Home | About Us | Contact Us


Koi Forum - Koi-Bito Magazine straight from Japan
Page 16 of 26 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 260

Thread: Genetic Predisposition to Shimis in Kohaku

  1. #151
    Daihonmei MikeM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Orlando, Florida
    Posts
    11,128
    Quote Originally Posted by RayJordan View Post
    I have hosted about 8-9 times Japanese Koi dealers in my home and a well known Japanese Dealer, Megumi Yoshida, about 15 times *** All stated almost all older koi get one or both conditions eventually if they are kept alive long enough.
    It is this observation, that shimmies and hikkui are foredoomed, that is discouraging, so I refuse to pay attention to it. I have been consistently told over the years that koi eventually "fall apart", or "decline", or "wither". It is phrased in different ways, but always to the same effect, such as the analogy to the cut flower fading until too depressing to be kept any longer. I prefer to believe that I will end up with a pond of beloved beauties, who may have faded, but do so with grace and retain the essence of their charm, not a pond of uglies peppered with warts.

    There are times when reality is best ignored and the pleasures of fantasy embraced. Koikeeping is about so much more than carp.

    I think I'll pull out an old issue of NI and read one of Peter's articles about koi hunting in the mountains... one where the rare jewel is found in the out-of-the-way greenhouse where gaijen never go.

  2. #152
    Jumbo RobF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    617
    A shimi like gin rin or fukurin are Japanese terms that we westerners may like to imagine have clear definitions, but they simply do not. This partly to do with being “lost in translation” but more to do with how farmers talk (I am reminded of some of the farmer talk I heard growing up in the Midwest like “clean dirt” which means something to farmers but would be hard to strictly define).

    At the INPC site it says: Shimi: Stain. Refers to stray sumi spots. Shimi is a single dot.

    Another part of the site offers this observation from Seiki Igarashi (Igarashi Koi Farm) Vice Director, Niigata Region, All Japan Nishikigoi Promotion Association: “For example, it takes time to select and sort Yamabuki. It has only one color. So what do you make your judgments on? First you look at how the head shines, then how the Fukurin shine, and how the scales are aligned, and that there are no Shimi, etc.”

    Shimi on yamabuki is contrary to attempts to define shimi as “above the beni in gosanke”.

    Would any dare to offer a definition of (thumbnail) shimi?

  3. #153
    Honmei
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,744
    Peter,
    First off, thank you for your reasonable reasponse. Let's discuss some of these if we may? I'll answer in black below your red.

    Originally Posted by schildkoi
    Peter,
    A) I have read through your lengthy post (twice in fact). Although it is somewhat hard to follow being cut and pasted from elsewhere (not being critical since I to would do such on a topic I have answered in the past elsewhere). The only problem is that it is a tad hard to follow who is saying what. That being said, I think your previous comments here (and there) are te following:

    1) No shimis or hikui on freshly harvested koi in Japan

    I cannot recall how many harvests I've attended but I certainly never went to check if shimi or hikui were present. At most of these harvests I followed the Koi back to the indoor ponds to check them in clear water. I cannot recall seeing shimi or hikui at all.



    I certainly believe that you do not recall ever seeing a shimi on recently harvested koi. I do not take issue at that one bit. But, that is not to say that they do not exist on some harvested koi. My original soposition was that koi are less susceptable to shimi in softer water and mud ponds are typically very soft water. In addition, I believe that if a breeder knew that their koi were susceptible to shimi, that they would attempt to breed that genetic propensity out (providing that there is in fact a genetic link). This being said, they could only attempt to do so down to the level of observation possible due to their own specific water chemistry and most likey down to a level of deminishing returns. Thus, some people may observe shimis more prevelantly in some breeders more than others simply due to two factors. The level of a breeders attempts (over many years) to breed out that propensity under their own water conditions and two, the variances between hobbyists' own water conditions. Thus the two different outcomes for Hasagawa claims (by hobbyists) you mention.

    2) Only shimis and Hikui in collector's ponds after 30 or so months.

    No, I said I have personally never seen shimi/hikui in ponds that have been running for less than 30 months. It was an observation, that's all.



    OK, so if it is only an observation, there would be no validity to drawing any conclusions to those observations?

