On Facebook this week Bob and Greg Grimes talked about how pondowners sometimes complain that TFS stocking hurts fishing, and that people need to learn to throw a spinnerbait.

I put in 150# of TP this year, 20# an acre, and was very pleased with the results. LMB over 14 inches average Wr in 120 to 140 range! Smaller LMB, say 10 to 14 inches, are mediocre, maybe around 90 or so.

TFS are recommended to help feed the 10 - 14 inch laggards, which I definitely can understand. Heck, I've taken out nearly 100 LMB in this range since October to help the food situation for them. But I'm wondering if adding TFS means adding fewer TP, and if the fishing situation will change substantially with TFS in the pond.

Also, I have a difficult time getting a bloom, despite liming & fertilizing & feeding. About the murkiest I've seen is 30 inches, and it's usually clearer. Is this a problem for TFS? Will they make the pond even clearer than it is already?

Oh, yeah, I should have mentioned that I now have not just LMB, but also about 70 HSB. The HSB have done fine even without TFS this year, but I understand they particularly like TFS.

Does having TFS make fishing harder? I can't answer that because I have had Tfs since my first stocking of cnbg, res and fhm's. TFS and Tp were recommended to me by Todd and Walt @ Overton's Fisheries. And the first time I met Al (Fireishot) while @ my first PBC, while discussing my pond plans, he told me a lot of forage makes the fishing harder. It made since after talking with him. And I will tell you sometimes my pond can be tough fishing when it comes to lmb and or hsb. But, with out good forage numbers the lmb/hsb will have slower growth. And in conversations here with EWEST, Eric said the lmb to 3 lbs or so will feed on the TFS. If you look into the RW charts, it will show a 17.5" lmb will weigh 3 lbs. My 17 1/2" are almost 4 lbs. I also watch my hsb feed regularly on Tfs. I have not looked into the Rw charts for hsb but my hsb are pretty fat and healthy looking.

Now as far as water being fertile and checking for green visibility. I have had all different measurements at different times. Anywhere from 36" to 9" of green water. But I remember some of the more knowledgeable here will say a pond has to have some fertility in order to support TFS.


Frank, hope you get something out of all the above mentioned. I would say, if you want your fish to be on the plus side of the Rw charts then you might want to entertain the idea of stocking TFS.

I have found a 4lb +- Hsb dead a floating where it chocked on a cnbg. I have never found an hsb choking on a TFS.

If you are having difficulty getting or maintaining a bloom, IMO you should be more closely monitoring your alkalinity concentrations and nitrate concentrations. Then for good reference go to a pond that has a good bloom and test the alkalinity, nitrate, and secchi disk in that pond as a guide for what your pond should have. Come back here with your results and we can provide more help. Pond nutrients are constantly in fluctuation or change so it helps to monitor pond conditions as they change especially if one is having problems.

If I was having trouble catching LMB or HSB in a pond or small lake with abundant forage I would change my angling habits to more match the abundant forage items.

The TFS/TP interaction would be similar to Juvenile BG/TP. TP will remain the primary source of forage subsequent July and they will dominate usage of primary production. Having them may not add significant weight in forage over what you are now getting. But if they can reproduce much earlier than TP they might convert resources late Spring and early Summer before the TP reproduction gets full swing. GSH is an early spawner that might also fill this niche.

More forage for the smaller bass might come with some consequence in that it may be harder to cull them. Where trophy fish are the goal, it may be advantageous to keep this group of fish a bit hungry where they can be caught more easily.



I read a paper recently on the effects of grazers on nutrient cycling and productivity. Where grazers of phytoplankton are in sufficient supply, the secchi disk indications bely the actual production of the primary trophic level. It turns out that where primary production is efficiently grazed the primary production is little affected. Basically phytoplankton still maintains roughly equal production of biomass ... its just that they get eaten as they reproduce so that they do not accumulate. This has three main benefits. First it recycles nutrients at a greater rate. Second it reduces respiration effects on DO. And finally greater clarity provides advantages to predators all the way up the trophic pyramid. TP and zooplankton grazers may be efficiently consuming this primary resource which makes your BOW look less fertile (secchi) than it really is. For me the evidence of production is in the growth rate of your fish and so I think you have a fertile BOW, if not naturally, at least from the feed inputs.

Well, we did lime in fall 17 and it seemed to help. Fertilized a total of 85#. Last checked in spring 18 when pH was 7 (used to be 5.5 to 6.2) and alkalinity & hardness were in mid 40s (not ideal but okay).

What is baffling is that small 1/8 ac forage pond that drains directly into main BOW has a great healthy green bloom all the time! This never limed nor fertilized, though CNBG are fed from one feeder. I guess feeding by itself is enough fertilizer, as the main BOW has 4 feeders but vastly greater amount of water.

Thanks, you've given me a lot to think about! This year the LMB, HSB, CNBG, and TP all seem to have done well. I really can't complain too much about mediocre sub 14" LMB weights when the big ones are going gangbusters. Feeding larger pellets seems to work now that I have some feed trained LMB and CNBG large enough to eat it.

Given the results, my (perhaps mistaken) inclination is to continue heavy TP stocking, 20# per acre, while adding TFS. At least, unless doing so would risk a DO crash. But that hasn't happened in my little forage pond, despite an artificially high fish population & feeding at triple the rate per cubic foot of my main BOW.

Didn't know you have a forage pond. Do you raise CNBG, TP, or a combination? In your location how many crops of forage are you able to harvest from it for your main bow?

