|
Yes and no for me Paladin. We both want a strong response and a massive cycle, on that we are in total agreement. But I don't favor use of inorganic ammonium as a means to the common end we both look for.
I have done that for many years on and off in marine systems. The major benefit being, no disease transmission as when you use live fish and actually stress them during the cycle making them even more likely to be disease or parasite vectors. A good clean cycling for sure.
But koi ponds are different from aquariums. Being outside and closely linked to 'greater nature' and considering that they are highly eutrophic trending closed systems to begin with, The finished microbial ecosystem is much more complex. And further, that I have come to a place of thinking that says , "ultimately a microbial population mix is a direct result of what the daily nutrient provided says it should be", In otherwords, I have come to the conclusion that seeding with a sucessful existing biofilm and then bringing it through the cycle with EXACTLY the nutrient types that it will ultimately face, is the only way to go.
In one sense, we have been enlightened by aquarist literature that taught all us 'non-scientists' about the nitrification cycle and it's importance in a closed system. But most of that is from lab experiments/studies on single and codependent sets of species. I'd recommend exposure to other points of view especially those of microbiologists in the applied and environmental microbiology areas to build on the basic concept of a two species only system. Or the idea that a nitrification cycle is the same thing as establishing a microbial community that is in equilibrium with it's daily nutrient supply.
A book you might find interesting is The Biology Of Temporary Waters by D. Dudley Williams. It is just one area of research that will show the 'mini-evolution' of new water as it goes through its own natural cycle exposed to the great outdoors.
JR
|