Has adding bacteria to pond ever been proven beneficial by independent study. I know the manufactures say it is and gives examples, but has and university or such ever studied it?

I tend to think that all that is already in a well aerated pond and adding more is like tossing one shovel on a two ton pile.

There are lots of OP's on this subject. Been using some for 3 years now and it's working for me. Course I have air also. Will air alone reduce your muck in your pond sure all be it at a slower rate I think but it will still do it. Now with the right bacteria I believe this process is speeded up to some degree.

I now have spots in my pond that I walk and I am on about an inch of muck. When I first bought the place same area had to have at least 10 inches.

Just the other day I was pushing myself out in the boat using an oar and I went to shove it in the ground to push off and all I hit was solid rock! No muck at all. I bet have have lost about 9 inches maybe more since I started this 3 years ago. This is my 4th year and I have already added one bag. I use 2 bags a year of a certain product that's worked for me. I think the key to it is the combination air and introducting new bacteria in the water that gets this process jump started.

Like I said lot of OP's on this, but I will be honest here. I started my bacteria treatments about the same time as I started air in my pond. So I can't sit here and tell you 100 percent that I would have lost as much muck as I have if I was only using air? Cause I wasn't. I do know all the products say to use it with air to get the best result and it has worked in my case.

RC

Wouldn't that be great to know? (great report by the way!)

I've considered adding beneficial bacteria since adding air shortly after I moved in (3-2012) but haven't bitten the bullet due to the unknown. And as I agree that aeration will (or may) reduce or eliminate "muck" over time, it's hard to imagine being able to compare one pond to the next due to so many variables, i.e., age of pond, habitat, wind/wave action, annual introduction of additional "muck" (leaves), etc.

The first 3-5' out from my shorelines seem to be just as mucky (and stinky) as they were 2 years ago, but that's not to say a little further out where the BOW may be more actively "turning" that I haven't lost some and it's improving. The next time I'm out in the boat I'll bring along a "prod" to see if it's improved.

But, RC51 how encouraging that has to be for you to hit solid rock where your oar was (before) hitting thick muck!

So, maybe I'm at a good point of going on year 3 to add bacteria and see what kind of change (if any) occurs over the NEXT 2 years?

(RC51, PM sent)

I have also just started adding cultured bacteria to my 1-7/8 acre pond last month to treat a 90% surface takeover of FA.

I treated the pond with 6 lbs and 12 days later returned to the pond and there was no FA anywhere in the pond.

Muck wise, the original pond was just less than an acre and I would say about 40 years old. The pond was surrounded by trees for most of those years so my muck level was right at 3' deep. I know when the pond was almost dry I ran my 4 wheeler into the shallow end and had to use my wench to get me out.....

I believe I will start taking measurements each month in multiple areas and see exactly what is taking place.

Does anyone else had any experience using bacteria? Success? Failure?

Couppe

Is the reduction in FA a side effect of the muck reduction? What I mean is that you are taking away what is feeding the FA.

Or, is what your adding have something that is directly going after the FA?

fish n chips,

From how it was explained to me, the bacteria would remove the excessive nutrients that was feeding the FA.

I had an algae bloom for 2-1/2 years since the old part of the pond was a watering hole for the cattle and horses we raised and then later the collection point once we started farming the land for the runoff or watershed.

Once the FA took over the surface which stopped the sunlight from below it, the water below the FA was crystal clear once I made a hole in the FA. Somewhere in the 12 days I was away from the pond and the FA cleared, I had another bloom going.

I fed over the winter as an experiment with having winter trout in central LA. Of course, I had, CC, HSB and a few CNBG feeding all winter long. During the real cold portions, the fish stopped feeding and I am assuming the nutrient load came from the over feeding. Once it warmed up, the FA ran away with the pond in about 5 weeks.

Couppe

I put in aggressive aeration in our club pond 4 years ago. The depth increased 2.5 feet. The bacteria was recommended (by the person selling it) to eat up the mass of leaves that fall in it every year from the fully mature cottonwood trees that grow along much of the bank and in the water. There are some maples and willows, but about 10 big cottonwoods. .4 acre pond with about 35% of the bank surrounded by trees right on the edge and in the water.

Still the question remains, has a study been done?

[img:right]http://forums.pondboss.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=29141&Number=374167#Post374167[/img]

Gary,

Had to come back to this quick. Here is a link right off the pondboss website talking about this very thing. It is quite informative.

http://www.pondboss.com/free_articles.asp?id=77

RC

Does anyone know where all that muck disappears to? How does feet of much just vanish without becoming some other physical item, biomass change, or energy production?

The organic muck is 'processed' or naturally recycled by the living organisms in the system similar to all the agricultural fodder in the fields after crop harvest. Where do all the leaves go in a woodland trout stream after leaf drop in the fall?? You are on the right thinking process when you say: "becoming some other physical item, biomass change, or energy production".

Deep muck production is a sign the area where the thick muck is located is not a real healthy environment or conditions or else the large accumulations of dead organics would not be present. Keep in mind that in anaerobic conditions (no DO) the decomposition rate is 20-30 times slower than in well oxygenated conditions. The 'fast' and 'clean' natural processors can not live or survive in anaerobic conditions.

