Bacteria levels
Moderators: B.Scott, vippymini, Gazza, Manky Sanke
Bacteria levels
I've seen a lot said about bacteria levels in ponds. The importance of good pond hygiene and the fact that bacteria is opportunist waiting for a fish to be be injured before causing issues. It seems we accept the presence of bacteria but we don't often measure presence. Are there critical levels of bacteria, should we monitor them (does an ORP meter help) and should we take steps to ensure levels are controlled beyond good pond hygiene. That is perhaps once per month a low dose of Chlor T ? As if that isn't a big enough question is there evidence that UVC Amalgam will lower bacteria levels.
Re: Bacteria levels
Graham
your post is a provocative one in so much as most koi keepers would not admit to having bacterial levels in a pond that were harmful but no real way of measuring this. Of course the only real way to measure this is submit a sample to a lab. you then get back a CFU count (colony forming units) of pathogenic bacteria mainly aeromonas for your pond.#
Having got this count there is still no real way of determining if the figures are good bad or indifferent? reason being as you say several factors are at work to determine if you will see a reaction in terms koi health I.E. Furunculosis etc.
So if you have a 5000 gallon pond with a cfu count of 20,000 what on earth does this mean to the hobbyist in question ? what its saying is there is a cfu count of x of pathogenic bacteria and as you quite rightly point out the development of ulcers from this will be determined by a good robust immune system, which in turn is dependant on many other factors in the pond I.E. oxygen saturation, constant background levels of NH3, No2 and not least NO3, it will be dependant on crowding and a stable pH, so you can see where this is going. the only thing you can say for sure about a cfu count is if you run a terrible pond with all of the afore mentioned problems its not going to be long before you run into ulcers and alike, but i don't think that's what you asked ?
Well to try and half answer your question a cfu count of 20,000 is not very good but that said ponds with a count of 80,000 do exist and they don't have to many problems even at this, the spectrum is wide and varied, what im saying is keep the cfu's as low as is humanly possible but there is no thin red line you should aim for because every pond is different and reacts different and these figures issued by Labs don't take into account good the bacteria roll in keeping the bad bacteria in check suggest you read my Competitive exclusion article http://www.koiquest.co.uk/CE.htm if you were to try and pin me down to a figure to aim for i would say certainly lower than 8,000 and even lower preferably
As to monthly doses of C/T or virkon what ever you poison is i doubt this would alter the overall balance of bacteria on a lasting basis, remember koi live in their own toilet so are constantly adding to the cfu count in one way or another, it would give a sharp jolt to all the bacteria in your pond however limited that may be on longevity but this may also be an event that could allow the strongest bacteria to gain a further foot hold
please read my CE article
dunc
your post is a provocative one in so much as most koi keepers would not admit to having bacterial levels in a pond that were harmful but no real way of measuring this. Of course the only real way to measure this is submit a sample to a lab. you then get back a CFU count (colony forming units) of pathogenic bacteria mainly aeromonas for your pond.#
Having got this count there is still no real way of determining if the figures are good bad or indifferent? reason being as you say several factors are at work to determine if you will see a reaction in terms koi health I.E. Furunculosis etc.
So if you have a 5000 gallon pond with a cfu count of 20,000 what on earth does this mean to the hobbyist in question ? what its saying is there is a cfu count of x of pathogenic bacteria and as you quite rightly point out the development of ulcers from this will be determined by a good robust immune system, which in turn is dependant on many other factors in the pond I.E. oxygen saturation, constant background levels of NH3, No2 and not least NO3, it will be dependant on crowding and a stable pH, so you can see where this is going. the only thing you can say for sure about a cfu count is if you run a terrible pond with all of the afore mentioned problems its not going to be long before you run into ulcers and alike, but i don't think that's what you asked ?
