I bought a house with a 1 acre pond last summer about this time. It's an old farm pond which now has had sub divisions built all around. The pond had nearly 100% coverage of FA when I bought it...last year I installed 3 bottom diffusers and this year added a Kasko Surface Aerator. I've been using bacteria and three "pond logs" http://www.siltstop.com/pondlogflyer.pdf Now, one year later, I am very unhappy to report, there's not a lick of difference. I have nearly 75% coverage of mixed duckweed/FA. As far as I can tell, the muck layer is pretty much the same as it was a year ago.

The bottom line, do a ton of homework as to what will be best for your issues, if you even have any and remember, before aeration became the "in thing" many lakes/ponds lived for years and years without a problem. After spending well over $5000 on this pond in a year and not seeing any results...am I ticked off ? You bet !

Steve,
I don't have personal experience with alot of FA but I believe the aeration will eventually reduce the muck layer if it is organic & not silt. It certainly will take more than one year I would think. I don't believe there is any positive proof that adding bacteria helps. To me adding bacteria is more of a try it because it can't hurt & may help thing.
Hopefully someone with knowledge on the subject will respond.

The duck weed will need to be controlled with sonar or I guess there is a new product called whitecap. I think that duckweed doesn't like the surface turbulence of a surface aerator but I don't think it will get rid of it. The FA can be controlled with cutrine plus easily enough as far as the muck on the bottom I have been aerating 3 yrs now on a 1/4 acre pond that was almost septic when we bought the place, the pond is surrounded by trees and the black muck on the bottom was about 12" deep. the dogs would jump in (yellow Labs) and come out half black and smelling terrible, I have just the other day noticed that they stir up a little gray bottom but don't come out with any stain or smell and it feels as though I have very little muck maybe this years leaf foliage which is outstanding as far as I am concerned. I did do the Bacteria last year so I would like to think the combo of a aerator and the bacteria made a difference. I think time will tell if you are doing everything right it will start showing. I had to treat my pond with Sonar to get rid of the WM and DW. Just to give you a idea I show you couple pictures

The black muck
This is before I treated with Sonar

aerator swell barely making a opening in the surface

month and a half later signs of the WM and DW are thinning

something like 60 days later and to date I haven't had a problem with WM or DW and little FA problems. I will spray a little cutrine plus will a slime develops on the surface

after it all cleared

At least what I've observed in my pond, aeration would be good for oxygen transfer in a high density fish population and preventing problems associated with fall turnover. In my opinion, the rest of the claims seen on advertisements are selling points with no validity.

My personal opinion on aeration reducing a muck layer is that it may not reduce it, but it will slow down the process that will make it thicker. Aerobic decomposition is always better than anerobic.

As far as adding bacteria I believe it's a waste of money. I too have yet to see an good studies that prove it is beneficial. There is bacteria already there. You just need to give it optimum conditions to multiply.

You also need to treat macrophytes and algae that are out of control to allow aeration and the bacteria that is there to do an optimum job. Otherwise they are just adding nutrients in a continuous cycle. I also have to wonder how many nutrients are being added on the lawns of the subdivision. I see some perfect golf club yards on local lakes and I know it's not natural.

Could be, but my pond location is in a low spot surrounded by hills and trees so I don't benefit from the ripple effect of wind moving across the surface to agitate the water. If your pond bottom has a lot of organic matter and no oxygen then the right bacteria required to eat the muck from the bottom will not be present. I really couldn't say for sure that the bacteria that I added was the only factor in eliminating the muck. I believe that the combination of getting rid of the surface obstruction WM and DW along with aeration which circulates the useless water from the bottom to the surface and back into the water column gets the bacteria on the bottom the elements needed to remove the muck on the bottom. Your right, for 100 years ponds haven't needed aeration to survive and my pond probably didn't need it when it was new some 40 years ago but old age has set in and it needs a pick me up. I am sure that I have left out important details and I am only relaying to you what I have noticed in restoring my pond, and am sure that more educated and wise members will be along to help out. I will say that I was very impatient at first and wanted immediate results but luckily I was distracted with other project that needed my attention and was happy to see that things were working out for me 3 years later with the pond.

Hang in there SK63. You've got a TON of nutrients in that pond. It's going to take a while for things to change for the better.

Duck Weed is also killed by Diquat.

