hi sid.what about treatments of koi in the pond,do we just take out the baskets while we are treating our fish,
if so [one for duncan] what are the time scales for chemicals when added to the pond,to become un harmful to the good bacteria.
we know pp is 4 hours,after adding hp.what about the rest,
anoxic filters.
Moderators: B.Scott, vippymini, Gazza, Manky Sanke
Re: anoxic filters.
another question .most of the filters ive seen,all have plants in them,it is a fact that plants will reduce nitrate in ponds.
you said that plants will consume ammonia,but anyone with a dog will tell you,that when they pee on the grass,it destroys it.dogs wee is full of ammonia.so how do the plants survive in a anoxic filter.
you said that plants will consume ammonia,but anyone with a dog will tell you,that when they pee on the grass,it destroys it.dogs wee is full of ammonia.so how do the plants survive in a anoxic filter.
-
Manky Sanke
- Site Admin
- Posts: 554
- Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 10:24 am
Re: anoxic filters.
Sam,
Unlike conventional filtration where water has to flow through the biolgical media to take ammonia to the bugs living inside it, with anoxic filtration, water doesn't actually flow through the baskets. The diagram below is from part 2 of the article I wrote and you would need to read the text accompanying it to follow the complete process but, briefly, molecules can have electrical charges that cause them to attract or repel other molecules. The laterite forms a negatively charged area and NH4 has a positive charge so it is drawn in.
With that process that in mind, it stands to reason that if you add a pond treatment and it has positively charged molecules, they will also be drawn in and can affect the bugs inside. If they are negatively charged or neutral they won't be.
To work out which molecules have which charges, there are some simple chemistry rules you could learn which would allow you to work out which treatments cannot affect the bugs in the baskets, but the simplest solution would be to remove the baskets during treatment or turn off the pump in the same way that you might isolate a conventional filter.
As for plants being killed by neat dogs urine. Plants need nitrogen to grow. They can get that nitrogen from many sources including ammonia and/or nitrate but plant bio-chemistry actually prefers ammonia to nitrate as a fertiliser because it takes less chemical energy to extract the nitrogen from NH4 than it takes to extract nitrogen from NO3 but you can have too much of a good thing. If you add any plant fertiliser in excessive quantities you will scorch the plant roots so if you were to train your dog to pee in a bucket and then you diluted it and watered it over the entire lawn, the grass would grow better, but if the urine goes into a small area it will burn the roots.
Unlike conventional filtration where water has to flow through the biolgical media to take ammonia to the bugs living inside it, with anoxic filtration, water doesn't actually flow through the baskets. The diagram below is from part 2 of the article I wrote and you would need to read the text accompanying it to follow the complete process but, briefly, molecules can have electrical charges that cause them to attract or repel other molecules. The laterite forms a negatively charged area and NH4 has a positive charge so it is drawn in.
With that process that in mind, it stands to reason that if you add a pond treatment and it has positively charged molecules, they will also be drawn in and can affect the bugs inside. If they are negatively charged or neutral they won't be.
To work out which molecules have which charges, there are some simple chemistry rules you could learn which would allow you to work out which treatments cannot affect the bugs in the baskets, but the simplest solution would be to remove the baskets during treatment or turn off the pump in the same way that you might isolate a conventional filter.
As for plants being killed by neat dogs urine. Plants need nitrogen to grow. They can get that nitrogen from many sources including ammonia and/or nitrate but plant bio-chemistry actually prefers ammonia to nitrate as a fertiliser because it takes less chemical energy to extract the nitrogen from NH4 than it takes to extract nitrogen from NO3 but you can have too much of a good thing. If you add any plant fertiliser in excessive quantities you will scorch the plant roots so if you were to train your dog to pee in a bucket and then you diluted it and watered it over the entire lawn, the grass would grow better, but if the urine goes into a small area it will burn the roots.
Re: anoxic filters.
hi all.since i mentioned on here about the anoxic filter,and why i enquired about this filter system on another forum,
there has been 167 views,as it seems no one wants to discuss this method of filtration,i can probably say you have all read about it
on www.mankysanke.co.uk do you all dismiss this system,or are you privately thinking about using it.
so come on,lets hear your views,what positives or negatives, do you have,
there has been 167 views,as it seems no one wants to discuss this method of filtration,i can probably say you have all read about it
on www.mankysanke.co.uk do you all dismiss this system,or are you privately thinking about using it.
so come on,lets hear your views,what positives or negatives, do you have,
Re: anoxic filters.