Well to try and half answer your question a cfu count of 20,000 is not very good but that said ponds with a count of 80,000 do exist and they don't have to many problems even at this, the spectrum is wide and varied, what im saying is keep the cfu's as low as is humanly possible but there is no thin red line you should aim for because every pond is different and reacts different and these figures issued by Labs don't take into account good the bacteria roll in keeping the bad bacteria in check suggest you read my Competitive exclusion article http://www.koiquest.co.uk/CE.htm if you were to try and pin me down to a figure to aim for i would say certainly lower than 8,000 and even lower preferably
As to monthly doses of C/T or virkon what ever you poison is i doubt this would alter the overall balance of bacteria on a lasting basis, remember koi live in their own toilet so are constantly adding to the cfu count in one way or another, it would give a sharp jolt to all the bacteria in your pond however limited that may be on longevity but this may also be an event that could allow the strongest bacteria to gain a further foot hold
please read my CE article
dunc
Re: Bacteria levels
Hi Duncan just for clarification I we referring to the fact that bacteria good and bad are always present in the pond and so it seems to me that every pond has them. I was challenged by the thought that we ignore them. The article sounds interesting and I'll read it later. Thanks for the detailed reply and sorry for such a contentious question 
Re: Bacteria levels
Graham not only are both good and bad present its vital that they are BOTH present if the good bacteria are missing they bad stuff can expand and proliferate its called resource partitioning each species of bacteria occupies its own niche space if its not longer present in the space others will move in and occupy it
its a very complex subject but is very rewarding to study competitive exclusion aka koizyme and one nigel used to do called genesis all centre around resource partitioning , this exists in all walks of life even parasites but non more so than bacteria
dunc
its a very complex subject but is very rewarding to study competitive exclusion aka koizyme and one nigel used to do called genesis all centre around resource partitioning , this exists in all walks of life even parasites but non more so than bacteria
dunc
Re: Bacteria levels
Actually pleased I raised the question as this is all really interesting and it's bringing back memories. I did two years of biology prior to getting a BSc (Hons) Chemistry yes really ... Although my job involves sales and marketing of high end spectrometers I've long forgotten all that I've learnt:-( interesting this also as I imagine then what you say is a factor in New Pond Syndrome.
Re: Bacteria levels
hi Graham
I must confess I don't like the words new pond syndrome, for the simple reason a lot of folks 2-3 years in and beyond are still going through NPS so it clearly cant be new
its about striking and ecologically balanced system in a recirculating aquatic system
most folks put way to many fish in right at the start and spend the next few years playing catch up from the damage that incurs as a result and that includes bacterial levels that are totally unbalanced
dunc
I must confess I don't like the words new pond syndrome, for the simple reason a lot of folks 2-3 years in and beyond are still going through NPS so it clearly cant be new
its about striking and ecologically balanced system in a recirculating aquatic system
most folks put way to many fish in right at the start and spend the next few years playing catch up from the damage that incurs as a result and that includes bacterial levels that are totally unbalanced
dunc
Re: Bacteria levels
Hi Dunc, i think it's crazy to use NPS beyond a year but probably legitimate if the pond keeper has not taken steps to get the pond to where it should be. To be pragmatic it could be appropriate to describe it as NPS three years in if the koi are still affected by the pond not being properly set up in the first place.Duncan wrote:hi Graham
I must confess I don't like the words new pond syndrome, for the simple reason a lot of folks 2-3 years in and beyond are still going through NPS so it clearly cant be new
its about striking and ecologically balanced system in a recirculating aquatic system
most folks put way to many fish in right at the start and spend the next few years playing catch up from the damage that incurs as a result and that includes bacterial levels that are totally unbalanced
dunc
I was referring more to establishment of new filters it takes time to generate good bacteria and the effectiveness of that has to have a bearing v's bad bacteria right? By your great description earlier the presence of good bacteria also plays a role in keeping bad bacteria moderated - in a new pond it takes time to get good bacteria established. I feel a discussion about filter starters coming on
Re: Bacteria levels
On another point if you are ever passing Perth you are welcome to come by