As a fisheries management student (formally for 4 years, out of class for 7) I thought that bacterial products were definitly "snake oil". After treating customer ponds at my current vocation, I noticed very quickly that the ones that used bacterial supplements to our treatments needed much less chemical in general. The bottoms aren't always muck-free and they all have occasional algae blooms, but by and large they take less chemical to control... especially the aerated ones.
I thought that Bill's experiment showed the same results. The bacterial application sites showed no visual results, but what was the nutrient content? Did the entire pond show results? From my experience, it doesnt take much bacteria to make results in the entire pond. The pond wasnt aerated if i remember, so the raking would cause the agitation necessary to facilitate bacterial activity.
As far as using septic bacteria, isnt that type of bacteria anaerobic (i really dont know, but logicially it makes sense?). My schooling told me that anaerobic digestion is much slower and less efficient and turns out bad bi-products. I'm sticking with pond bacteria, even though its more expensive.
Its also my understanding that (Like cokeisit said) there are only a few real "front-runners" in the lake cleaning bacterial world. The extras are just for marketing. The distributor I buy from says he could but a thousand strains in, but theres really no reason. Also, I've been told that theres a threshold at which too many cfu's will result in canibalism within the bacteria colonies, thereby reducing effectiveness.
Hope some of that makes sense...