Bing

SK, as weissguy said, be patient. I am a little surprised that you haven't seen even a general improvement over a year but every pond is different. The chemistry of the pond water has a huge effect on you ability to treat it with aeration, bacteria or anything else for that matter. For instance, if your pH is greater than 8.5, you're going to have a hard time controlling algae with anything but algaecides. Bacteria have specific requirements if they are to thrive including pH, water temp., and sources of nutrients, carbon, and trace elements to name a few.

Do the homes in your watershed have any stake in the pond? If so you might consider purchasing and distributing copies of the newsletter titled "Your Lake and You" which I believe is available in the PondBoss store on this website. It basically talks about urban watershed management as a tool for keeping your lake healthy. Watershed management sounds like it is going to play a big part in achieving your goals. I hand these out to our HOA customers all the time and they love'em.

In response to documentation on the efficacy of bacterial supplements in water treament...it is well documented and has been in use at least since 1914 when the Activated Sludge process of wastewater treatment was invented. Since the 1940's nearly every large scale municipal wastewater treatment system in the developed world uses this system of "bacterial seeding" to treat waste. There is also the Aerated Facultative Lagoon process which may or may not incorporate the injection of "new" bacteria into the waste stream rather than recycled sludge. These systems can be virtually sludgeless for 20 - 30 years.

There are some differences in the application. Wastewater is a flow through system that constantly recieves large amounts of waste whereas a pond or lake is sequestered and typically receives waste relatively slowly. But the flow through process can be replicated in your pond by way of occasionally stirring your muck in order to expose burried organic wastes so that they can be oxidized. WARNING: this will stink and could potentially cause other temporary water quality issues including a drop in DO! We usually do a combination of stirring and bacterial injection but I think that one of the forum members (Bill Cody?) did an experiment where he continually stirred sediments in one jar (no bacteria) and poured bacteria in another jar without stirring and found that the stirred jar without bacterial supplements consumed more sediment than that with bacteria and no stirring. I have never tried to stir a pond without injecting bacteria so I can't really comment on whether that works or not. What I can tell you is that we typically see 1" of organic sludge removal per week when water temps are above 50 F, DO at 3 PPM or higher and pH between 6.5 - 8.5. I have also seen drastic improvements in water clarity with bacteria. We have documentation but I don't think that I can share without breaking at least a few rules of the forum.

Sorry to ramble, I just love those little critters.

Awsome post WaterWizard...While reading from the top of this topic I was formulating my response until I read yours. You said everything I wanted to say.

Keep in mind though that unchecked and left alone, a pond's whole goal in life is to become a grassy meadow. It will continue to fill with muck due to anoxic conditions on the bottom and eventually be shallow enough that terrestrial plants will begin to grow.

We as pond people are trying to slow down and even as WaterWizard has posted, reverse this process so we can have a clean healthy pond.

Your pond is like someone smoking for 40 years. The lungs are not going to clear over one year. This will be a multi year project.

I would suggest making a "Sluge Judge" by purchasing some acrylic 3/4" pipe. To connect sections, use a pvc coupler. At the top add a 3/4" ball check valve. Graduate the bottom pipe using a tape measure.

Push the pipe down into the muck and pull up. The check valve will hold the water and the ooze along with the more solid muck.
This will allow you to measure the muck reduction as you are adding bacteria.

A cheap xray if you may.

Keep us posted.

Cool! I wish I had made one of those when I first started my pond restore. I had a visual aid but it involved a yellow lab, well half yellow half black! I can atleast get one going now though. Thanks for the tip.

With all due respect Water Wizard (and I mean that as you probably know a lot more on this subject than I do) sewage treatment plants are not ponds. You could argue they are extreme examples of sludge in a pond, but I see lots of differences. I see a lot more going on in sewage treatment plant than just adding bacteria and aeration. To me this is like comparing apples to oranges. I've also seen some "natural" lagoons for sewage treatment fail miserably, most notably in my area.

I still have yet to see any good hard data on the benefits of bacteria in a pond. Lots of claims but no scientific data to sink my teeth in. If it is so effective and proven there should be a plethora of data out there.

