Bakki Shower/Bacteria House vs Conventional Submerged Filtration System.

[dtbh]

Quote: Originally Posted by Valarc WHAT? You mean to tell me the vaulted bakki shower is collecting junk in the tray? Oh woe is me, the magical poop-vanishing properties were a sham

Nope, not in the trays. If you look at my filter diagram you will note that one of my existing filters service mid-water. I use this as an indication of sediments oin my pond water eventhough it is crystal clear. Together with the 1st 2 chambers in the filter connected to the bottom drain this mid-water filter has sediments as much as before I started the Bakki Shower/Bact House.

Let us give the system some time which will give us a clearer picture as to its' effectiveness.

Cheers, dtbh

[junglegeorge12]

dtbh, have you considered checking other concerns as causes of the high nitrate and nitrite readings? ie a pile of poo or old food collected and rotting somewhere in the system or in the old conventional filter media. I have seen medias impacted from old food that were like nitrate factories. I have also seen plants cause the same problem. Do you have alot of plants? If so what do the roots look like? Is there a possibility of a alot of leaves rotting away in the water?

The reason I ask is that my nitrate reading went from 10ppm to 0 within 3 weeks of switching over. Also, how high is your shower, and how many of them are you using at what flow rate per set? You may need to completely clean out the old fiter and wash or change the media.

Also, have you checked the nitrate and nitrite adn water conditions of your incoming water as a potential problem? Especially changing 10% daily. Just your water changes should have dropped the nitrate off the chart, so I think you have another unadressed problem.

[luke frisbee]

I'm going to be mentally retching as i write this but here it goes....
i agree with hurrrrk....JG.
and have to disagree with valarrrrac on their stances in this thread....
DTBH states he collects the "pooh" before it goes to the Porous Media Shower....and therefore does not allow the PMS to destroy the pooh.....

DTBH I like the idea of catching what you can before the PMS, BUT I also believe that the accumulation should be "dumped" daily...or twice daily. letting it sit where you do defeats the experiment.

[butterfly]

Quote: Originally Posted by junglegeorge12 dtbh, have you considered checking other concerns as causes of the high nitrate and nitrite readings? ie a pile of poo or old food collected and rotting somewhere in the system or in the old conventional filter media. I have seen medias impacted from old food that were like nitrate factories. I have also seen plants cause the same problem. Do you have alot of plants? If so what do the roots look like? Is there a possibility of a alot of leaves rotting away in the water? The reason I ask is that my nitrate reading went from 10ppm to 0 within 3 weeks of switching over. Also, how high is your shower, and how many of them are you using at what flow rate per set? You may need to completely clean out the old fiter and wash or change the media. Also, have you checked the nitrate and nitrite adn water conditions of your incoming water as a potential problem? Especially changing 10% daily. Just your water changes should have dropped the nitrate off the chart, so I think you have another unadressed problem.

I have a pond about the same size (I think one ton is 1000 liter???) with a much higher fish load. I have a very simple system (w/o Bakke etc.) and I do not have any problem maintaining the pond.

Dtbh's system has low fish load, therefore, Bakke shower is not really needed and experimental comparison with other filter systems at a meaningful/scientific level is not possible.

Without looking at his system, it appears to me that he needs more plants in his pond to absorb nitrate. Even though he is changing 10% water, production of nitrate in the same period of time is offsetting the water change. Without plant or chemcal means, nitrate would not go down. well, some bacteria can also reduce nitrate.

[PapaBear]

I think a few of you are missing what he has set out to do here. From what I read keeping everything the same (including regular siphoning of sediment and the same 10% water change regimin as before) is an important part of the experiment. Keeping all things exactly as they were before allows an accurate observation of any change caused exclusively by the BS/BH addition. Any other changes at this point would skew the experimental model he has constructed and call any improvement or decline into question as to what was the true cause.
As it stands his model will only reflect results produced exclusively by the BS/BH. Perhaps when this addition has had time to completely stabilize and the experiment is complete other changes in his regime can be tried if he wishes to perform a "new" experiment .

[James P]

What a hoot reading this thread!

As you may recall, I got my hands on a significant amount of BH a while back and have been having a ball testing it in various applications. Keep taking notes and trying to remain in passionate about the results as that would be the kiss of death in terms of objectivity.

Now we know the 'cuckoo clocks’ among us believe that special rays are emitted from the media perpetually that have the power to change the molecular makeup of water and super charge the mineralization process into ‘ nothingness’. But for the rational among us, a testing of BH as a media in a standard wet/dry filter system seems to be more in order.

When you get to this part of your experiment do try this-

have the BH running in a standard wet/dry application until mature and firing on all cylinders. Then lower the structure containing the BH below the water level or raise the water table above the matured media. I accomplished this using a series of 5 gallon aquarium ( bottomless and supporting media with an egg crate base) feeding a half filled 180 gallon aquarium. Once the media was cycled and the fish stabilized ( koi culls) the water was crystal clear and the ammonia readings were of course- unmeasurable. Then I filled the half full 180 gal aquarium to the top. Within 24 hours the water became cloudy and finally, opaque. Indicating that a major bacteria bloom had occurred. But ammonia levels stayed low. I then added an over flow to an oceanic sump located below the tank and massive sudsing occurred in that sump with hours of creating this circulation loop. Indicating massive DOC trapped in the water. Please note that water was still being flowed through the BH as the 5 gallon aquaria were moved onto one another and the top of the first 5 gallon rim was kept slightly above water surface. The entire BH unit/ affair was fed with a large empty Ehiem filter rated for a 175 gallon aquarium.

Any bright bulbs out there get it?

[butterfly]

Storm in a tea cup experiment. Nothing more than a hutzpa of Mumbo Jumbo bakke babble..

[James P]

Brilliant, butterfly! JR

[butterfly]

Quote: Originally Posted by James P Brilliant, butterfly! JR

SAME TO YOU JAMES P!!


What do you think Valarc??

[Carloskoi]

it's the effect of high O2 over the media, whatever the media!


Carl