Bacteria question

[aquitori]

I had a tetra green barrel "good for ponds upto 1000gals" on a 240 fiberglass tank with 6 tosai in it and it wasnt enough. The pond volume rating for enclosed filtration isnt exact. For a pond your size you should be in around 7000gal rating.

[Koiamania]

I had no problems last year. I just hooked up the filter again because I started feeding again and the weather is warmer. I also have a bog which I put water plants in which grow like crazy and seem to keep things clear. I have never had any nitrites or nitrates that are detectable on the readings. I was using the bacteria because I thought I was suppose to but I guess I dont need to. Thanks for the help.

[aquitori]

If you had no problems last year, then I wouldnt try adding Bacteria.

[Lee]

from: Lee Aronfeld

Most probably you're referring to Lymnozyme which is a non-hazarodous mixed non-pathogencic naturally occuring microbes in a saline based natural carrier.

As copied from a document sent to me via Tom Lansing:

"Lymnozyme is a totally organic product developed for aquaculture use by Jim Keeton, President of US Keeton Industries.

Jim developed the generic product Lymnozyme for use in food fish applications where the use of chemicals are prohibited.

Lymnozyme works in the form of it consuming all of the food gram negative pathogenic bacteria it needs to grow and survive.

While bacteria can develop resistance to chemicls and antibiotics they cannot develop an immunity to starvation.

Thus, without a continual source of food ameromonas bacteria simply die and as it's aeromonas bacteria's which cause ulcers, no more aermonas = no more ulcers.

By your using Lymnozyme as a preventative specifically in the Spring, you basically elminate all potential for your fish to obtain ulcers."

Therefore, the question is not whether your filters are adaquate ~ the actual question to ask yourself is whether your filters are operating at their maximum when the demand and need for them to be opreating at maximum efficiency is highest.

If you have any doubt, then I suggestyou might want to re-consider the above product.

The cost of the subject product is not significant when compared to the value of your fish. And, the ease of use is simple - Therefore, in my mind there should be little hesitation to your use of this product in your multi-available fish saving arsenal.

Most important is the fact that it is far safer and far less stressful on you and most imporatantly upon your fish than having them develop an ulcer, as having to netting that special beauty and having the task of removing the big girl from your pond, putting her to sleep and later asking this board in what ammounts you should be innoculating her and whether Baytril is better than some other gram negative anti-biotic.

Don't you agree, simple prevention is better than any concern about even the worlds finest filters system.

Of course, there is always the option where you can depend upon your filters being at optimum function and efficiency and then risk having your fish obtain an ulcer and (then) wondering why you didn't use a simple inexpensive prevatative measure before...

My best regards,

Lee Aronfeld
Grand Cayman

[l113892]

Very good post Lee!

[schildkoi]

Lee,
You read my mind (that's why I was asking him for the name of the product). Koizyme, is another name for this product.

There are two schools of thought about its usage. The first being a bandaid to help control gram negative bacteria in less than adequate pond systems. This is usually due to lack of filtration, lack of turnover, lack of solid waste collection methods and or poorly maintained systems. These factors can and should all be corrected anyway.

The second school of thought involves the use of this product as an "insurance policy" so to speak by lowering the CFU counts even further for a well designed and maintained system. This concept has pros and cpons as well. Lower counts = lower susceptibilities to bacteria invasions. On the opther hand it too could lead to lack of fully developed immune response by "perhaps" supplying too much of a "bubble" effect.

Its one of those evaluate the product and its perceived effects .....cost vs benefit.

Steve

[JasPR]

Good Morning!