Bacterial additions can have benefits to ponds but sometimes those benefits are not real noticable. The amount or degree of benefit depends of the pre-existing conditions of the pond. As Cecil mentioned, not a lot of published peer reviewed scientific studies have been done on the benefits of adding bacterial, microbial and enzyme formulations to ponds. Sewage waste lagoons are not typical ponds and have a lot of differences from ponds. Even the sewage people and bacteria supply usually don't consider their lagoons true ponds.

Of course there are differences between wastewater and ponds. I tried to point out the major one being flow dynamics. There are also obvious differences between a pond vs. sludge and water in a jar. But I think there is something to be learned from both as the biochemical process' responsible for digesting the sludge are essentially the same in all three scenarios.

There are plenty of aerated facultative lagoons that stock fish in the final treatment cell. The purpose of the fish is to eat the bacteria and invertebrates that have fed on the bacteria therefore converting the wastes into fishy biomass. In this way and others, wastewater treatment can be similar to a pond. The fish are then harvested for several different uses.

I tried to find documentation online and you are all correct, there is not much out there aside from information on wastewater. I actually went 10 pages deep on a couple of google searches and found nothing on ponds. Perhaps this is because the stakes are a lot higher in a wastewater treatment plant than a private "recreational" pond. What would drive a peer reviewed paper on a topic that impacts so few people? Just a thought...
Anyone out there looking for a masters thesis topic?

BC, was it you who did that jar test?

"Keep in mind though that unchecked and left alone, a pond's whole goal in life is to become a grassy meadow."

This just crystalized for me in an instant the fact we are all making efforts to reverse or reengineer nature with pond management...thus various issues are bound to arise considering the nature of the work we're doing. Cary, this was a very illuminating point I personally consistently forget in my frustrations trying to tame or redirect the natural processes of maturation of my ponds.

I have yet to hear of an unsatisfied aerator customer on the forum until today. I always considered it a magic arrow for issues stated above. This gives me moment to pause...I'm about to throw $6k at a Vertex Air 7 and perhaps I need to rethink things....

Due to reasons most know, My pond has been left unattended for the last 8 months. My watershed is entirely hardwood forest with all oak and hickory. I get MANY tons of leaves in my pond and until this year, the aeration system had been run 24/7 till last November with ZERO muck buil-up from 5+ years of decaying leaves. I didn't want to leave the aeration on unattended and when I saw my pong in mid-July there were 6 inches of leaves rotting in the shallows and few YOY to be found. With aeration, I never had anything other than fresh leaf debris in the shallows.

Two years ago we had some work done on the dam and other parts. The builder said it would need to dry at least 6 weeks before he could get into the bottom areas----due to aeration keeping the muck to nil, he was working 3 days after draining.

Some of the neatest ecosystems are natural ponds that have slowly filled in over time. Bogs and mashes have some of the most unique and diverse plant life around. However, not many forum members want to spend thousands of dollars to have their pond turn into a bog.

Rainman, great post. Its so hard to describe an intangeble concept like this unless you actually drain the pond to see the results.

Teehjaeh57, aeration will help, not hender regardless of your goals and regardless of the product you are using. All I suggest is that you make sure it is sized properly to meet your goals.

Thanks Cary/Rex/et al - I think after learning more about the scenario here I have my confidence restored - appreciate the solid examples of the benefit of aeration provided here.

Just for the record i was not skeptical about the benefits of areation. I have diffusers in all my ponds. If you go back and look at my post I was commenting on all the lofty claims of adding bacteria when there is not a lot of good data to back them up.

Just for the record, once you start looking there are lots of peer reviewed scientific articles about topics that interest only a few esoteric people. Actually one could say that MOST scientific articles in journals are only of interest to a select group and often that group is pretty small.

But Bill if there is data on the benefits of adding bacteria, regardless of how esoteric, why can't those that make the lofty claims about adding the bacteria produce them? Wouldn't it make sales more likely?

I haven't commented on this thread as it has been well covered by some of the other experts. I do want to comment on what Bill and Cecil have brought up regarding the bacteria products on the market for ponds and lack of scientific data to support the claims made by those who sell and use them. These products are popular and there is a lot of money to be made by selling them~ I have dealers who use certain types and blends and swear by the results they achieve. I think just about every aeration manufacture has jumped on the wagon, but with out real factual data we just can't bring our company to market these products. I'm not saying they don't work ~ but how can you make recomendations with out knowing if they work? We have recently hired a PHD in limnology to conduct research that can be judged by peers, published, and presented. We hope to shine some light into this subject as well as to gain a better understanding into the effects of aeration on ponds and their dynamic ecosystems. Stay tuned...