    B) Your conclusion if I follow is then that both are caused by dirty filters based soley on these observations and without regard to other possibly differences between these two environments? You also (I think) do not believe there is any genetic link to either of these issues?

    I lean much more to the detritus aspect but have no faith in the genetic suggestion. Go back to the Hasegawa texts, I have yet to see shimi on his Kohaku but 50% of the buyers swore by them whilst another 50% slated them. If it was down to genetics then I'm sure that we'd have 100% slating them and Hasegawa finding new parents.



    While there may be merit in the detris point for Hikui, I find little correletion for shimis since they seem to appear also in ultra clean systems as well as what I would classify as dirty systems. As for the Hasagawa example, I covered that above and seems a very logical explanation.

    C) What then do you believe it is about "dirty filters" that cause each of these? Fungal, Bacterial, viral or something else?

    I have seen no evidence to suggest that either of these conditions are transmittable. Shimi are definitely not fungal or bacterial. Most breeders I have spoken to regard hikui as a form of 'skin cancer' that affects red pigmentation only.



    I would agree that they do not appear transmittable although both seem to be more prevelent within a given system but that of course could also be due to multiple other factors (environamental and genetic if there is a traceable similarity in genetics with the system).

    Although I think the jury may still be out on whether Hikui is a form of cancer or fungal (both types of cells are exremely similar under microscopic evaluation), if Cancer, then there very well could be both a genetic and environmental links that affect the propensity for such and could also then lead credence to both the ditris and genetic points. In other words, both points of view could vary well be correct.

    D) Why do you think that some koi are affected while others are not (for both hikui and shimis together or individually)?

    Thinking about this question, I cannot recall seeing Koi with both of these conditions at the same time. As to why some show these conditions whilst others do not, we are only looking at them on a given day and making a statement of what we see on that day. What happens one month or one year down the line can only be determined then.



    Again, I would tend to agree. Two very different problems in my book and totally unrelated (although there may, or may not be similar trigget mechanisms).

    E) If due to dirty filters of specific brands, why do not all koi in ponds (or even single koi in these ponds) with those brand of filters get Hikui or Shimis?

    I personally did not mention a 'specific brand' of filter on my post but I did mention that upward-flow chambers in the indoor ponds are, again in my own opinion, both inefficient and dated.



    OK, I must have gotten your opinion mixed up with another from the post you copied and pasted from elsewhere where comparisons between Eric, Nexus, Sieves and Bead filters appeared?

    E) Do not get me wrong, as you know I have been a long time subscriber to your style of pond design (with a few added twists of my own...pun intended (modified Infiltration design with cyclonic currents).

    When you say 'cyclonic currents' are you referring to standard upward-flow vortex units or something else?



    No, nothing to do directly with filters but the currents within the pond itself. Your pond with the 4 centered bottom drains and the TPRs creates cycloinc currents expediting solids to the drains itself. When attempts to replicate this for other shapes (long rounded rectangles like Lansing's, Downs', and my own, all of which you are familiar with), perimeter currents coupled with diffusers drains left trapping areas between the drains. To counter act that I modfied the "Infiltration" design to capture the original cyclonic currents you had BUT, multples of such for elongated ponds by adding GPRs (GAP Pond Returns) that would then create multiple cyclonic currents actying in a set of gear like cyclonic currents around each drain thus eliminating these collection areas for floating and sinking solids between the drains and getting these shaped pond back to the original efficiencies of your style, round pond. Thus, Dan and Gene's pond which is far more efficient than let's say my own in Dallas (both of which you are familiar with and I think you would agree that D&G's was far superior).


    G) One drain, one set of filters, one pump multipied for pond size increases.

    Absolutely logical, and extremely vital - see 'Tomorrow's World' in KK.


    AGREED, after all I learned this from you and Tim.


    H) My other twist is in turn over rates (you recommended 2 to three hours where I believe in much faster turn over rates for quicker solids removal and lower ambient adverse nutrient levels.

    I work on approximately 2.5 hours turnover for the volume of water a single drain has to handle. I base this on dwell time whilst passing through the box.


