Cecil - the manufacturing, labeling and marketing of "pond microbes" is significantly more mysterious than the lake dye business. I was tempted to chime in several months ago when you posted the brand that you were using - but held my tongue.

First off; I'm not a microbiologist by any means. But, I've learned that many of the so-called "microbial treatments" on the market are nothing but packaged enzymes - which are basically intended to boost the level of existing microbe-types that are already in a pond.

Logic (not education) tells me that the existing microbes in a filamentous algae-infested pond may not be the type of microbes that can effectively compete for the same nutrients that are used by filamentous algae - otherwise, the filamentous algae probably wouldn't be thriving so well. Therefore, I would generally discount the use of enzyme-only products (most of which require the user to "brew" a culture by adding the product to a bucket of pond water and letting it sit for a few days - stirring occasionally - before adding the concoction to the pond).

Now we get to the dry-packet microbe blends - and there's a bunch of them! They all say they're a "proprietary blend" of specific microbes. That may be true, but the question to ask is WHO holds the patent....

Cecil, the patent for the brand (no names please) that you use/used was originally held by the actual manufacturer of the product - not by the source from which you were acquiring it. Awhile back, due to some "issues", your source was no longer able to purchase that producer's proprietary blend. Your source subsequently switched to another blend - touting it as "new and improved" (the actual producer of which is unknown to me). I know this because I used to distribute that product from your source, until I was contacted by the patent-holder. Now, I carry it under our private-label (the original version).

I don't recall the specific microbes found in the two formulations that I carry (one is an blend of aerobic microbes that focus on N and P in the water column; the other is a blend of anarobic microbes that focus on bottom-dwelling organic matter). But, I do know that we've had several lake management companies using these microbe blends on urban lakes for several years. These professionals are not known for repeatedly investing in something unless it works for their purpose. I'll leave it at that.

One final comment: no microbial treatments, of which I'm aware, make a claim of reducing algae. To do so would present the product as an "algaecide", which would then require an EPA registration for the product - and disclosure of the product's contents. To avoid content disclosure and EPA registration expenses, all of the microbial products that I've encountered are marketed as "water quality enhancement agents". Now you know why they avoid saying much, if anything, about reducing/controlling algae.

My second "final comment": I would be cautious toward, if not conceptually against the use of microbes in ponds where phytoplankton blooms are pursued or desired. I would think that microbial treatments could be counter-productive in such situations - but I'm not positive.

I suspect Bill Cody may have some experience and/or knowledge on this subject - and would welcome his input. BC - I'm open to correction if any of the above comments are inaccurate.