ewest,
In the case study you cited, why did they wait and watch for three years while the fish starved to death? Why didn't they simply restart the fertilizer program? Its hard to imagine someone just watching their fish starve to death without doing anything for 3 years? It's also hard to imagine that they didn't notice anything for three years. Fish do not suddenly get so skinny you can "see through them".
If they had restarted after one season without fertilization, what would have been the result, in your opinion? This case says to me that fertilizer is somewhat akin to an addictive drug...it makes your pond feel good but you can never quit.
*****Please, no one jump up and down and start flame throwing again, I'm asking EWEST what I consider an honest question and the comparision to drugs is an honest comparison and not meant to disparage anyone, certainly not EWEST...so back off before you start in again.*****
In fact, in one sense Tilapia could be considered in the same analogy. That is to say, after stocking Tilapia for some TBD number of years, you will have increased the number and size of the predators (assuming no extra fish removal). If after that time, you were to stop stocking Tilapia, then those predators will suffer the removal of the Tilapia. To my knowledge, there are no studies and I have not seen any case histories of this. I will never stop stocking Tilapia (never say never
) so I'm not volunteering to perform such an experiment.
p.s. why should anyone find it surprising that when you change a pond management technique, e.g. stopping fertilization, you are changing the dynamics of the pond...maybe for good, maybe for worse...there are no
garantees in life nor certainly in pond management.