    This is where we have always differed. First of all, I understand the factors that would lead you to your conclusions. Your original summation on this was based on vortex size and dwerll time within a given size vortex as much as any other factor. Understandable. Dwell time and size/shape of a vortex are critical factors for PASSIVE solids settlement. Dwell time is really not relevent however for biological filtration. The reaction/conversion of ammonia to Nitrtire and nitrite to nitrate is instantaneous when the nitrient molecules come within close enough proximity to the biofilm. The speed at which is passes does not matter. The key is to get those molocules in close enough proximity. Now, one may argue that slow water may have a better chance at such since it is in the chamber longer, but statistically this is not the case. The only two factors that really come into play in this regard is the amount of media available and the "fineness" of such. We both know that too fine and the media will trap solids and thus foul the biofilm reducing such. Thus the media has to stay clean which brings us to another point. Many beginners believe that adding air to a bio chamber is for adding O2 to to the water. Although it may help, there is really no measureable difference in O2 levels entering a bio chamber as exiting, with or without O2 being dded to such. The real benifit is two fold for adding air to a bio chamber and can be tree fold. The first two, I again give you credit for at least teaching me or helping me to learn. Adding arir in a chamber, such as the cartridged matting chambers is on an upflow chamber, it helps keep solids from collecting on the media/matting. Cleaner media equals more efficient bio filtration. The second point is that on these chambers it actually creates up and down currents within the chamber which in turn creates multiple passes of the nutrients through the media which in turn statistically does increase the chanes that the nutrient molecules does pass in close enough proximity to the biofilm, thuis making the filter more efficient in this reagrd. Thus, while dwell time is a key compoent to [passive settlement of solids, it is not relevent in biofltration and the two components are in conflict wit one another. Now, another factor is ambient nutrient levels in the pond. This is a factor sotcking levels, feeding levels, turnover rate, and speed at which solids are removed form the pond. Thus, for any given level of stocking and feeding, ambient nutrient levels can be lowered bu providing efficient currents to expedite solids to removal points such as drains (Diffuser Drains, TPRs, GPRs) nad there flow rates (which in turn lead to pond turnover rates). Omproving turnover rates (quickening such) while maintaining a given rate of solids removal is key, again, for a given stocking and feed rate(s). So, finding methods of quickening turn over rates while maintaining mechanical filtration efficiencies are the keys to improved water Q.

    Do not get me wrong. Your way works. But, it can, and has been vastly improved upon. Heck, just look at the differences between D&G's pond with a better turnover rate and improved currents over my pond in Dallas. Both with substantially similar stocking rates and even with Gene's higher feeding regimes. Oh, and I know you can't argue with the results they have achieved.


    Peter Waddington.
    The views presented are my personal views and not that of any organization that I may belong to unless otherwise specified. [email protected]
    CKHPA

  4. #154
    Honmei
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,744
    Quote Originally Posted by RobF View Post
    A shimi like gin rin or fukurin are Japanese terms that we westerners may like to imagine have clear definitions, but they simply do not. This partly to do with being “lost in translation” but more to do with how farmers talk (I am reminded of some of the farmer talk I heard growing up in the Midwest like “clean dirt” which means something to farmers but would be hard to strictly define).

    At the INPC site it says: Shimi: Stain. Refers to stray sumi spots. Shimi is a single dot.

    Another part of the site offers this observation from Seiki Igarashi (Igarashi Koi Farm) Vice Director, Niigata Region, All Japan Nishikigoi Promotion Association: “For example, it takes time to select and sort Yamabuki. It has only one color. So what do you make your judgments on? First you look at how the head shines, then how the Fukurin shine, and how the scales are aligned, and that there are no Shimi, etc.”

    Shimi on yamabuki is contrary to attempts to define shimi as “above the beni in gosanke”.

    Would any dare to offer a definition of (thumbnail) shimi?
    I thought I did early on Rob? But just in case I didn't, a thumbnail shimi is one that is a surface shimi that can be easily rubbed/scratched off using a thumbnail. Then there are the deeper shimis which go beneath the scall and typically have to be dug out with a sharp object (if attempted at all).
    The views presented are my personal views and not that of any organization that I may belong to unless otherwise specified. [email protected]
    CKHPA

  5. #155
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    258
    Quote Originally Posted by schildkoi View Post
    Peter,
    First off, thank you for your reasonable reasponse. Let's discuss some of these if we may? I'll answer in black below your red.

