Do you use Potassium Permanganate?

[schildkoi]

Quote: Originally Posted by Lomaponder I use PP on occasion. The dosage is low (2-3 ppm) and it seems to help my situation having (Dare I say this..) plants in my pond (to each his/her own). I also have things "that need to be corrected". But until I find the time and funds, this is an inexpensive course of action. I find it is a good "tonic" when going in and out Aeromonas Pseudomonas Alley Then again, I'm not in possession of the next big GC... yet. Again, To each their own.

Hmmm, "Get over it". I cringe everytime I hear the "attitude" of the bolded type above as a justification to a questionable (at best) practice. The logic that someone would not do this practice on a future (or current GC) but that it is ok on something less baffles me. I am baffled simply because if an owner of a future (or current GC) won't do it because of the status of the koi implies that the koi's "status" makes a real difference? If the PP practice has a potential harmful effect to a GC and thus should not be done, why is the status and potential harm to a lesser status more acceptable? Simply does not make sense to me....but then again I tend to look at things from a logical perspective.

Steve

[B.Scott]

Aeromonas Alley,
It was always an interesting theory. Koi immune system becomes weaker in a temperature range in which (Pseudo) Aeromonas still thrives leaving the koi at risk.
Still, true or not, the remedy is the same as I suggested in the first post I made on this thread. If your stocking is low, the pond design is adequate, the filtration good and you change out sufficient amounts of good quality water, then Aeromonas bacteria is something you should never need worry about. In the worst case scenario a fish with a compromised immune system could get into trouble but such a fish is an accident waiting to happen in any case. The solution in such a case is NOT potassium permanganate.

B.Scott

[B.Scott]

Quote: Originally Posted by schildkoi Hmmm, "Get over it". I cringe everytime I hear the "attitude" of the bolded type above as a justification to a questionable (at best) practice. The logic that someone would not do this practice on a future (or current GC) but that it is ok on something less baffles me. I am baffled simply because if an owner of a future (or current GC) won't do it because of the status of the koi implies that the koi's "status" makes a real difference? If the PP practice has a potential harmful effect to a GC and thus should not be done, why is the status and potential harm to a lesser status more acceptable? Simply does not make sense to me....but then again I tend to look at things from a logical perspective. Steve

Absolutely Steve,
It is logical for a person in the learning process to start with cheaper fish, The chances of killing or damaging them is much greater if you are just starting out. That is no reason to turn the skills and habits one should possess to keep a koi healthy, down a notch, until you decide to buy better fish.

B.Scott

[KoiCop]

Sorry, LP, but I couldn't agree less.

"To each their own" works fine when we're discussing fashion trends, hair styles and musical tastes -- but not when we're talking math & science.

2 + 2 = 4, and 2 hydrogen atoms + 1 oxygen atom = water, no matter which way your particular wind blows.

So if you're thinking that plants in ponds is a style & fashion thing, rather than a math & science thing, then your fish are paying the price for your innocent arrogance.

Look at it this way:

You admit your pond has issues "that need to be corrected," so that's like having a 65 VW bug that's not firing on all cylinders and is having trouble getting up the hill.

Then you increase your pond's organic waste load by adding plants, which is like loading 500 lbs. of steer manure into the back seat of your sputtering VW bug.

And then, because your pond (and your VW) look bad, smell bad and perform worse, you burn off the organics despite the collateral damage it causes?

Duh! Wouldn't it be better not to load them up in the first place?

Best wishes,

[gcuss]

Quote: Originally Posted by schildkoi Hmmm, "Get over it". I cringe everytime I hear the "attitude" of the bolded type above as a justification to a questionable (at best) practice. The logic that someone would not do this practice on a future (or current GC) but that it is ok on something less baffles me. I am baffled simply because if an owner of a future (or current GC) won't do it because of the status of the koi implies that the koi's "status" makes a real difference? If the PP practice has a potential harmful effect to a GC and thus should not be done, why is the status and potential harm to a lesser status more acceptable? Simply does not make sense to me....but then again I tend to look at things from a logical perspective. Steve

Steve, I may disagree slightly with this. (but I believe you were speaking to health and water quality issues, in which case, I agree)

People might have less than desirable conditions for a GC. But when I think of shortcomings that are overlooked because you don't have "The next big Grand Champion" in your pond, I think of things like 8' of depth, 1000+ gallons per fish, constant electronic meters to adjust hardness of water for the specific color you're looking to finish or maintain etc... I'd hate to think people accept an unhealthy environment for their fish simply because they weren't expensive koi, or are great prospects for showing. Fundamentally, that's just cruelty to animals.