Sam, Syd.
Very much read all this from the CD a long time back, im not in a position to knock the sytem or praise the system as anything that is beneficial to the welfare of the koi has to be looked at.
Just for me it is not something I would look at using, I have seen systems all over the country by visiting dealers and friends and other ponds from visits and have to say it is not a system that I would say is catching on, well from where I have seen anyway.
For anyone using this and it is working then congrats, but for me i'll stick to the system that works for me, gotta love that white plastic stuff and magical media with the hole in the middle lol
Regards
Graham
Very much read all this from the CD a long time back, im not in a position to knock the sytem or praise the system as anything that is beneficial to the welfare of the koi has to be looked at.
Just for me it is not something I would look at using, I have seen systems all over the country by visiting dealers and friends and other ponds from visits and have to say it is not a system that I would say is catching on, well from where I have seen anyway.
For anyone using this and it is working then congrats, but for me i'll stick to the system that works for me, gotta love that white plastic stuff and magical media with the hole in the middle lol
Regards
Graham
-
Manky Sanke
- Site Admin
- Posts: 554
- Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 10:24 am
Re: anoxic filters.
Sam,
I think you are banging your head on a brick wall trying to get a discussion going about this. There is very little to discuss, it's a leap of faith.
When I was first commissioned by Koi magazine to write about anoxic filtration, I did a lot of research which incuded having a good old Google around a huge number of forum posts, mainly to see if anyone had used it and had a complete disaster on their hands. It would have been no good writing a positive review about it if 10% of those who had tried it found that their koi had turned green or grown a third eye or something.
What I found was that there was a lot of opposition to anoxic filtration, mainly based on labelling it as a bog filter. As far as I could find, none of those critics actually understood anything about how it worked, they had just picked up the word "anoxic", equated it with anaerobic and were horrified that anyone would suggest using nasty anaerobic bugs in a filter system.
What was immediately obvious was that none of the critics had used it or even understood anything about the bio-chemistry that occurs under anoxic conditions. And this is where the difficulty lies. What does the average koi keeper understand about the dimorphic metabolism of facultative anaerobic chemolithic autotrophic bacteria in an anoxic environment? I have to take special medication just to stop my head exploding when I even think about the subject!
And that's the problem in trying to start a discussion. Few people understand enough about it to hold a discussion and even fewer seem to realise that exactly the same bugs, bio-chemistry and anoxic conditions exist in old fashioned trickle towers or the newer Bakki showers with denitrifying media.
Trickle towers worked because of those facultative anaerobes. Bakkis work for the same reason but combine them with the aerating benefits of a waterfall. Anoxic filtration uses facultative bugs, combine that with a waterfall and you've got exactly the same thing.
Ever since Kevin included my two articles on anaerobic filtration in his book and has been busy getting the second, more detailed one, reprinted in magazines in the US, I get continuous mail asking questions about it. I also get feedback from those who went on to use it. Kevin copies much of his email to me especially from the more scientifically minded who have put it to the test and recorded accurate data on water parameters. I can honestly say that none of the mail or reports has said anything negative. Unless you count one from someone who put a single basket into his pond and said it didn't work.
It's very popular in America and Australia where any old cat litter will do because it's all pretty much the same. A guy called Franco Pratti in Italy was tearing his hair out because he tried everywhere to obtain a suitable clay. If I remember correctly, with the help of some people in the UK, he resorted to driving all the way to Dover to pick up a seriously large consignment from them and driving back with it. He is now promoting the idea over there.
Why isn't it promoted more widely in the UK? Think about the economics. When you visit a koi dealer, you expect them to use the latest "must-have" miracle in filtration on their ponds because they make money selling filters. There is a certain kudos in being seen to use the latest and "best". Would you buy a filter costing one or two grand (or fish) from a dealer who had baskets of cat litter in a pond as his filtration system? Ask anyone selling filters to describe what bugs will live in them and how these are different from the bugs that live in the filters of rival products and you will be met with a blank stare. All they know is what the sales people tell them about how wonderful it is. Which is why the mistranslation of some Japanese sales hype about infra red radiation coming out of BHM has allowed me to have so much fun at their expense about it being sold on the strength of the magic rays that do something marvellous to the water.