    [COLOR=#333333]
    Hope this copy/paste works.

    { font-family: "Arial Rounded MT Bold"; }"Times New Roman"; }

    OK, so if it is only an observation, there would be no validity to drawing any conclusions to those observations?

    I think there is much validity in pointing the observation out, it certainly has been important to me – another piece of the jigsaw.


    While there may be merit in the detris point for Hikui, I find little correletion for shimis since they seem to appear also in ultra clean systems as well as what I would classify as dirty systems. As for the Hasagawa example, I covered that above and seems a very logical explanation.


    With respect, this depends on what you mean by ‘ultra-clean’.


    I would agree that they do not appear transmittable although both seem to be more prevelent within a given system but that of course could also be due to multiple other factors (environamental and genetic if there is a traceable similarity in genetics with the system).


    ‘Although both seem to be more prevalent within a given system’ – that is what I have also tried to get across.


    OK, I must have gotten your opinion mixed up with another from the post you copied and pasted from elsewhere where comparisons between Eric, Nexus, Sieves and Bead filters appeared?


    Yes, there were references from another on those units.


    No, nothing to do directly with filters but the currents within the pond itself. Your pond with the 4 centered bottom drains and the TPRs creates cycloinc currents expediting solids to the drains itself. When attempts to replicate this for other shapes (long rounded rectangles like Lansing's, Downs', and my own, all of which you are familiar with), perimeter currents coupled with diffusers drains left trapping areas between the drains. To counter act that I modfied the "Infiltration" design to capture the original cyclonic currents you had BUT, multples of such for elongated ponds by adding GPRs (GAP Pond Returns) that would then create multiple cyclonic currents actying in a set of gear like cyclonic currents around each drain thus eliminating these collection areas for floating and sinking solids between the drains and getting these shaped pond back to the original efficiencies of your style, round pond. Thus, Dan and Gene's pond which is far more efficient than let's say my own in Dallas (both of which you are familiar with and I think you would agree that D&G's was far superior).


    My pond has an anti-clockwise return spin only, because it has a large surface area.


    Too much one-way return current in ponds with a smaller surface area can prove dangerous to the Koi unless the current is reversed periodically.


    Providing the drainage is addressed correctly as we agree on, then it’s a combination of return currents and Koi movement that get the solids gently down and into the drains.



    AGREED, after all I learned this from you and Tim.

    Mine was the first system I know of that used the multi-drain principle in question.

    I first came up with it in ’92 when I did the original designs.

    They still operate like this today.


    This is where we have always differed. First of all, I understand the factors that would lead you to your conclusions. Your original summation on this was based on vortex size and dwerll time within a given size vortex as much as any other factor. Understandable. Dwell time and size/shape of a vortex are critical factors for PASSIVE solids settlement. Dwell time is really not relevent however for biological filtration. The reaction/conversion of ammonia to Nitrtire and nitrite to nitrate is instantaneous when the nitrient molecules come within close enough proximity to the biofilm. The speed at which is passes does not matter. The key is to get those molocules in close enough proximity. Now, one may argue that slow water may have a better chance at such since it is in the chamber longer, but statistically this is not the case. The only two factors that really come into play in this regard is the amount of media available and the "fineness" of such. We both know that too fine and the media will trap solids and thus foul the biofilm reducing such. Thus the media has to stay clean which brings us to another point. Many beginners believe that adding air to a bio chamber is for adding O2 to to the water. Although it may help, there is really no measureable difference in O2 levels entering a bio chamber as exiting, with or without O2 being dded to such. The real benifit is two fold for adding air to a bio chamber and can be tree fold. The first two, I again give you credit for at least teaching me or helping me to learn. Adding arir in a chamber, such as the cartridged matting chambers is on an upflow chamber, it helps keep solids from collecting on the media/matting. Cleaner media equals more efficient bio filtration. The second point is that on these chambers it actually creates up and down currents within the chamber which in turn creates multiple passes of the nutrients through the media which in turn statistically does increase the chanes that the nutrient molecules does pass in close enough proximity to the biofilm, thuis making the filter more efficient in this reagrd. Thus, while dwell time is a key compoent to [passive settlement of solids, it is not relevent in biofltration and the two components are in conflict wit one another. Now, another factor is ambient nutrient levels in the pond. This is a factor sotcking levels, feeding levels, turnover rate, and speed at which solids are removed form the pond. Thus, for any given level of stocking and feeding, ambient nutrient levels can be lowered bu providing efficient currents to expedite solids to removal points such as drains (Diffuser Drains, TPRs, GPRs) nad there flow rates (which in turn lead to pond turnover rates). Omproving turnover rates (quickening such) while maintaining a given rate of solids removal is key, again, for a given stocking and feed rate(s). So, finding methods of quickening turn over rates while maintaining mechanical filtration efficiencies are the keys to improved water Q.