Grant

[gcuss]

This thread should be interesting as I was following the same topic on a different board recently and it seems PP is a favourable tool to a lot of people.

I personally agree that if you need to bombard your pond with chemicals to keep things on the straight and narrow, somethings wrong.

The practice of using PP to deal with your organic build up is like having a slow leak on one of your car's tire. Rather than go through the hassle of making an appointment to have it repaired properly, you find it easier to simply stop at the gas station every day and top it off.

Treating symptoms rather than problems is never a practice to employ, in anything you do...

Grant

[KoiCop]

Quote: Originally Posted by gcuss This thread should be interesting as I was following the same topic on a different board recently and it seems PP is a favourable tool to a lot of people.

One can tell much about another's pond (without ever having seen it) when one hears that it requires PP for routine maintenance.

And one can tell much about another board (without ever having posted there) when one hears that it's members favor PP for routine maintenance.

You won't hear that kind of silly support for the indiscriminate use of PP here on 'Bito -- or on any other 'advanced' koi board for that matter.

[schildkoi]

Quote: Originally Posted by gcuss Steve, I may disagree slightly with this. (but I believe you were speaking to health and water quality issues, in which case, I agree) People might have less than desirable conditions for a GC. But when I think of shortcomings that are overlooked because you don't have "The next big Grand Champion" in your pond, I think of things like 8' of depth, 1000+ gallons per fish, constant electronic meters to adjust hardness of water for the specific color you're looking to finish or maintain etc... I'd hate to think people accept an unhealthy environment for their fish simply because they weren't expensive koi, or are great prospects for showing. Fundamentally, that's just cruelty to animals. Grant

Grant, my point was simply to suggest that if it isn't wise to subject a GC to maintenance PP treatments, why would it be ok (health wise) to subject a pond grade koi to such? I simply do not get that logic.

That logic is typically also used by the same folks that consider their koi to be their "beloved pets" and again, I simply do not understand the logic of subjecting a "loved one" to those risks when they do not have to be.

Steve

[gcuss]

Quote: Originally Posted by schildkoi Grant, my point was simply to suggest that if it isn't wise to subject a GC to maintenance PP treatments, why would it be ok (health wise) to subject a pond grade koi to such? I simply do not get that logic. That logic is typically also used by the same folks that consider their koi to be their "beloved pets" and again, I simply do not understand the logic of subjecting a "loved one" to those risks when they do not have to be. Steve

I was pretty sure that's what you meant. And I couldn't agree more.

Thanks Steve.

Grant

[gcuss]

Quote: Originally Posted by KoiCop One can tell much about another's pond (without ever having seen it) when one hears that it requires PP for routine maintenance. And one can tell much about another board (without ever having posted there) when one hears that it's members favor PP for routine maintenance. You won't hear that kind of silly support for the indiscriminate use of PP here on 'Bito -- or on any other 'advanced' koi board for that matter.

And yeahhhh, my response on the regular use of PP... wasn't a very popular fellow...

One idea that I hadn't heard of is that people will backwash their pond into a vessel, PP the crap out of it, neutralize the PP with hydrogen peroxide, and then use that for the next water change in an effort to conserve water... Any thoughts on this?

I don't think it's good practice because I'm not looking for dilution when I do a water change, I'm looking to add the minerals and such that have been "used" up in the water I'm taking out and to get rid of any pheromones that may prohibit growth. (not sure if it's pheromones/hormones/"no-grow" juice... that stuff is a bit over my head... but you know what I mean)

Grant