Interesting how someone with a competing product states how poor the alum approach is. They cite alum being most effective at pH 4-6 and how it's quite ineffective at pH8. And Al toxicity to fish, but they admit toxicity isn't much of an issue unless pH less than 6.5.
The anecdotal information here says alum generally works. Perhaps it is less efficient than it could be. We know we need to manage pH. They say alum treatment is worse because buffering for pH can cause rapid changes, but we know to take it easy.
They cite that alum can require application of 2-10x more material than lanthanum. That's nice, unless the La costs 100x.
I found the document very one-sided. While the benefits of their product may be true to some degree, how much can I trust their assertions if it's just a sales brochure? They never try to present application information for the common lake manager to decide what's best for them.
