| It really is a good reminder that as investigative techniques get better, our understanding of the underlying science/biology gets better. This of course has been going on since the investigation of the earth as a flat planet! But in microbiology two major steps have been made that pretty much CHANGED EVERYTHING! Thanks to electron microscopes, a host of new equipment, genetic research and a
'forest thru the trees' vision of bacteria.
The two biggies that make most text book information obsolete are:
1) the movement of observations out of the lab ( where individual cells were studied and became the bulk of what we knew about species) and into the real world were it was observed that bacteria in the wild behave differently in some cases than in the cozy non- competitive lab environment.
2) the perspective gained when species are observed as part of an ecosystem and how other species effect the behavior and survival of a particular species within the microbial community.
Bacteria, like birds and ants, have a genetic code of behavior and instinctual survival techniques. Over , and sometimes against, this genetic code is the influence of environment. So a biofilm matrix, for instance, is meant to be one shape based on a species genetic code. But environmental forces might change the shape of that structure to a great extent. This changes the understanding of the biofilm shape/structure as was once considered 'boiler plate' based on cozy lab observations. I use this example to show that simplifying classes of species and 'assigned zones' of existance is one dimensional and dumbs down our understanding of the dynamics in our ponds. It takes nutrient type, nutrient level and water conditions to make for proliferation of one species over another.
Ponds 'want to' become more and more organically rich. This is a trend of a closed system. We want to resist this as it leads to excess mineralization and denitrification. Trying to process this, in a closed system, is indeed looking at the pond as a waste treatment challenge. This is not a healthy environment for koi. On one hand we must accept that there is an ambient level of organic that is inescapable in our systems. On the other hand, we need to keep that level to a minimum as it will lead to the proliferation of other bacterial species that are most undesirable. To try and then create another set of species to keep the aeromonas and pseudomonas at bay is playing with fire. It is true that floc systems and organic digestor tanks in waste treatment plants host tons of heterotrophic species and nirtifiers like ours can be in secondary or anecdotal roles. But waste treatment plants are not growing koi. They are breaking down massive amounts of shite/organics.
As I said originally, this approach of Kevin's is based in real scientific data but very wrong headed when you place it against modern information and the already existing modern koi pond that works beautifully for both microbe balance and koi's health. I am very happy that it works for him and I can understand how after working on this idea for decades, one becomes committed to the idea body and soul. But the hobby has passed by the idea and vision of a koi pond of that description and need, at least a decade ago now. Honestly, there are just better, more standardized and reliable ways to run a modern koi pond.
- JR |