I always try and see the other guys point of view before commenting---

The rationalization ( and it is a rationalization) would have to be that by adding MORE bacteria to a growing, but immature biofilm, you are accelerating the process with addition of the numbers of cells. It sounds local at first blush and the bacteria cells from the bottle may very well be alive, so that is not the point. But if they are heterotrophic species being added ( which they typically are) they are there to 'clean up' while the slower establishing autotrophic nitrification species are still building numbers and the associated matrix ( the matrix itself is a valuable tool in attracting ammonia molecules). So this might be viewed as 'helpful' by the manufacturer in practical terms. But on a grander scale, this is not helpful and can actually retard the cycling process as these intermediate foreign source species actually compete and slow the nitrification process.
This is because the heterotrophic species is a mobile cells that goes TO the ammonia as opposed to the sessile ( attached to substrate) which capture their ammonia nutrient throw a series of aids ( such as current, settlement, centrifugal boundary action and finally, by electromagnetic forces and active diffusion).
In addition, the nitrifiers must work harder in their 'digestion' of 'food' and get less energy that the other species of bacteria for their effort. This results in slower growth and therefore slower reproduction. As a result, you see one nitrifier becoming 16 daughter cells but the free swimming heterotrophic cell becomes 24000 individual cells every 24 hours ( assuming there is that much ammonia). In fact, when really 'cooking' these species can actually been seen with the naked eye as cloudy water due to their incredibilty huge nembers. Nitrifier bacteria that are actually potentially larger than heterotrophic cells, can only be 'seen' as a biofilm matrix ( the polymer housing the bacteria create that looks like stained brown and often that is the resident hitchhikers we see ontop of the biofilm) .
Remember however, the nitrifiers are ultimately using MORE ammonia per individual for each of their generations.

To bring this all home, adding bottled bacteria might be helpful if the system is dangerous to new fish residents. But the owner should know that this practice is extending the new pond syndrome period and 'holding off' the creation of a biofilm microbe community that will eventually run the pond and fit that pond's conditions like a hand in a well fitting glove. - JR

JR

[MysticKoi]

Help a brother out!!! What more do I need?

Right... please tell us more about your pond. What are the dimensions (L x W x D)? What kind of pump are you running (external or submersible)? What is the flow rate of this pump at head? Does your pond have a main drain? Does your pond have a rock and gravel bottom? Tell us more about your DIY blue barrel filter.

Please understand that there are two unique system types out there. Koi pond are different than water gardens, and the equipment selection and configurations are different as well. FYI - Your Pondmaster 4000 is a water garden filter, and is woefully underated for use on koi ponds.

Kind Regards,
Bill

[KoiCCAPW]

Koimania,

Where do you live?
I'm curious as to why you shut down your filters in the first place.

Unless you live in an area where the water freezes solid in winter, there's usually no need to turn off filters in winter.

Even where it does freeze, lots of people put a cover on the pond and keep the filters on, except maybe bypass the waterfall.

[Lee]

You are always stimulating more questions for us to ponder-

Let me ask this question then in reply:

Would you agree - that within the extended period wherein you suggest there is going to occur a slow down in the maturity of the pond due to the addition of the Lymnozme (and, I don't know if you're correct as I don't know enough about the gestation period of all of the various bacteria within my pond)- would you also not agree that during this period that for the pond owner who has added Lymnozyme he/she is also experiencing a reduction to their being subject to aeramonis and ulcers?

What I am basically asking is whether the trade off is a good trade. And, not a confirmed only negative?

Thus, is it not possible that during the potentially slower maturity of the pond owners filter and biological system due to the addition of the Lymnozyne - which you view as a negative, is it also a positive also simultaneously occuring because during this same period the pond owners fish are far less subject to ulcers?

Therefore, the question which you have me now asking is whether you would agree that whilst the introduction of the Lymnozyme may be retarding the ponds maturation - in the interim it is also safeguarding and protecting the pond owners fish (whilst the pond and filters are maturing?)

Thus, if Lymnozyme serves as a potential defense to a fish getting ulcers and aermonis whilst the pond matures - even if it serves oto retard the ponds over all maturity wouldn't you still agree that Lymnozyme as Tom Lansing suggests it is still a valued product to the koi keepers arsenal?

Hum?

Lee
GC.