I bet you could ask a dozen dealers the most basic question about BHM; "why has it got a hole in the middle?", and not get a straight answer. Most will say that it increases the surface area and allows more space for bugs to live, but if bugs just live on the outside and inside surfaces, why not just buy Flowcor? It's much cheaper.
Ps. Wanna know why BHM has a hole through the middle? Have a guess and I'll tell you why.
I think you are banging your head on a brick wall trying to get a discussion going about this. There is very little to discuss, it's a leap of faith.
When I was first commissioned by Koi magazine to write about anoxic filtration, I did a lot of research which incuded having a good old Google around a huge number of forum posts, mainly to see if anyone had used it and had a complete disaster on their hands. It would have been no good writing a positive review about it if 10% of those who had tried it found that their koi had turned green or grown a third eye or something.
What I found was that there was a lot of opposition to anoxic filtration, mainly based on labelling it as a bog filter. As far as I could find, none of those critics actually understood anything about how it worked, they had just picked up the word "anoxic", equated it with anaerobic and were horrified that anyone would suggest using nasty anaerobic bugs in a filter system.
What was immediately obvious was that none of the critics had used it or even understood anything about the bio-chemistry that occurs under anoxic conditions. And this is where the difficulty lies. What does the average koi keeper understand about the dimorphic metabolism of facultative anaerobic chemolithic autotrophic bacteria in an anoxic environment? I have to take special medication just to stop my head exploding when I even think about the subject!
And that's the problem in trying to start a discussion. Few people understand enough about it to hold a discussion and even fewer seem to realise that exactly the same bugs, bio-chemistry and anoxic conditions exist in old fashioned trickle towers or the newer Bakki showers with denitrifying media.
Trickle towers worked because of those facultative anaerobes. Bakkis work for the same reason but combine them with the aerating benefits of a waterfall. Anoxic filtration uses facultative bugs, combine that with a waterfall and you've got exactly the same thing.
Ever since Kevin included my two articles on anaerobic filtration in his book and has been busy getting the second, more detailed one, reprinted in magazines in the US, I get continuous mail asking questions about it. I also get feedback from those who went on to use it. Kevin copies much of his email to me especially from the more scientifically minded who have put it to the test and recorded accurate data on water parameters. I can honestly say that none of the mail or reports has said anything negative. Unless you count one from someone who put a single basket into his pond and said it didn't work.
It's very popular in America and Australia where any old cat litter will do because it's all pretty much the same. A guy called Franco Pratti in Italy was tearing his hair out because he tried everywhere to obtain a suitable clay. If I remember correctly, with the help of some people in the UK, he resorted to driving all the way to Dover to pick up a seriously large consignment from them and driving back with it. He is now promoting the idea over there.
Why isn't it promoted more widely in the UK? Think about the economics. When you visit a koi dealer, you expect them to use the latest "must-have" miracle in filtration on their ponds because they make money selling filters. There is a certain kudos in being seen to use the latest and "best". Would you buy a filter costing one or two grand (or fish) from a dealer who had baskets of cat litter in a pond as his filtration system? Ask anyone selling filters to describe what bugs will live in them and how these are different from the bugs that live in the filters of rival products and you will be met with a blank stare. All they know is what the sales people tell them about how wonderful it is. Which is why the mistranslation of some Japanese sales hype about infra red radiation coming out of BHM has allowed me to have so much fun at their expense about it being sold on the strength of the magic rays that do something marvellous to the water.
I bet you could ask a dozen dealers the most basic question about BHM; "why has it got a hole in the middle?", and not get a straight answer. Most will say that it increases the surface area and allows more space for bugs to live, but if bugs just live on the outside and inside surfaces, why not just buy Flowcor? It's much cheaper.
Ps. Wanna know why BHM has a hole through the middle? Have a guess and I'll tell you why.
Re: anoxic filters.
Is it not so that you can put it on a toilet roll holder and you can watch a blind person spend hours trying to find where the tissue starts??? 
Re: anoxic filters.
Hi Manky
The hole is probably due to the way it is extruded before firing only a guess.
On a more serious note I am adding an anoxic filter, having gone through the science, which all makes sense, and seen the posts of them in use for many years with minimum of maintainance. I will post pictures when I have done the prelim work.