    Do not get me wrong. Your way works. But, it can, and has been vastly improved upon. Heck, just look at the differences between D&G's pond with a better turnover rate and improved currents over my pond in Dallas. Both with substantially similar stocking rates and even with Gene's higher feeding regimes. Oh, and I know you can't argue with the results they have achieved. [IMG]file:///Users/petewaddington/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/msoclip/0clip_image002.png[/IMG]

    What you relate to is correct but, for me, it’s all just history albeit a very educational learning curve for me over many years.

    The systems I use today are far simpler to control because they are all dumped completely on a daily basis.

    The principles I use now are very different to the ones you refer to.


    Incidentally, I know it’s on another post but still on the same thread. There are several references to ‘thumbnail shimi’, I personally have never come across shimi that can be flicked off by a thumb nail if that is indeed what it refers to?



    Peter Waddington.


  6. #156
    Honmei
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,744
    I'll answer in Bold this time....just to lessen confusion.
    Hope this copy/paste works.

    { font-family: "Arial Rounded MT Bold"; }"Times New Roman"; }

    OK, so if it is only an observation, there would be no validity to drawing any conclusions to those observations?

    I think there is much validity in pointing the observation out, it certainly has been important to me – another piece of the jigsaw.

    Hmmmm, originally you stated it was an observation with for apparewntly an implied conclusion that somehow shimi only appeared in collectors' ponds. after a given period of time. When asked on this, you then simply said just an observation. Now we are back to an implied conclusion or that there is relevence to the observation? The observation is either relevent or not. Do you think it is or isn't and if you think it is, I would like to know why?


    While there may be merit in the detris point for Hikui, I find little correletion for shimis since they seem to appear also in ultra clean systems as well as what I would classify as dirty systems. As for the Hasagawa example, I covered that above and seems a very logical explanation.

    With respect, this depends on what you mean by ‘ultra-clean’.

    That would be a relevent term indeed. Let's just say I have seen shimis on kohaku in what I would say are the top 10% of all clean hobbyists ponds I have seen which I would imagine may be less than the number you have seen, but even still, a very large sample that would have statistical significance.


    I would agree that they do not appear transmittable although both seem to be more prevelent within a given system but that of course could also be due to multiple other factors (environamental and genetic if there is a traceable similarity in genetics with the system).

    ‘Although both seem to be more prevalent within a given system’ – that is what I have also tried to get across.

    OK, I must have gotten your opinion mixed up with another from the post you copied and pasted from elsewhere where comparisons between Eric, Nexus, Sieves and Bead filters appeared?

    Yes, there were references from another on those units.

    No, nothing to do directly with filters but the currents within the pond itself. Your pond with the 4 centered bottom drains and the TPRs creates cycloinc currents expediting solids to the drains itself. When attempts to replicate this for other shapes (long rounded rectangles like Lansing's, Downs', and my own, all of which you are familiar with), perimeter currents coupled with diffusers drains left trapping areas between the drains. To counter act that I modfied the "Infiltration" design to capture the original cyclonic currents you had BUT, multples of such for elongated ponds by adding GPRs (GAP Pond Returns) that would then create multiple cyclonic currents actying in a set of gear like cyclonic currents around each drain thus eliminating these collection areas for floating and sinking solids between the drains and getting these shaped pond back to the original efficiencies of your style, round pond. Thus, Dan and Gene's pond which is far more efficient than let's say my own in Dallas (both of which you are familiar with and I think you would agree that D&G's was far superior).

