I live in Arizona and we have a huge pond (lake?) that is man-made close to downtown Phoenix. It's about a mile around and a great place to retreat from the city. But...it's without problems. We have had issues with golden algae and botulism over the past few years. I know that there is a regular usage of copper sulfate and I am fearful of continual use of such a product. I am told it builds up on the bottom and becomes toxic. I realize we need additional aeration but I also want to go to a natural form of adding good bacteria to our pond/lake but seem to only get quotes and little of the one/one help. If the product was so good...wouldn't they be using it in AZ? Wouldn't a salesperson review the problems before selling me a product?
At the risk offending anyone I have seen little actual empirical data that shows adding bacteria is really as good as those that promote it. If it's so good where is the data?
That said, I used some several years ago and stopped mainly because it was too expensive. Initially I thought it got rid of my filamentous algae in the trout pond, but I know now the filamentous algae disappears every year at the same time water temps reach a certain level, and/or the Chara (also a form of algae) gets going well enough to out compete it for nutrients.
Bill Cody did some research and compared the results of adding bacteria vs. raking the bottom to stir up sediment to allow it to be oxidized. (Presentation at the last Pond Boss Convention) If I remember right he found the raking more effective hands down.
From my limited education in biology and microbiology my belief is there is already a beneficial population of bacteria present in a well aerated pond. Since an ecosystem can only handle so much bacteria, adding more could be a lesson in futility or wasted money. Mind you that is my opinion.
To me a well designed aeration system will do wonders for aerobic bacteria for obvious reasons and adding bacteria is not needed.