The one think I wont be having is plants, it is to shady so I will track the nitrate without plants added and keep you up to date. Just hope local Tesco hasn't run out of cat litter again, the local inventory manager is puxxled why every now and again somebody comes in and buys 20 bags !
Peter
The hole is probably due to the way it is extruded before firing only a guess.
On a more serious note I am adding an anoxic filter, having gone through the science, which all makes sense, and seen the posts of them in use for many years with minimum of maintainance. I will post pictures when I have done the prelim work.
The one think I wont be having is plants, it is to shady so I will track the nitrate without plants added and keep you up to date. Just hope local Tesco hasn't run out of cat litter again, the local inventory manager is puxxled why every now and again somebody comes in and buys 20 bags !
Peter
-
Manky Sanke
- Site Admin
- Posts: 554
- Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 10:24 am
Re: anoxic filters.
Ok, two guesses are enough. Here's my answer.
This is also a sort of guess, based on scientific reasoning. I've had to work it out for myself because so far I've only met one manufacturer who either can, or is willing to, answer questions about how their media works. I asked a question and got an ipad presentation and a lecture that lasted well over an hour. (I was almost tempted to say "get yer coat, you've pulled!")
I don't have a suitable diagram of the inside of BHM because I'm too frightened to cut a piece open and let all those magic rays spill out.
So referring to this one of an anoxic basket may help.
Putting ball park numbers into it to help make sense, you could say that, outside the basket, the pond water has an oxygen level of 6.0 mg/L. Therefore, zone A will have 6 on the outside, dropping to 4 at the boundary of zones A & B. That means that zone B will have 4 on it's outside, dropping to 2 at its boundary with zone C.
Conventional nitrification, (the nitrogen cycle), can happen in zones A & B. Zone C is where the real business happens. The nitrogen cycle can't take place if the oxygen level is below 2.0 mg/L and as long as it doesn't drop below 0.5 mg/L, anaerobic bugs can't live. Even oxygen levels as low as 0.5 are poisonous to them. Zone C is where those clever facultative anaerobes live.
S'pose zone C was made bigger. As we continued deeper into the basket, the oxygen level would continue to fall until it became less than 0.5. This would create a breeding ground for anaerobic nasties which is why there are practical limits for basket size.
What's has banging on about anoxic filtration got to do with BHM? Simple, denitrifying media like BHM works exactly the same. There is a high oxygen level at the very outside. Nitrifying bugs can live on the surface and just inside in it's little caves but as we go deeper they will have used so much of the oxygen that the level falls below 2.0 mg/L. Cue our facultative bugs. This is their patch and they get their oxygen by sucking the oxygen from nitrate, just the same as in the baskets. Both anoxic filtration and BHM reduce nitrate levels. The only difference is scale. In a biocenosis (anoxic) basket, the caves are made by the gaps between the granules of clay. In denitrifying media, the caves are the pores or bubbles inside it which are very much smaller than the gaps between clay granules, so the bugs are very much more densely packed and the whole process happens on a smaller scale.
But what would happen if there wasn't a hole? Exacly the same as would happen in the diagram above. The oxygen level would continue to fall until it fell below 0.5 and then the centre of BHM would become a breeding ground for anaerobic bugs.
By having a hole through the middle, firstly there isn't a centre that can become anaerobic. Secondly, if you can imagine drilling a hole through the centre of the basket above, you can see that aerated water could get inside and raise oxygen levels in the very centre, making another zone A and zone B all the way around the hole. That's what happens in BHM, where-ever bugs live in the pores, they are in the equivalent of zone A & B and as they get further away from the surfaces, there can be a zone C but the hole through the centre makes sure that nowhere inside can the oxygen level fall below 0.5mg/L.
Of course, if they made BHM the diameter of toothpaste squeezed from a tube, it wouldn't be thick enough to need the hole to take water into the centre. I wonder if they realise that?
This is also a sort of guess, based on scientific reasoning. I've had to work it out for myself because so far I've only met one manufacturer who either can, or is willing to, answer questions about how their media works. I asked a question and got an ipad presentation and a lecture that lasted well over an hour. (I was almost tempted to say "get yer coat, you've pulled!")
I don't have a suitable diagram of the inside of BHM because I'm too frightened to cut a piece open and let all those magic rays spill out.
So referring to this one of an anoxic basket may help.