Thanks Bill!
The sites that sell pond specific chemicals and bacteria charge a hefty sum for the healthy bacteria. Is this bacteria signficantly different than the bacteria sold to put down your toilet to treat your septic tank sludge? I was thinking there must be other 'non-pond' bacteria that do the same thing and may be economical.

The pond and lake specialty bacteria sellers will tell you their bacteria is unique but they will not tell you the species used in their blends. Why do you suppose that occurs? Priority bacterial decomposer blends are combinations of naturally occurring bacteria that are cultured and processed. Experimentation with various products will tell you what works best in your own pond and conditions.

For example, pond specific 'healthy bacteria' $300

(I'm picking random examples off google, no endorsement or past experience here..)

http://www.newtechbio.com/catalog/index....6b2c0fa3b764035

vs..

plumbers stock bacteria, $10 for 5 gallons.


https://www.plumbersstock.com/product/43...0YXL5c9bt_D_BwE

Keep in mind that septic bacteria could be dominated by anaerobic bacterial strains. Best bacterial blends IMO would include more aerobic and lesser amounts of anaerobic species. Septic conditions are significantly different than the majority of pond ecology.

I did some studying. All this bacteria does is lock up phosphorus as organic. When the bacteria dies the phosphorus becomes inorganic orthophosphorus. Plants like algae only use orthophosphorus. So by keeping an artificially high bacteria load of the right type you simply keep it tied up so the algae can't use it.

It does not reduce the amount of phosphorus one little bit.

I'm thinking it's time to look at a new product called Phoslock. That has to be applied right after ice out and before algae begins to grow, while the phosphorus is in inorganic form. That does not form a flock that coats the bottom of the pond, has no detrimental effect on the bottom life. and locks the orthophosphorus up permanently.

I've had two products recommended to me by some people I've worked with in renovating my pond. Having done a significant muck clean out late last year, I'm anxious to begin a bacteria plan to help maintain it going forward. The recommended products were Devour by Precision Labs, and Bactaclean by US Bioproducts. I have not priced out Bactaclean yet, but Devour is quite expensive at $600 for a 12 lb case.

I see there is quite a bit of discussion as to whether bacteria is beneficial or not, but I'd like to know if there is anyone out there who has used either of these or any other products that are yielding good results.

My pond is a 1/3 - 1/2 acre in New England. The water source is WELL. I'm still on the fence about installing air diffusers because I'm concerned about disrupting the water column and wiping out my cold water pocket that seem to sustain my trout during the hot months. The pond is only about 9 feet deep.

I look forward to your comments.
Shawn

RC51, do you mind sharing which product worked for you? Maybe this would help us and Shawn2013 in his research? Idea on cost? When is bacteria added, spring, summer, fall? all 3?

I use bacteria and for a while I used it before I had an aerator. Without an aerator it was easy to see adding bacteria did reduce muck at the shoreline but several feet deeper it did not. The shoreline muck was reducing because natural wave action was naturally aerating the shoreline allowing the aerobic bacteria to thrive. When I added a mechanical aerator I noticed an increase in muck reduction because the aerobic bacteria were able to survive at greater depths due to better oxygenation. Aerobic bacteria are much more efficient at decomposing than anaerobic bacteria but they need oxygenated conditions.

As Bill mentioned, septic tanks have primarily anaerobic bacteria, they are not so dependent on oxygen. If you aerate your septic tank (yes it's done and even code in some areas)you will have a much more efficient system, less or no sludge build-up in your tank, lines and field and it will eliminates any odors. Water treatment plants use extensive aeration as part of the process of cleaning water. If you added aerobic bacteria to a septic system without aeration they would soon die without oxygenation so your only choice is anaerobic bacteria which is sold for that purpose. Anaerobic bacteria is cheaper and less efficient at decomposing.

There are different blends of bacteria you can purchase for your pond as Bill has said and they don't tell you what species your buying (proprietary information). When buying bacteria you also don't know how many organism (so many millions or billions) are in each unit dose so you can't compare products. A cheaper product might have fewer live organisms per unit dose. Some probiotics, a human bacterial supplement, will tell you how many live organisms/dose at time of manufacture as they can die if they aren't handled or stored properly. Like most things you usually get what you pay for, usually. Disclosure in this industry definitely leaves much to be desired.

Trial and error will tell you which product is the best for your conditions. If you add bacteria it's usually at a regular interval and for an extended period of time. If your like me and like the results you will want bacteria to always be a part of your ecosystem so you have plenty of time to experiment . Some bacteria might digest leaves better while others might digest fats found in fish food better. Septic tank bacteria can be somewhat specific too, some are more effective on grease or paper or soap etc. I'm sure you've seen the claims on different products if you have a septic tank. I can't really tell the difference when using different products as I don't take measurements, I think they all work better than not using anything at all and they work much better with aeration. Follow the manufacturers directions for application rates, adding more than the recommended amount isn't necessarily better. I also wouldn't buy more than you need for one season as they can die. I would like to try the bacteria that can survive at lower temperatures (for fall and early spring) to extend my bacteria season. I think these cold weather species cost more too.