Bacteria - sounds to me like the stuff they try to sell to put in a septic tank

All the old timers in my area say just throw a dead cat in the tank to get the bacteria started.

I'm not kidding....

You should all be happy to know that "Analysis and case studies of enzymes and bacteria used to manage sediment, algae, and weeds" is a proposed topic for the upcoming NALMS symposium in October. Hopefully there there will be some light shed on this topic. Sue, there is a call for papers for this symposium. Perhaps you could submit your study. See the following link:

http://www.nalms.org/pdf/2009%20Symposium%20Call%20for%20Papers,%2002.23.09.pdf

Also, I have put in an inquiry with the environmental engineering department at our local college (and my alma mater) Cal Poly San Luis Obispo to see if they have any students that would be interested in taking on such a study as a sr. project or masters thesis. I offered to provide aeration, bacteria, sludge judge, etc... and even the boat to any student interested. We'll see if anyone bites on this offer.

We're a while off from submiting research, but will definatly be interested in hearing the talk at NALMS. Thanks for the heads-up!

Oh, one more thing. There are plenty of case studies conducted by the companies that make and sell the bacteria. And yes Cecil this is done specifically to boost sales. However, I think the operative words in this discussion are "peer revised" as I get the feeling that some of the more skeptical people out there are not going to take the word of the people that make and sell the stuff.

This is why this forum is so good... People like Sue, The Wizard and Cary who although they have companies and sell products IMO are good honest people who are trying to help people out while also making a living. No trying to sell people stuff just to make a buck. Top notch!

Agreed

Well I'm surprised to see there are case studies but if you say so I believe you. I've got several pond supplier catalogs and not one offers a case study. Not doubting you at all but I just haven't seen one.

That said I look forward to the impending research.

Yeah, that oughta do it.

I agree with Sue. Lots of claims but very little scientific data.

Update on my inquiry with Cal Poly SLO: This morning I received a phone call from a professor in the Environmental Engineering Dept. regarding my inquiry about a study on sludge digestion via bacteria. He expressed a lot of excitement about the project as he is very involved in studying the application of bacteria to break down specific pollutants such as MTBE's at oil contamination sites among others. He says he has several grad students that would be interested in this project. I will be meeting with him next week to discuss more details of the project and of course funding.

I encourage anyone who is interested in this topic to provide input on how we can make this study as useful and credible as possible.

A few things that we discussed this morning:

1. Testing will take place in jars rather than ponds in order to isolate the variables.

2. Sludge samples will be taken from several locations throughout a pond known to receive "natural" runoff such as leaf litter and perhaps urban runoff as well. Sludge samples will be thuroughly mixed into one composit sample to be tested.

3. Relative reduction of sediments will be based on weight (Total Solids vs. Total Volatile Solids) rather than volume since the biproduct of bacterial digestion can produce a very light & fluffy floc that tends to settle on the surface of the thicker sludge.

4. Bacteria will be provided different environments such as aerated vs. unaerated, bacteria vs. no bacteria, stirring vs. no stirring, different temperatures & pH etc...

5. Different brands of bacteria will be used

I'm open to suggestions so please share your thoughts with me.

Richard, I highly recommend that you contact Bill Cody for his input, I think that he can give you some feedback regarding this study.

Species, strains of bacteria and specific enzymes should be documented to indicate if the bacteria are different that those already naturally present in most water bodies. The biggest unknown to date is which bacterial strains are used in each product (truth of advertising). How does adding bateria species that are already present enhance the existing bacterial community? Pickle Jar ecology is not the real pond world, but it is a start. IMO one can often easily achieve desired results in controlled jar or micro-mesocosm studies.

I may have missed something here but the OP said he has 3 bottom diffusers, what kind of diffusers? Some types of diffusers aren't very effective and the system may not be matched to his size pond.

My experience with adding bacteria is that it does work in the shallows and it's the only thing you can do to reduce muck if you don't have an aerator. Without an aerator you have to add bacteria at regular intervals, not just once. When I first started adding bacteria (prior to getting an aerator) there was an obvious change in the color of the pond bottom after only one month. My dogs were also much cleaner after swimming. After one entire summer of using bacteria the pond bottom in the shallows looked like it did when it was first dug.

