur If you are limited in space and must rely on bead filtration only, a dual system (ideally of equal capacity) is much better. Thus each system can backfulshed on alternate days. This reduces the yo-yo effect on ammonia levels due to the flushing of some of the nitrifying bacteria during the backflush.

thanks arthur, what do you mean by dual system? using 2 or more of the bead filters so that i can backflush alternately?

or do u mean bead filter - conventional filter combo

[Arthur]

Aragorn,

If in your situation you have no choice, for whatever reason, but use bead filters, used at least 2 of them so that they can be flushed on alternate days.

[Dan Blatt]

Aragon...you asked....

anybody here use bead filters only as BIO filtration? (of course there will be skimmers and bottom drains and vortex chambers)

Yes I use an Aquadyne 4.4 bead filter on a pond of 4487 gallons as the only biofiltration (except for skimmer pads and pond surface area). Two 4 inch bottom drains feeding a sprirex vortex (yep...apparently incorrect...should have had each line to a seperate chamber). The 4.4 is rated for 14000 gallons....probably would be correct to say 11,000 though. So more than twice the filtration pond wise. Turnover rate is about once an hour and I have an 80 watt UV.
Gee, always thought my fish looked good, heck even hold their own in shows, water parameters where they should be, and never have problems in the pond. Guess my age is causing my eyesight to play tricks on me.
I also take care of a couple thousand koi at a friends business. Aquadynes are the only biofiltration used there also. Koi look great....very few problems.
To answer your question...yes it works for me. Do I want alot more filtration stuff to hide...no.

[mike]

thanks Dan, i got everything the same ... except the UV. kinda makes me think that it is indispensible.

i will most likely hook up 2 40 watt UV units to the skimmer lines ...
none to the bottom drain - vortex lines ...

why? ... they say the algae hang around the top of the water anyway ... is that right?

[bekko]

To kill a typical algae cell (Chlorella for example) you need 22,000 microwatt seconds per cm2. The two 40 watt UV units will put out that dose at a flow of about 2,000 gallons per hour. If you run 14,000 gph through two 40 watt units, you might not get a high enough UV dosage to give them a good zap.

One school of thought is to put the UV at the point in the system where you have the clearest water. This will help minimize fouling on the quartz sleeve, reduce maintenance requirements and help you get all the wattage you are paying for. In your case, that may mean putting the UV after the bead filters.

You might want to consider splitting the flow downstream of the bead filters so you can divert 2000 gph through the UV and run the rest straight back to the pond.

-steve hopkins

[Arthur]

Steve,

Adjusting the flow rate to attain the required UV exposure is also dependent on the length of the device, is it not? In other work 2000gph through 40W 33" tube is about the same as 2000gph through a 57W 21" tube.

[mike]

ill make sure to follow the printed gph flow on the UV's.

but personally, i hope i wouldnt have to install UV's

[bekko]

Arthur, the UV dosage units of measure (microwatt seconds per square centimeter) seem to confirm that.
-steve