    My pond has an anti-clockwise return spin only, because it has a large surface area.

    Too much one-way return current in ponds with a smaller surface area can prove dangerous to the Koi unless the current is reversed periodically.

    I understand and agree on both but really nothing to do with what I was talking about.

    Providing the drainage is addressed correctly as we agree on, then it’s a combination of return currents and Koi movement that get the solids gently down and into the drains.

    I still agree



    AGREED, after all I learned this from you and Tim.

    Mine was the first system I know of that used the multi-drain principle in question.

    I first came up with it in ’92 when I did the original designs.

    They still operate like this today.

    Yes, and you were the one who taught me that principle and I totally agree with the multip drain, multi pump design.

    This is where we have always differed. First of all, I understand the factors that would lead you to your conclusions. Your original summation on this was based on vortex size and dwerll time within a given size vortex as much as any other factor. Understandable. Dwell time and size/shape of a vortex are critical factors for PASSIVE solids settlement. Dwell time is really not relevent however for biological filtration. The reaction/conversion of ammonia to Nitrtire and nitrite to nitrate is instantaneous when the nitrient molecules come within close enough proximity to the biofilm. The speed at which is passes does not matter. The key is to get those molocules in close enough proximity. Now, one may argue that slow water may have a better chance at such since it is in the chamber longer, but statistically this is not the case. The only two factors that really come into play in this regard is the amount of media available and the "fineness" of such. We both know that too fine and the media will trap solids and thus foul the biofilm reducing such. Thus the media has to stay clean which brings us to another point. Many beginners believe that adding air to a bio chamber is for adding O2 to to the water. Although it may help, there is really no measureable difference in O2 levels entering a bio chamber as exiting, with or without O2 being dded to such. The real benifit is two fold for adding air to a bio chamber and can be tree fold. The first two, I again give you credit for at least teaching me or helping me to learn. Adding arir in a chamber, such as the cartridged matting chambers is on an upflow chamber, it helps keep solids from collecting on the media/matting. Cleaner media equals more efficient bio filtration. The second point is that on these chambers it actually creates up and down currents within the chamber which in turn creates multiple passes of the nutrients through the media which in turn statistically does increase the chanes that the nutrient molecules does pass in close enough proximity to the biofilm, thuis making the filter more efficient in this reagrd. Thus, while dwell time is a key compoent to [passive settlement of solids, it is not relevent in biofltration and the two components are in conflict wit one another. Now, another factor is ambient nutrient levels in the pond. This is a factor sotcking levels, feeding levels, turnover rate, and speed at which solids are removed form the pond. Thus, for any given level of stocking and feeding, ambient nutrient levels can be lowered bu providing efficient currents to expedite solids to removal points such as drains (Diffuser Drains, TPRs, GPRs) nad there flow rates (which in turn lead to pond turnover rates). Omproving turnover rates (quickening such) while maintaining a given rate of solids removal is key, again, for a given stocking and feed rate(s). So, finding methods of quickening turn over rates while maintaining mechanical filtration efficiencies are the keys to improved water Q.

    Do not get me wrong. Your way works. But, it can, and has been vastly improved upon. Heck, just look at the differences between D&G's pond with a better turnover rate and improved currents over my pond in Dallas. Both with substantially similar stocking rates and even with Gene's higher feeding regimes. Oh, and I know you can't argue with the results they have achieved. [IMG]file:///Users/petewaddington/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/msoclip/0clip_image002.png[/IMG]

    What you relate to is correct but, for me, it’s all just history albeit a very educational learning curve for me over many years.

    The systems I use today are far simpler to control because they are all dumped completely on a daily basis.

    The principles I use now are very different to the ones you refer to.

    My point Peter was that your new method and the 2 hour turnover rate leaves higher ambient levels of nutrients than a system I describe simply because of the turnover rate. That is fine mind you for a lessoned stocking rate that would yield a similar level of nutrients of a faster turnover, higher stoicking rate system.


    Incidentally, I know it’s on another post but still on the same thread. There are several references to ‘thumbnail shimi’, I personally have never come across shimi that can be flicked off by a thumb nail if that is indeed what it refers to?