This is my first summer with an aerator and I only added bacteria at start up because I had some left over. It's my understanding that you don't need to add bacteria if you aerate and I believe that to be true. My pond is much clearer now without adding bacteria and I can see more of the (clean) pond bottom.

My unscientific conclusion based on observation is that bacteria alone does work (at least in the shallows) but aeration alone is superior for cleaning the pond bottom

Thanks for the input JHAP and BC. Indeed the strains and communities of bacteria will be very important to determine both in the supplements and the sludge sample. The idea of doing the testing in jars was to isolate the variables rather than to achieve a desired result. It's tough if not futile to isolate variables in a pond, but again I'm open to suggestion if anyone has some ideas. And, to be honest we don't have a desired result, we just want to see the results and share them with the lake/pond management community regardless of the outcome of the testing. Although I am already a believer, I would gladly be humbled to learn that the truth is other than what I believe it to be.

As an interesting side note, the professor I've been speaking with has noticed that in his bioremediation projects for oil contamination, some sites have existing bacteria in the soil that readily break down the pollutants. Adding bacteria to these sites does not appear to enhance or speed up the breakdown. Other sites do not have the same community or quantities of naturally occuring bacteria. These are the sites that are experiencing enhanced breakdown with bioremediation. Maybe not all ponds have a "healthy" community of naturally occuring bacteria. Of course, if this is true, the next questions are why aren't they there and will the store bought bacteria be able to thrive there.

In a side discussion at the last Pond Boss conference several of us discussed the possibility of a test similar to what has been discussed.

The plan we formulated would have been to gather a certain quantity of muck, mix it throughly and weigh and divide into as many equal parts as you had bacteria, etc. to test.

Then place the muck in five gallon containers, add water and bacteria/enzymes, etc. and let set outside for some time. We discussed treating each container the same, stiring so often, etc.


I believe we felt it would be ideal to add bacteria, etc. based on cost, so the same $x.xx of material in each test bucket.

Finally drain and weigh each container of remaining sediment and determine which had lost the most weight. I think this is approximately what is being presented here, except we thought putting it in five gallon "pickle" buckets would allow you to test a larger sample.

Bing

Hey everyone. It's been a while since I've been here. Sue's kept me pretty busy this summer. In the past I've had abundant opportunities to work with both marine and freshwater bacteria concentrates as they apply to very large, enclosed systems (public aquaria type settings). What I can tell you is that the bacteria that I used significantly reduced the amount of nitrogen, and muck buildup in a good portion of the filtration.

However, I need to qualify that by saying that these systems, just as any natural ecosystem, have a natural carrying capacity for every trophic level in it. The bacteria we used may or may not have been the same species as what was already in the system (I didn't perform any research on the topic, just noticed and can report on the results). The reason for adding the bacteria was also different in these circumstances. It was generally used for "quick start-up" or emergency "dangerous nitrogen level" situations. These situations would generally not apply to the pond community. They were added to temporarily BOOST the nitrification and detoxify the water, in order to save the fish. A side effect was the reduction of muck that had built up in well seasoned systems.

I mentioned the term carrying capacity earlier. Let me elaborate. Due to the fact that even a large pond is a relatively closed system, it will have carrying capacities (maximum sustainable numbers) for all of the species it contains. This includes everything down to the bacterial level also, and is influenced greatly by physical circumstances that put limits on what can survive, and in what numbers. A natural checks and balance system.

Bacteria reproduce very quickly. Their life cycle is generally very short. Most new pond owners are not in such a hurry to get things going that they have the need for "jump starting" the pond when it will only help them by a matter of a few weeks. In the same respect, most ponds will not experience a catastrophic nitrogen spike overnight (unless SIGNIFICANTLY OVERSTOCKED ALL AT ONCE).

The nice "side effect" that seems to happen, at least in my experience, is that there is a slight muck reduction by using the type of bacteria that I have, in the past. I'm not sure if these are the same species of bacteria that are available for the pond scenario, but it would stand to reason that they would help in that respect, to some degree. Further research is definitely warranted in order to gain quantitative data.

