Bacteria question

[KoiCop]

There are two conversations on this thread about two different kinds of bacteria that perform two different functions.

Lymnozyme and Koizyme have bacteria which greatly reduce aeromonas and psuedomonas bacteria CFU's in the pond via competitive exclusion, which theoretically reduces the chance of one's koi developing ulcers, etc.

The 'other' kind of bacteria being discussed here are the heterotrophic bacteria added to the pond to help jump start filters and to aid in converting ammonia, nitrite, etc.

Apples and oranges, folks.

[Lee]

Originally Posted by KoiCop

There are two conversations on this thread about two different kinds of bacteria that perform two different functions.

Lymnozyme and Koizyme have bacteria which greatly reduce aeromonas and psuedomonas bacteria CFU's in the pond via competitive exclusion, which theoretically reduces the chance of one's koi developing ulcers, etc.

The 'other' kind of bacteria being discussed here are the heterotrophic bacteria added to the pond to help jump start filters and to aid in converting ammonia, nitrite, etc.

Apples and oranges, folks.

Of course. And, if you weren't the koi cop, everyone would be driving the wrong way down the same street...

[MikeM]

... And, I'll add that there is a third type: bacteria sold in bottles or dry packs for sludge reduction.

The bacteria sold to seed nitrification have not been established in actual practice to speed the initial "cycling" of a pond/filter.

The Lymnozyme/Koizyme bacteria reportedly do work in reducing the aeromonas/pseudomonas population, although there is debate whether the competitive exclusion is sufficiently complete to actually prevent an infection.

The bacteria for sludge reduction are effective and proven in "industrial" application, such as sewage reduction. These are frequently referred to as a "band-aid" (a label popularized by JR on NI threads a few years ago), which should be avoided by investing in a proper pond system.


...I used Lymnozyme as a preventative back when it was the high-hyped product of the day. Pure surrender to the hype. (Which reminds me, there is a fourth of a bottle in the fridge. Been there 5 or more years... so long my wife doesn't even notice it any more. I need to toss it.)

...I've never used nitrifiers in a bottle.

...I won some sludge remover in a koi show raffle last November. I flush filter lines/drain lines at least weekly and the amount of gunk always makes an impression. It has bothered me that there is no practical way to flush the line to the Bakki Shower. So, I used the sludge remover at about 25% the label dosage. Within 48 hours there was a huge increase in 'stuff' settling out in the vortex and in the Nexus units. The EAzy units came closer to clogging than ever before. The mats in the Savio skimmers needed cleaning for three (I think) days in a row. Most of the 'gunk' was algae...?!?... totally unexpected. Why the carpet algae shed filaments is a mystery to me, but there they were. After a week, things were back to normal, except there was somewhat less algae debris than normal. There was never a detectable change in nitrate production (no increase; no reduction) [and never detectable ammonia or nitrite]. There was no change in fish behavior. I have no idea if the filter & drain lines were cleaner afterward than before. I'm glad I did not use it per the label dosage. I don't think I'll use it again.

[koiczar]

I knew of a fellow club member who had tried using the Lymnozine(sp) several years ago. He went so far as to send before and after samples of his water to a lab to verify the aeromonas/Psuedomonas counts. Before, there was a count level of between 300-350 and after the count was reduced to 25-50. He was very excited about this fact that the product did what it claimed. About a month after he began using the product, I paid him a visit. He has a beautiful pond and his filter system is double what he needs. There are close to 60 air stones in his cartridged Japanese mat bio filter alone. Very low stocking density and some very nice fish. As we were standing pondside, I happened to be looking at a Doistu Sanke. Low and behold, what do I see? An ulcer on the side near the underside of this fish. As he is an older gentleman, I figured his sight wasn't as clear as mine and I don't see how he could have missed it. The long and the short of this story is, the product DOES reduce the Aeromonas/Psuedomonas counts in the pond, but did it protect the fish - NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MikeM

Interesting observation about using (I assume microbelift) and the results about the algae. When I had used it before, I never had that happen, or maybe, now that I'm older I can't see as well as I did when I spotted the guys ulcerated koi - LOL!!

Mike

[aquitori]

After my water left on accident a couple of years back, I used one product and that was "Bac-T"....It is a good product for the first month after the accident, but havent used it since. It took my pond 2 years to get it back to form and the key to it was patience.

[Lee]

Hi Mike,

As regards the ulcer on the fish which you viewed.

The information you provided does not detail the frequency of the pond owners use of the subject product?

Therefore, your pond owner friend may not have been aware that the inventor of Lymnozyme, Jim Keeton, recommends in Tom Lansing's letter that the product remains effective only four days.

Thus, if the pond owner did not use the Lymnozyme with the frequency required of the product it would clearly not have served the expected purpose.

As we know, with any preventative medicine (not that this is a medicine) it's value can only be effective if the directions are meticulously followed.

Therefore, the pond owner may only have used Lymnozyme once a month or even less....And, the period during when he failed to use it, the ponds existant aermonis and/or bacteria found and secured entry and caused the ulcer?

Of course, Mike, I doubt you know the answer to this proposition. However, it is a possibility, isn't it?

Thus, your having told your own personal experience of the ulcered fish may in reality have no basis in fact to the relationship of the effectivness of Lymnozyme?

I ask, ths seriously, as I wonder whether we can find someone who does religiously use Lymnozyme...And, whether it does in fact, work as published?

With my sincerest respects,

Your pal ~

Lee
Grand Cayman

[Koiamania]

It was Microbe Lift/PL. So my pond is total 3000gal, about 2500 12*9 by 3.5ft deep, 500gal empty pond that flows into larger, 75 gallon bog and rolling water fall. Pondmaster 4000 with UV and pump that pumps about 3800gal/hr. I unhooked filter due to freezing but kept pump flowing. Now everything is back on. I emptied filter but did not rinse as to leave bacteria on the media when brought inside. I also have a 10 gallon bio filter barrel.

[l113892]

In statistics, such as Six Sigma tools, we refer to the Ys and Xs. Ys are the outcomes- such as an ulcer. Xs are the inputs, such as water variables that can be measured and are believed to contribute to the outcome; in this case, an ulcer. The CFU count would be an X in that the CFU count can contribute to the resulting ulcer and it is measurable- very important in statistics. Some proposed variables are not measurable, therefore of not much value. So without knowing the formula to predict an ulcer, we cannot know the impact the various Xs have on the outcome- an ulcer. But at least the CFUs are measurable and a product such as Lymnozyme can be proven to reduce CFU counts. Other snake oils are not measurable and therefore, by definition, of not much value.

[MCA]

I would leave the bottled bacteria for those that need something to chase away a routine purple cloud impact.

[MikeM]

Lee: Koiczar is the Mike who posted that observation. The quoting from my post left off the "quotes", so kind of confusing.