    OK Peter, perhaps you have forgotten. When I reference "thumbnail shimi" I do so based on an experience while in your comp[any. Please think back to the 2000 BKKS National. Dennis was bent over Bill Oakley's tank and I watched Dennis take his thumb/thumbnail, and remove a shimi. You were there and commented about Dennis' "Magic Thumb". It was that simple event some 10 years ago that led me to coin the phrase thumbnail shimi (for surface shimi).....and you were there. I understand we can all forget some things over time.


    Peter Waddington.

    The views presented are my personal views and not that of any organization that I may belong to unless otherwise specified. [email protected]
    CKHPA

  7. #157
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    258
    Quote Originally Posted by schildkoi View Post
    I'll answer in Bold this time....just to lessen confusion.
    I cannot see why my earlier reply does not suffice.

    Once more, whilst putting thoughts together regarding shimi/hikui some years back I jotted down some notes. One of theses notes reminded me I had never seen these problems in any pond I had seen that had been running for less than 30 months.

    I maintain it is a valid observation on this subject and an observation I feel is worth mentioning.

    .................................................. .................

    Regarding the 'clean' ponds (filters) you mention. I have no doubt that shimi was present when you saw these ponds and probably on the same days you saw them, the ponds were also 'clean'. This tells me little really unless you had witnessed all these ponds once a month for the past two years or so. Only then can you say, hand on heart, they were 'clean'. We can all make the filthiest pond in the world 'clean' after two days of labour.

    .................................................. ......................

    Regarding the turnover thing it brings me dangerously close to being accused of advertising again but I'll try.

    The units I'm speaking about are narrow, shallow and long in terms of the other two dimensions.

    I recommend to those using them to set the flow rate through each one on the volume of water the drain that supplies the unit has to cope after first dividing that volume by 2.5.

    e.g. If the volume in question is 5,000 gallons then set the flow rate at 2,000gph.

    At that recommended flow rate, the 'dwell time' for one complete pass from entry to exit is approx. 3.15 minutes bearing in mind the unit only holds 110 gallons in total. In view of the biological surface areas it flows past this flow rate is just about right.

    However, this equates to 463 passes per day per unit which provides significant mechanical filtration if you think about it and this is all dumped after 24 hours.

    Once again, it's a different principle to the ones you speak of.

    .................................................. .........................

    Regarding 'Doctor Den', you are correct, he could rise to the occasion when needed. I know some referred to it as his 'magic thumb'. However, I have always had to resort to a gentle scratch of the scalpel, the thumb I have is not nearly adequate for the task.


    Peter Waddington.

  8. #158
    Honmei
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,744
    Quote Originally Posted by waddy View Post
    I cannot see why my earlier reply does not suffice.

    Once more, whilst putting thoughts together regarding shimi/hikui some years back I jotted down some notes. One of theses notes reminded me I had never seen these problems in any pond I had seen that had been running for less than 30 months.

    I maintain it is a valid observation on this subject and an observation I feel is worth mentioning.

    So you do think that there is a connection? I am confused here Peter. Originally you correlated this to the new every year breeders koi houses.

    .................................................. .................

    Regarding the 'clean' ponds (filters) you mention. I have no doubt that shimi was present when you saw these ponds and probably on the same days you saw them, the ponds were also 'clean'. This tells me little really unless you had witnessed all these ponds once a month for the past two years or so. Only then can you say, hand on heart, they were 'clean'. We can all make the filthiest pond in the world 'clean' after two days of labour.

    Peter,
    There are many ponds that I see repeatedly over time. Like you comments about shimis from mud ponds and the counter observations of Mark Garner and Gibbo, you are not the only one with observations and simply because we observe something (or not observe something) does not in and of itself allow one to draw a conclusion for such, especially when there can be many other factors involved.

    .................................................. ......................

    Regarding the turnover thing it brings me dangerously close to being accused of advertising again but I'll try.

    The units I'm speaking about are narrow, shallow and long in terms of the other two dimensions.

    I recommend to those using them to set the flow rate through each one on the volume of water the drain that supplies the unit has to cope after first dividing that volume by 2.5.

    e.g. If the volume in question is 5,000 gallons then set the flow rate at 2,000gph.