To address Loretta, the reason that your bacteria worked in the shallows (without aeration) is because these bacteria are aerobic, and require certain levels of oxygen to survive. Your pond is most likely stratified to some degree, preventing decent oxygen levels in the deeper areas, and therefore preventing the muck reducing bacteria from being able to reach the muck in the deeper areas. This is why aeration helps. Properly sized aeration will circulate the water from top to bottom, bringing the oxygen levels in the deeper areas up to sustainable levels for the bacteria to survive and start breaking down the muck.

Once the pond is de-stratified, the natural bacteria of any pond will quickly reproduce and begin to break down your muck for you. However, depending on other parameters of your pond, "quickly" can be a few months to a few years. Bacteria are very pH and temperature sensitive, and significantly slow down or stop when exposed to parameters that are outside their "norm".

The reason people have to keep adding bacteria, as you mentioned, is most likely due to the fact that their pond is already at the carrying capacity for that type of bacteria, and after some time, start reducing in numbers again, in order to get back to the natural maximum sustainable number for that species.

While I personally don't disagree that the addition of bacteria can help, I question the generally huge expense associated with it since a pond with decent circulation and oxygen levels to the bottom should be able to maintain a healthy population of muck reducing bacteria on its own. But as I said, I do think that more research is CERTAINLY warranted.

Hope this sheds a little light on the subject.

This would tell you the most cost effective material but it wouldn't tell you the most effective bacteria. To determine the most effective bacteria you would have to determine what the organism concentration or count is. Probiotics list this information on their product label but pond bacteria does not. Contacting the manufacturer may be an option if determining the best bacteria is your goal but then again any of the information that you obtain from your samples will only be applicable to your particular water sample and it's conditions (pH etc.)

I wouldn't stir the samples at all. If someone is going to aerate then they won't need to add bacteria.

JMO

More bacterial food for thought.

One thing that has not been mentioned, or if it was, I missed it. IME, aerobic bacteria constantly need a fresh substrate to grow on. When even a colony of aerobic bacteria die on decaying matter, well oxygenated water is prevented from reaching the detritus, including most anarobic bacteria. Until a fish or wind and wave action disturb the dead colony and break the "seal" to allow fresh growth, little more bacterial digestion occurs.

In my heavily stocked aquariums, when ammonia levels rise, I merely disturb the dead bacterial film on my bio-filters and the fresh bacterial growth quickly reduces the levels (quickly = within 3-5 hours). My sand filter, where the substrate is continually disturbed has never had a slow increase in ammonia. I often add 10-15 pounds of fish at a time in this 150 gallon tank. The resulting spike in ammonia and nitrates rarely lasts more than a day before levels are brought back to zero. 18 pounds of fish and nearly a half pound of food per day is pretty much the upper limit for control in this tank as ammonia will not drop below 2ppm at this density.

Good post Doug,

I called several bacteria companies including one that I attended a training class with in Canada. They all stated that if one were to provide samples of both water and substrate (with muck) that they could engineer bacteria to match or (supplement) what is missing. Of course this is custom blending bacteria for every case and will be much more expensive.

I recall a project that had an old saw mill along the lake bank and train tracks that led to the middle of the lake. Every week the mill would send a train car full of saw dust and dump it in the lake. This was about 60 years ago.

Now the residents wanted to reduce the muck levels and we sent a bottom sample to the bacteria company to break down what the muck was composed of (wood pulp) and a bacteria was custom blended to work on these areas. Adding the bacteria with aeration was the only way this would work since a definate thermocline was present and oxygen level were below 1 mg/l

During my stint at Sea World, we used to add "donar" gravel from already established aquariums to jump start the bacteria cycle. I agree with Doug in that once the optimum carrying capacity has reached the bacteria will stop reproducing and the next strain of bacteria will beging to work. Case in point the cycle an aquarium during start up...fish are introduced and the ammonia builds up. The first strain of bacteria brings the ammonia down. Next Nitrites begin to spike. The next strain of bacteria take care of the Nitrites. Finally the Nitrates begin to rise which is not too dangerous for the fish as the other two and can be lowered by simple water exchanges (in a pond, rain and evaporation).

This topic should be one of those post that are archived. This has been a great conversation between everyone!