Putting ball park numbers into it to help make sense, you could say that, outside the basket, the pond water has an oxygen level of 6.0 mg/L. Therefore, zone A will have 6 on the outside, dropping to 4 at the boundary of zones A & B. That means that zone B will have 4 on it's outside, dropping to 2 at its boundary with zone C.
Conventional nitrification, (the nitrogen cycle), can happen in zones A & B. Zone C is where the real business happens. The nitrogen cycle can't take place if the oxygen level is below 2.0 mg/L and as long as it doesn't drop below 0.5 mg/L, anaerobic bugs can't live. Even oxygen levels as low as 0.5 are poisonous to them. Zone C is where those clever facultative anaerobes live.
S'pose zone C was made bigger. As we continued deeper into the basket, the oxygen level would continue to fall until it became less than 0.5. This would create a breeding ground for anaerobic nasties which is why there are practical limits for basket size.
What's has banging on about anoxic filtration got to do with BHM? Simple, denitrifying media like BHM works exactly the same. There is a high oxygen level at the very outside. Nitrifying bugs can live on the surface and just inside in it's little caves but as we go deeper they will have used so much of the oxygen that the level falls below 2.0 mg/L. Cue our facultative bugs. This is their patch and they get their oxygen by sucking the oxygen from nitrate, just the same as in the baskets. Both anoxic filtration and BHM reduce nitrate levels. The only difference is scale. In a biocenosis (anoxic) basket, the caves are made by the gaps between the granules of clay. In denitrifying media, the caves are the pores or bubbles inside it which are very much smaller than the gaps between clay granules, so the bugs are very much more densely packed and the whole process happens on a smaller scale.
But what would happen if there wasn't a hole? Exacly the same as would happen in the diagram above. The oxygen level would continue to fall until it fell below 0.5 and then the centre of BHM would become a breeding ground for anaerobic bugs.
By having a hole through the middle, firstly there isn't a centre that can become anaerobic. Secondly, if you can imagine drilling a hole through the centre of the basket above, you can see that aerated water could get inside and raise oxygen levels in the very centre, making another zone A and zone B all the way around the hole. That's what happens in BHM, where-ever bugs live in the pores, they are in the equivalent of zone A & B and as they get further away from the surfaces, there can be a zone C but the hole through the centre makes sure that nowhere inside can the oxygen level fall below 0.5mg/L.
Of course, if they made BHM the diameter of toothpaste squeezed from a tube, it wouldn't be thick enough to need the hole to take water into the centre. I wonder if they realise that?
Re: anoxic filters.
Sorry from resurrecting this old topic but I had to add something and instead of creating another topic, I thought it migght be better here.
What is the difference between anoxic filter and a filter with zeolite? I dont mean its details. Both will remove ammonia, nh4, no2, no3.
Why should I choose one over another.
What is the difference between anoxic filter and a filter with zeolite? I dont mean its details. Both will remove ammonia, nh4, no2, no3.
Why should I choose one over another.
-
Manky Sanke
- Site Admin
- Posts: 554
- Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 10:24 am
Re: anoxic filters.
Zeolite isn't a filter media it's a a sort of "chemical sponge" for ammonia. Just as a normal sponge can only soak up so much liquid, zeolite will adsorb (adsorb is similar to absorb) ammonia molecules until it's "full" after which it will do nothing unless it's taken out and recharged.
An anoxic filter is a new kind of filter that has an unlimited capacity to continually draw in ammonia molecules and destroy them without leaving nitrate as an end product as is the case with conventional nitrogen cycle filters.
You could use zeolite alone as a means of removing ammonia from a koi pond if you took it out and recharged it every day or so but it's more sensible to use a biological filter. With biological filters you have a choice; conventional filters leave nitrate as an undesirable end product which you have to dilute away with water changes, anoxic filters remove ammonia without leaving any nitrate.
An anoxic filter is a new kind of filter that has an unlimited capacity to continually draw in ammonia molecules and destroy them without leaving nitrate as an end product as is the case with conventional nitrogen cycle filters.
You could use zeolite alone as a means of removing ammonia from a koi pond if you took it out and recharged it every day or so but it's more sensible to use a biological filter. With biological filters you have a choice; conventional filters leave nitrate as an undesirable end product which you have to dilute away with water changes, anoxic filters remove ammonia without leaving any nitrate.