It is in the nature of this forum to want proof on matters of all sorts. This is a positive and protective function of our combined efforts. Proof can take several forms or combinations of them. Unbiased peer reviewed studies are one form. Long term good results by many knowledgeable pond owners under the right circumstances is another. A third form of proof is that provided by multiple pro fisheries scientists/managers with knowledge of the situation. Less reliable but still of value is the good success of satisfied customers over time with a product. With this last type of proof remember that many things can lead to a good result and they may be describing the right result for the wrong reason (not really iding the cause and effect).

Keep in mind however that if no one ever tried something new (unproven) or decided to test an idea (research /study) then there would be little progress. We need progress. The key is that the person who undertakes the idea/study (especially if on his or someone else's pond )understand the concept and recognize the risk and make an informed choice. That is one place where we collectively should help with our input. It is still his/her choice in the end and should be respected.

It is important to report back results when one tries or encounters a new idea or event or has special knowledge of events. It is very important for each of us to distinguish the difference between "proof" and "reports of an event". Both are welcome and encouraged and are fun to hear and share.

IMHO one thing we don't need (I have not encountered this here)is people trying to make it a market place for economic benefit unless, Bob allows it as an advertisement.

Off the soap box.

BTW Sue , Trent, Bob , Ted and others thanks for the info on an interesting topic . How big is to big for this product/concept if you have little to normal water flow through, in your opinion ?