This makes a lot of sense to me and seems to tie into Bill Cody's presentation at Pond Con 2. IIRC what Commander Cody said, in his specific experiment, stirring the sediment had more effect than adding bacteria and not stirring.




This also makes a lot of sense to me, an engineered bacteria to deal with a specific type of pond muck.

So a little help for a complete amateur, I understand where aeration will both destratify a pond and oxygenate the water, and if designed and implemented correctly will oxygenate water that is at the bottom of the pond. So my questions are:

1. Will aeration alone stir up the muck sufficiently to expose "new" muck to bacteria?

2. It seems to me that unless you added something artificial to a pond (like the saw dust that Cary mentioned) that bacteria that would eat the muck that was in a particular pond would be introduced naturally. I'm not explaining this very well (not enough coffee yet) but here's what I'm thinking....a decaying leaf is on the ground, it must be covered with the bacteria that helps it to decompose, it gets blown into the pond and sinks, the bacteria, if provided oxygen, would now be in the pond, correct? Or are the bacteria that grow in ponds completely different that the bacteria that decomposes the leaves on the ground?

In my non-scientific way of thinking, an occasional stirring of the bottom (I don't have a clue how this would be done on a larger BOW) would have as much or more impact than adding more bacteria.

But I'm not a science guy, so it is very likely that I don't even know the correct questions to ask. Fortunately, I have no aversion to asking stupid questions.

Interesting stuff Carey. It's amazing what was acceptable years ago, isn't it?

Custom "blended" bacterial slurries sound extremely expensive, but I don't have any frame of reference for that.

Through my testing in the lab here in Florida, I haven't run across too many situations that have nitrogen problems, unless there's been a spill of some sort or as a result of a massive fish kill caused by something else (oxygen levels usually). My point was actually that it was a neat "side effect" that added nitrifying bacteria either also worked on the muck, or altered the situation enough for another strain to work on it.

As for water changes, ponds don't really get true water changes unless they are drained and refilled, or are fed by some source and have a spillway. All rain and evaporation will do is dilute and then concentrate the waste products in the pond. Evaporation is only water vapor, not the waste products. They stay in the pond as the water evaporates (kind of like boiling salt water and ending up with salt in the bottom of the pot). What you need in order to do a true water change is a way to physically remove the waste products as well, and then bring in clean water. But most ponds have more than enough bio-filtration naturally and would never need a water change.

Ok, that is what I get for posting a comment at 0500 in the morning! I was typing without thinking it through. Yes, I mis-typed when I said that ponds are achieving water changes by evaporation...that is grammer school science class. Concentration of items in the water increases as the water is evaproated and is diluted when a rain event occurs.

After looking through my notes from that bacteria seminar I attended and speaking with our bacteria supplier here is what I have:

Bacterial/Enzyme products improve water quality by increasing the biological diversity and/or activity in the water body. As I mentioned earlier, special microbial cultures are generated for specific applications. (Saw Dust wood pulp)

The select bacteria produce enzymes to break down organic material into water soluble nutrients. The bacteria then digest the released nutrients, multiply and produce more enzymes to continue cleaning the entire system. A large biological mass develops which has the capacity to digest large amounts of organic waste. This mass will only be as large as the water body allows like Doug said earlier. The digestion process of the microorganisms ultimately results in the production of harmless carbon dioxide and water.

The type of enzyme produced by the bacteria is dependent on the organic waste that it will break down:

1. Protease enzymes digest proteins;
2. Amylase enzymes digest starches;
3. Lipase enzymes break down fats, oils and grease;
4. and Cellulase enzymes digest paper and cellulosic fibers.

Because bacteria and enzymes work together in the digestion process, the selected blend of the two is what is very important. The enzymes jump-start the digestion, while the chosen strains of bacteria produce more of the specific enzymes necessary to digest the particular type of organic waste in the system. **Can't put the cart before the horse.**


The idea of seeding an organic system with microorganisms having specific characteristics is well established for industries of fermentation. These areas include processes for the manufacture of antibiotics, cheese (both aged and cottage type), yogurt, wine, beer and even pesticides. I also mentioned Aquariums earlier today.

Bioaugmentation is the process of inoculating specific microflora into a given environment to enhance certain biochemical processes or to jump start desirable changes in that environment.