I've been blessed with right topography for forage pond right on the edge of the main BOW. Connected by a drain which I can open and close.

It's deeper & wider than I'd make it now that I know more. Hard to seine out many fish due to depth, around 8 feet in the middle. On the plus side, the depth & strong bloom keep birds & such from getting many of the fish. Too hard to see!

Last year I did the easy thing & simply drained the entire forage pond into the main BOW. Lots of CNBG, mostly small. Also water was welcome during hot time of year. I had the notion that maybe the great bloom would carry over to the main lake, which had just been fertilized.

Of course, this meant that I only put in one crop of forage. Main BOW bloom improved a bit, but nothing to shout about. And since there is a tiny watershed, it took a year to build up the forage pond water level again!

I wish my forage pond had enough elevation to drain into my main pond. Not enough elevation variation to do that in most places around me. Mostly gentle slopes.

On the other hand I am glad it is that way. If the property had more slope I would need to grow one leg longer than the other. I'm designed as a flatlander.

Ha! I wished I had a forage pond that did not muddy up real bad after rain events. Just the opposite of yours Frank, too much water. I have seen Franks place from the drive up area, it is a good looking lake for sure.

Is the dirt/bottom of the forage pond the same as the big pond? If so then the water productivity should be similar. Likely the big pond is having the plankton converted to fish biomass as noted by jpsdad.


I would try the TFS and see the results. You could do a jar test on the plankton next spring from the big pond and see what the plankton does w/o grazers. Put the water in a bucket (like the pond) and leave outside and monitor results.

Eric, the dirt looked identical to the big pond. It's right on the edge & without the little dam would just be a shallow overflow area of main BOW.

The differences are that main BOW has been limed (7 tons per acre last 3 years) and fertilized (about 150 lb last two years). Forage pond has neither. When tested earlier this year main pond had pH of 7, forage pond 6.2.

The two possible advantages of forage pond are fish feed (3x per cubic foot as main pond) and no drainage whatsoever. Well, except when I did it deliberately.

Based on that info my guess is that the 2 are similar and the differences you see are a result of your forage in the big pond harvesting plankton and changing it into fish biomass. you should check the alkalinity in the forage pond. A good idea is to have the dirt tested for pond use - inexpensive at TX A&M.

Good advice, Eric. Also I have plants (Am Pondweed, chara, cattails, pickerelweed) in main pond, but nothing in forage pond. Between fish & plants, likely large BOW has tied up nutrients that are available to plankton in forage pond.

Me, too, John. Especially after I busted my knee!

I remember the downpour, Tracy. You need to come out sometime when the weather is nice! My LMB aren't in your league, but they are fun to catch and I have a few very nice HSB, too. Goose hunting is optional.

Frank, I suspect our Northern feed trained lmb are in the same league. I may have some larger FLMB but they seem to be harder to catch and one must target those fish because they seem to hang out in deeper water. Fish differently and get lucky or have patience unless fishing during the spawning time of year. I think one reason they are harder to catch is due to the size forage they eat and they have always had lots of forage. Another thing is they seem to hang out near the deeper water. I might be wrong about what size forage they will eat as per a recent thread here where what sized forage do the largest lmb eat. As to that I will say, if one is to measure his cnbg then he might realize a 6" cnbg is not all that big when it comes to it's height measured from belly to top and or it's length. I was surprised when I actually measured my cnbg. Maybe because I always thought 6" was 8". It's a man thing I think Another thing is my numbers of that size forage drops out pretty quick. Their growth rates are not fast enough for that to be the reason they seem to dwindle. I have also read where the Flmb is harder to catch.

Fishery Science friend and hatchery owner (lots of work on genetics and Fla/F-1 and Northern LMB) relayed a client result. 30 acre lake , well managed with lots of forage then stocked with Fla LMB in low numbers ( 30/acre). After 3 1/2 years they call and say your plan not working - we cant catch any LMB of size and few large BG need to restock. So he goes and electroshocks the lake. Excellent population of 125+ RW LMB. No LMB overcrowding but all year classes present. Shocked up many 5 lb + LMB and 6 over 10 Lbs. Not a lot of large (10 inch) BG.

Go figure. I guess those large BG were being assaulted.

Sounds like you'd have to fish with live BG to catch the big F LMB!

Makes sense Eric. The bigger the predator, the bigger it's needs. Once again, Mama Nature at work.

Thanks for posting that story Eric. My pond is 10x smaller than the one told in your story, but I suspect there is something similar that might be going on at my pond. And because it is only a little over 3 acres it is pretty easy to watch the cnbg and their sizes that hang out at the 3 feeders along with observations around other parts of the pond. To give some sort of a description of the forage stocking in the very beginning. Overton's Fisheries told me they knew of only a couple of other ponds in Texas where the forage was stocked so heavily. And then 6 months later we added 80 per acre Camelot Bell lmb fry. A year later due to e survey, we added 20 per acre of his yoy Lonestar Legacy lmb and the next spring we shocked again and then added another 15 per acre of yoy Florida's with different genetics. And followed up this past spring with some Northern feed trained yoy's. Ok! that is alot of lmb, but like said there was a lot of cnbg, res, FHM's, TFS and Tp. We will do some thinning of the lmb population this spring and try to remove all the males and or poor conditioned fish we catch. Eric, the relative weights of the FLMB we catch are as you described for the most part. Forage rates seem to be ok for now but keeping a close eye on them.