Anyone familiar with large seines (600 ft) I want to use one for aquaculture and I have a lot of questions. I know my depth and mesh size but I'm wondering more about dead plant matter and muck and how much a mudline helps. Any information is helpful but if you have experience I would love it if you message me and we could talk via phone.

Call these people who know nets. Also you Wildlife and Fisheries agency will have people who have used large nets.


http://www.brunsonnet.com/


Also this thread might help.

http://forums.pondboss.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=22523&page=1

I've used one that is 200 feet. Mudlines definitely do help.

You've got some good pics of it in action too!!

Sure do!

Esshup (Scott) did most of the work.

Nah, only half. You still probably spent 1/2 day the next day getting everything put away!

I was suprised at how much mud came up with the fish.

The seine was hard to pull thru the water, but I think a larger mesh net would be easier, and collect less mud. Just make sure the depth of the seine is much deeper than the depth of the pond, which allows you to form a larger basket. Bottom of the seine should always be in front of the floats at the top, and seine slow enough so that the bottom of the seine stays in contact with the bottom, or fish will scoot out under the seine.

If you can go from shore to shore, pulling it slower will catch more fish than pulling it faster.

Cecil ( -and esshup), Can you include a photo of that pond basin once it was dried up. I think you have one somewhere? The reason is that it shows how smooth and uniform the bottom is. What about a pond bottom that has contours and humps, or has any plants? Is muck worse than mud, or does the bottom line work better because it can stay closer and sink into the muck?

-- Jim

Fish esp some species are good at swimming under the seine often when the bottom is not flat.

The bottom of Cecils pond is clay, with organic matter that turned into muck over the years since it was dug. For Cecil - How old is that pond? How much muck would you say is on the bottom of it?

Pulling it through what weeds that were there was doubly hard, and I think with it riding up off the bottom to go over the weeds allowed fish to escape.

Also, I believe that a bottom that has contours allows a number of fish to escape just like Bill said, depending on how sharp the bottom contours are, and how fast the net is pulled. Pulling slower allows the mud line to keep in contact with the pond bottom and there is less chance for the fish to escape under it.

If the bottom of the net is in front of the top, I believe that forces the fish up to "escape" the net, and they get trapped in the bag that is formed by the extra netting. I beleive that's why it's so important to have a net that is taller than the deepest part of the pond. I have no question that a net that is 50% taller (or more) than a pond is deep will work better than a net that is only 2' taller than a pond is deep. It's a balancing act, as the more net that is in the water = harder to pull.

I believe I read somewhere the net should be at least two feet deeper then pond and about 30 percent longer. I drained my pond down 3 feet to be 2 feet deeper than the pond which has a maximum depth of 9 feet. The seine was 8 feet deep.

We had extensive sago pond weed on the east side of the pier and some chara on the bottom, but not much due to the use of aquashade.

The pond drops off quickly off the shore and levels out at an average of 7 to 8 feet.

Why it's important to lime or rotenone any remaining pudlles if you want to start over.

In my case all the female yellow perch and male bluegill were temporarily moved to a holding pond after the pond was drained and rotenined. Then they were put back once the pond was refilled.

I had anglers come out and catch as many fish as we could and then the pond as drained down three feet and seined. Once the water was onky a few inches deep the salvagable fish were scooped up and pitched into the two tanks I had sunk previously. Not shown was a ladder near the tanks where I took the fish out of the tanks with a five gallon bucket to be moved to a holding pond.

Total fish removed were about 300 yellow perch mostly in the 11 to 13 inch range and about 100 large bluegills.

There isn't much muck except in a few spots, and even then it's not more tgan a few inches, as I was able to walk around the bottom in waders scooping up fish. The pond was built in 1994 but I've been aerating since about 1995. my guess is if I didn't aerate there would be more muck. Don't believe in adding bacteria though.

In seeing your basin, it looks like there are a few big boulders. How did you handle that situation with a seine?

Thank you.

Don't believe in adding bacteria though.

Ok, I'll bite, I'm sure there is much to learn from your experience behind that statement. I have read recently about different types of bacteria, cold weather strains now released, etc. What can we learn from you?

The seine will go over them but it is an opportunity for fish to escape.

Just my personal opinion. I'm skeptical of the claims of the bacterial products sold that say they will literally eat away massive quantities of muck. Not seeing any good studies to back it up. And add too that there is already bacteria present, and bacteria like any other organism has a maximum carrying capacity. You could also be adding strains that are less adapted than the natural bacteria in the pond and hence a waste of money.

That said, I'm a big believer in making a pond aerobic from top to bottom, to create an environment for aerobic bateria already present, to do their thing. However I'm more convinced even then, the muck is best prevented from building up vs. a retroactive approach.

I believe when others are convinced of the bacteria they add's effectiveness, they should be giving most of the credit to the aeration. It's no coincidence that many add the bacteria at the same time they crank up aeration for the first time. Then they give all the credit to the bacteria.

I could be wrong.

Bought some once and used it. I found it telling that most of the product was sawdust. For all I knew that's all it was.

Awesome reply, just classic. How much of most of what we buy is mostly marketing, very little delivery of value. Even less good controlled studies (prefer randomized and blinded) to know what really is working.

I agree on prevention of muck. As I watch hundreds of leaves coat the surface of my pond I'm wishing I was an engineer and could figure out a way to more easily remove those from the edges.

I wish my aerator had a setting where we could put it it on 'super-boil' mode (take off the diffuser disk, up the air flow) and use the boil to push the leaves to the edges where i could more easily remove them. Or even a large trash pump that sucks water over to one side and captures the leaves prior to sucking down into the intake?

I'm thinking of various types of 'prickly ropes' thanks to the members of this forum but 200 or more feet of super prickly rope gets a bit tough to deal with with one person.

Was thinking of a boom on the front of back of a boat to tow the debris quickly to one side or the other? Or even tow a dredge in strips back and forth to catch the leaves that already sunk to the bottom?

hmm...

Koi ponds have skimmers to catch floating debris.

Great pics Cecil !

Glad to help shed some knowledge.