Bioaugmentation that is found commonly in wastewater plants usually involves a specific microbial product added at levels ranging from 2.0 to 8.0 parts per million (mg/l) times influent volume. Of course the dosage depends upon the type of waste to be treated, environmental parameters of the water, how long the water stays in the system and design of the system.

Just like in the wastewater pond above, the environmental parameters, or factors affecting the performance of the microbes, are essential to the success of the product in normal fish and detention ponds. The environmental parameters of the system include:

1. pH,
2. temperature,
3. dissolved oxygen (DO),
4. biochemical oxygen demand (BOD),
5. chemical oxygen demand (COD),
6. total suspended solids (TSS),
7. carbon,
8. nitrogen,
9. phosphorous ratio (C:N:P)
10. detention time.

These microbes require neutral pH, warm temperature, plenty of oxygen, appropriate nutrients, and time to degrade the organics.

Because this information is almost never attained, and the cost of a custom blend of bacteria and enzymes would be so large that no one would ever purchase it, the growers of bacteria had to make generalized assumptions on the majority of pond conditions found and create a blend that will work in most applications. That being said, microbe bioaugmentation is just another tool in the preverbial "Aquatic Tool Box".

Suggestion: while researching for products, compare them on their bacteria count (aerobic, anaerobic, facultative and total plate count), type of enzymes present and cost per application.

The microrganism within a system are constantly undergoing changes in both numbers and types of microorganisms represented in the population. These changes are affected by environmental influences such as temperature, sources of carbon or nitrogen waste, heavy metal concentration as well as other toxic substances, dissolved oxygen levels, and many other factors.


Given a sufficient length of retention time in ponds proper conditions for oxidation of the waste, bioaugmentation can be used as another tool to increase the efficiency and reliability of treatment.

Ok, I spent way too long on this with binders and notes spread all over my desk...time to get back to work. Thank you everyone for reading this over and now go and get yourself some yogurt, cheese and have some fried murell mushrooms...you'll have your three main food groups...bacteria, mold and fungus.

Great posts Cary and Doug and great informative dialogue on everyone's part. We can all learn from eachothers experiences. Keep sharing!

I have three 1/3 HP Vertex "AirStations" and a 1/2 HP Kasco surface aerator. Pond size is a little over 1 acre. Deepest is around 9 Ft., Avg is around 4-5 Ft.

Dang Steve! you might want to have Sue Cruz map your pond from an aerial shot. Yo may have a little too much water movement. IIRC, that can cause some problems too for some species.

BTW, are you going to make the conference?

Hey Rex
Doesn't look good for the conference, I'm working too much
As far as the movement, the surface agitator causes some apparent movement but nothing too crazy, more so within about 10 ft of it. It's not enough to drift my bobber and obviously not enough to curb my duckweed. I look at the small boils from the bottom aeration and always think, "Is that really doing anything ?"

Ps. I saw your post on the Tilap forage and the wheels started turning again. I've caught some bass in the 12-14" range which looked skinny to me. I caught a 5 pounder which my neigbor decided to transfer from the big lake in the early summer (without my knowledge), he was by no means, skinny; The boy seems to be eating quite well.

rainman this is not too much water movement with the shallow depths. Steve I know your system was desigend well by Shaun and while it is a huge benefit as you know it does not fix all issues. Also to fix nutrient issues might take longer than it has. I still think the best course of action is the use of flouridone.

Yeah, I know we talked about that and I agree but it's just the $$ and everytime it rains, I have water flowing out the emerg spillway. This pond would never hold water for the time they discuss (30 days+) using flouridone except under a drought. I did find some Sonar at a local farm supply and happened to have some money that week, figured what the heck so I put 24 Oz. in as that's all I could afford; within several days it rained heavily, I'm sure it washed out plus that was less than suggested anyway. Nice waste of $400 or whatever it was.

I once used Sonar at 1/2 strength and it didn't work. Hopefully you got enough of it in there.

ouch yes that was a waste. If me I would lower pond level and treat next spring with the right amount.

I would have to lower it dramatically for it to work, I get an unbelievable amount of water in to this pond during a rain. I did have it lowered for this stunt I tried, it was as low as I've ever seen it....didn't matter one bit, filled back up in about 2 hours. This pond has become nothing more than a storm water retention pond; but naturally the city doesn't think so. Actually they do think so; but don't care.