Dave 54 said:
I've tried it in one of my three filters Pieter is a good friend and has a great following in SA he wouldnt print anything that was harmful to koi or the people that follow him and buy from him, it would be rather silly of him wouldnt it .rgrdsDave
Ok. Quick disclaimer. Not writing this as an attack so don't get all sensitive and defensive. I am seriously curious about this... If you want to skip these first 2 paragraphs, which is just framing my bias and state of mind, then please skip it and focus like a laser beam on the questions being asking below.
I don't think it would be silly for him to print it even if it did lead to problem. Pieter is safe in both scenarios. Its seems, as long as folk have good intentions, then most advice is deemed fine or, when something goes wrong, then it is something else or claimed as an honest mistake that is overlooked. I think many authors write these articles with "good intentions", but I also think too much credibility is given to "good intentions" instead of actually puting to test what was written, even though he has tested it within his personal experiences. Actually, I do believe there are plenty folk who have sprayed down their filters with chlorinated city water and never had any problems.
I like it when authors write "there are now numerous scientific studies" in attempt to add validity to what they write. This is no different than writing "some say" or "they say" or "a scientist once said". My point is these words only mean something to folk that are not strangers to the author. In other words, these statements are written as if it is common knowledge to the extent of being common sense. For other folk, it would be nice if he could have made a reference, within the context of our of hobby that is freshwater aquaculture, since I assume he knows what he is talking about and read it somewhere rather than making the statement out of thin air due to his experiences, that is limited to his environment. It is the easy trick to do in attempt to add credibility to the author. I bet the author knows what he talks about, but his writing lacks confidence in supporting this when a stranger reads it.
1) There are now numerous scientific studies that have proved beyond doubt that the Biofilm formation of bacteria that adheres to a solid surface is virtually indestructible. It is the leading cause of many nosocomial infections in hospitals growing inside of catheters, and implanted devices. This protective environment can exceed the mass of the microbe cell by over 100X, which makes it a very protective environment from the outside world. The industry has found that Biofilms are so resistant to destruction that is some cases water treatment plants have had to sand-blast the microorganisms from surfaces.
So, if I were to take the author's word for it, then are you telling me that... If I took a high powered pressure washer, which is not as strong as a sand-blaster, to my bio-pads and entire pond, then this will
not have an impact whatsoever to any degree on the nitrification cycle in the pond
??
If this is true, then should we power wash our ponds in the Spring every year as is done with the bio-pads
??
I don't think that was the author's point. I think he was bloviating to prove the point that the pressure from a basic garden hose with city regulated chlorinated water gently coming over the bio-pads will have a negligible impact on the population of the bacteria and organisms in the pond's entire biological filtration system.
2) Although a certain amount of growing Biofilm layers may be penetrated, or sloughed off but the newly exposed layers begin to grow that previously laid dormant due to the starvation from nutrients. The Biofilm now starts to rebuild its lost layers. This means that the most common result is a small Biofilm and large free floating bacteria kill rate.
Now we get to the truth of the matter toward the end of his post. This is why I often first read last couple of paragraphs of these articles or blog posts to get to the truth of the matter before reading the entire article or post.
3) The microbes in the Biofilm are almost bulletproof in this sphere of slime and can stay active for days and even weeks when fully dried out. Now one can understand why ponds recover so well after chemical treatment, and why diseases are never fully eradicated. It is due to Biofilm existence and its incredible protective properties.
Ok so. Due to this statement, I am assuming the author absolutely
never ever bypasses his bio-filter for any chemical treatments nor any medications nor for absolutely any other reason, never ever. Does the author believe in "never ever" in this subject as the blog post suggests
??
Would the author suggest this, that is spraying down the bio-medium, is fine to do for someone who is going through problems with ammonia accumulation, as is the situation in this thread
??
As a side note, I know there is the thought process of sterilizing the bio-medium actually helps the bio-logical filtration system as well. As is mentioned by Kmuda on oscarfish.com in
article1 and
article2.
I am looking for clarification moreso than agreement. Agreement is pointless. Nobody learns anything from just agreeing with folk. Clarification is where the learning process resides.
) to get all the muck off. I would do it this way especially with the ammonia concern. 
