Now ain't that a bag of bones??? I've been trying to get two of my local
pond supply places to do just that (get a scope). One of them sent a rep to
AFKAPS for the wet lab, but wouldn't buy a scope (too expensive). The other
says it's out of the question, not what they do. But yet another local shop
sent all but one of their employees to the lab so that everyone would have
an idea what to do.

A pond, by its very nature, is crawling with weird beasties. If you *could*
sterilize a pond, the fish would die. (See what happens when you put a fish
in distilled water for a while.) The idea is to keep the resident life forms
in balance; that's a nice idea we all strive for, but sometimes get knocked
outta whack. Let a bird stop by to splash in a pondlet and leave a
"deposit"; all the hopping, leaping, slithering or otherwise ambulatory
creatures that stop by for a visit bring their own brand of cooties with
them. Things can get out of hand rapidly. Products like KoiZyme (formerly
LymnoZyme) introduce bio-engineered bacteria that compete for the same food
that the aeromonas bacteria want, only the engineered bugs do it better.
Then they die in 3 days (ah, the wonders of engineering!), but not before
starving out the "bad" bacteria, reducing the numbers to levels where they
are ineffective (Voila! The ulcer causing bacteria are now kept in check!)
The bacteria in BZT is another bio-engineered critter that's been designed
to eat the sludge at the bottom of the pond, helping to keep it cleaner. Ah,
better living through chemistry! Better ponding (sometimes!), too.

I don't advocate indiscriminate use of antibiotics, either (Johnny has a
cold, GIVE him something!) I have a fear of developing "super bugs" (against
which we have no defense), because the general use of antibiotics killed off
the weakest of the strain, leaving only the strongest behind. I don't even
use the antibacterial soaps and cleaners at home (unless indicated, like
before/after handling the fish or when someone's sick). But most of the true
antibiotics used for sick fish are injectable, and the majority of ponders
won't be doing that. On the other hand, chemicals/medications are available
.. . .

Before anyone puts a fish in the pond, they should have a reasonable grasp
of how to maintain the water: take care of the water, and the water will
take care of your fish. After that, the two things I "preach" the most
about: a) KNOW how much water you *actually* have, and that L x W x D x 7.5
is NOT gonna cut it. That only works if you have a "shoe box": straight
sides, flat bottom, no shelves, no lumps, bumps or curves. You can't
*possibly* medicate your pond if you don't know how much water is there. You
need to know this *before* you need to medicate, while your pond is happy,
because the easiest way to do it is with salt (and you want that OUT before
you have to medicate). And b) get auxilliary air into your water somehow:
airstones, venturi, something! especially in the summer when the water is
warm. There is no such thing as "too much" oxygen, but too little is fatal.
Besides, the fish like to play in the bubbles!

I'll step down from my soapbox, now.

Lee


"Gregory Young" wrote in message
news
Hi Lee:
I don't disagree with you. Although it may not seem like it, I do realize
we
all have to be practical, and use what we have available to us. I know not
many ponders have scopes/are trained to use them.
My point was there are many clubs out there, and even nurseries/aquarium
stores, with very experienced folks who can help out with the diagnostic
end
of things, many of whom won't charge a penny for their help...
I also agree meds are improving, but use of antibiotics still carry risks,
not only the development of resistance, but sensitivity on the part of
folks
using them. (I have seen people with allergic reactions to antibiotics
that
have never have taken them, but had contact with them only when they
administered them to others.. the last one happened to be a vet with a
major
reaction to the quinalones (floxin/cipro, etc). she was using to treat
animals.)
I don't disagree they should be used when there is an indication, but it
is
always a risk vs. benefit decision.
BUT:
You've just given me an idea of a project we can all take on.. to
encourage
our local pond nursery/aquarium store experts to purchase a scope (which
they should have when dealing in fish anyway), and help folks who are
willing to bring their fish in with simple diagnostics.
It doesn't take much skill to learn to do scrapings, and view them, while
looking at a color chart of the common parasites..
Maybe we could ALL take a minute and mention that next time we are
visiting
our favorite local fish business??
There is no question that gravel covering plant soil, etc can harbor
parasites. So why treat only the fish, and not the pond?
My thought on that is that you will always find unwelcome organisms of all
types in an outside pond, even after PP or other "sterilizing"
treatments..
they invariably return.. you can never totally eliminate them..
Fish have a natural resistance to them, or they would continuously be
infected, by something or the other.
I have found over the years that 98% of the problem with disease in an
established pond, is either due a change in water quality that wasn't
picked
up, or introduction of new plants/fish without proper quarantine.
As far as "shotgun medicine", I could go on and on about medical
professionals who routinely do that to their human patients.. that's a
battle I may not see resolved during my career, but I do see things
starting
to improve.
I also understand (all too well) the frustration of trying to save a
living
organism, when it is obviously diseased and getting worse, and there
doesn't
seem to be a way to stop the process. Trust me on that.
Later,
Greg