    At that recommended flow rate, the 'dwell time' for one complete pass from entry to exit is approx. 3.15 minutes bearing in mind the unit only holds 110 gallons in total. In view of the biological surface areas it flows past this flow rate is just about right.

    However, this equates to 463 passes per day per unit which provides significant mechanical filtration if you think about it and this is all dumped after 24 hours.

    Once again, it's a different principle to the ones you speak of.

    Well, the Physics and Biology behind mechanical and biological filtration is kind of set in stone. The amount of nutients that can be process through biological filtration is dependent on the amount of surface area for Biofilm to grow on, the propensity of the nutrients to get into close enough proximity and the rate at which the pond feeds the filter since the bioconversion process in not dependent on speed but proximity. It has absilutely nothing to do with dwell time. That is simple fact. Now, passive settlement does have to do with dwell time AND the forces (current vs gravity) for settlement to occur. Added dwell time due coupled with slower currents increases settlement but only for those solids that can settle for the given dwell time. Again, thse are the laws of physics and biology and thus cannot be changed. In short, these principles are universal. If a given filter design requires a slow flow rate and a given dwell time, fine. My original point did not have naything to do wit this but on turnover rates anyway. Faster yields lower ambient nutrient levels and better water Q.

    .................................................. .........................

    Regarding 'Doctor Den', you are correct, he could rise to the occasion when needed. I know some referred to it as his 'magic thumb'. However, I have always had to resort to a gentle scratch of the scalpel, the thumb I have is not nearly adequate for the task.



    Peter Waddington.
    Again we then agree. I tend to use a scalpel to for these although I have had mild success with my thumbnail .
    The views presented are my personal views and not that of any organization that I may belong to unless otherwise specified. [email protected]
    CKHPA

  9. #159
    Honmei ricshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    2,653
    Quote Originally Posted by schildkoi View Post
    Again we then agree. I tend to use a scalpel to for these although I have had mild success with my thumbnail .
    A scalpel to scrape, not "cut". Right?

  10. #160
    Daihonmei PapaBear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Davenport, Oklahoma
    Posts
    6,726
    Since we've strayed back to filtration as the prime mover suspect in Peter's scenario I'll play along for arguments sake. I don't personally buy into this as the key, but I have absolutely no doubt that it does play an important role along with genetics and other environmental factors.

    I'm very much in agreement with Steve in his last post on dwell time as a factor in settlement/solids removal but a non-issue in bio-conversion. Moving water slowly through the physical settlement/brushes in order to maximize efficiency at that stage make perfect sense and on that point I believe we are all on the same page. In terms of bio-conversion contact is the only thing that matters and dwell time value is nil. So long as the available surface area is appropriate to the biological load carried in the water column water can flow through it at any rate of velocity (within reason of course). Obviously we don't want a turbo-jet action or any other channeling prone flow pattern, but we're all being reasonable here.

    The importance of regularly removing detritus from the entire system is enormous. Preventing the unnecessary rot of anoxic decay is of utmost importance no matter the system in question I can absolutely see how allowing that could trigger an undesirable reaction to the skin of Koi.

    What is most important to me in all of this is to give our utmost attention to the things we are certain of. The total cause/effect of Hikkui and Shimmies are very much in the "up for grabs" department. Promoting maximum health in the pond environment is not "up for grabs" and always a plus that we can easily accomplish with ordinary care.
    Larry Iles
    Oklahoma

Page 16 of 26 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Breeders and bloodlines with regard to shimis
    By kinkykoi in forum Main Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-06-2014, 08:21 AM
  2. Genetic Research in Koi
    By BorG in forum Main Forum
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 09-21-2012, 03:24 PM
  3. Genetic Engineering?
    By RayJordan in forum Main Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 08-09-2012, 10:14 AM
  4. Evolutionary and genetic nomenclature . . .
    By KoiCop in forum Main Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 12-12-2006, 08:58 PM
  5. Removing Shimis
    By ChrisC in forum Main Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-12-2005, 07:20 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Articles - Sitemap - FAQs and Rules

KB Footer Graphic
Straight from Japan... For the serious hobbyist!
All content and images copyright of: Koi-bito.com