Deb,

I have a 8.5 acre pond that is currently drained down for repairs. I am planning on restocking this fall. I would consider GG and be a test case for the PB forum. It could be an ideal situation as most of my fish are gone and I can start from scratch.

Are GG available in East Texas?

Gator

No dealer there, but I will have a truck in the area the week of November 14th (tentative). Email me directly if you will. I have finally gotten away from the "salesman" label, and I don't want to go back there.

Deb

I'm a perch jerker myself, not really into huge LMB, so perhaps this will work well for my pond and goals. But dont tell my wife - I'm not sure if I can afford it!

In any case I am in contact with Deb and will keep the board updated on my progress. This could be fun!

I am open to any ideas you guys have...

Gator

Gator,

See the post started by big_pond on GG's vs crappie....and specifically my comments about the limitations of GG's.

Maybe you might want to try them in one of your small ponds first, before making your 8.5 acre pond a test case.

AMEN ML AMEN . Lets see --- 5000 per acre x 8.5 acres x 25 cents per 2in. fish = $10625.00 or were you getting a discount. Now you need a predator at ? $ . Maybe you need to tell your wife they are made of gold and she can wear them as jewelry. ewest

Get rid of the wife. Go in peace and never repeat your mistake, my Son.

Actually he would get a discount, but first of all I would not stock that high, second I would not "test drive" a fish on a pond that large unless you want to keep a tight grip on it, and third to do a true test he can't introduce any other bream (just predators). Especially since Aaron is having a very bad experience with what he thought was a GG from a local source. He and I are on a covert mission right now, so everyone think good thoughts for him please.

Deb

All,

(looking for opinions)

I have a ~.25 acre pond...would that be a better test?

Gator

BTW,

I cannot go $10K.



Gator

Gator :

The cost of stocking an 8.5 acre lake can be expensive. That was the point of my post. It can also be a big job to renovate such a lake. If you want to expir. then it is better to use a small pond. It is also easier to control and renovate not to mention cost. On the GG not for me until I understand the science and like HBG probably not then. ewest

Gator - The 0.25 acre pond would be an much better pond and situation to do the GG test. Go for that one if you can.

ewest, Bill and ML;

Thanks for the input.

I have a small pond on my place. It has one 3.5 lb LMB and a few "nervous" HBG that are several generations removed and reverting. I need some dirt for the pad for my cabin and I am planning on enlarging the pond to get the dirt. I could easily dispose of the current residents and run a GG test in that pond.

It has been holding at about 12” – 18” visibility all summer. It should end up at about 75' x 75' in size.

Deb, do you have any thoughts about this plan?

I will christen it the Pond Boss / Georgia Giant test pond, follow Ken’s stocking recommendations and report the results on PB.

Gator :

It sounds interesting. I would make one suggestion. Let Bill advise on the test matters ( how to stock , feed , fert. and test etc.)as he has some ideas in mind I think . ewest

Hey there,

If my figures are correct, that would give you a little over a 1/10 acre pond. This would be an ideal size to experiment on as you can keep up with everyday activity easier. The following is what I would recommend for the testing. The numbers will sound high to everyone on board, but if you want to do a true trial...

1. aeration is a must for a pond that size with the figures I am going to give you. We offer a surface unit that pulls from 4 feet deep and circulates 1/2 million gallons a day for an upfront cost of $648.95, then about $1.37 per day to run (if you run 24 hours 7 days), but there are alot of other good units on the market.
2. Stock 250-300 GG. 1-2" would cost .39 each, or 3-4" would cost .50 each.
3. Stock 50-75 HSB (smallmouth) for a predator. These are sterile so overstocking should not be an issue. They will control the Fx offspring allowing the F-1's to max. out in size.
4. Stock about 1000 gambusia minnows if you have the access to them. They spawn about every 28 days, give live birth, are an excellent source of food for the giants, and control mosquito populations around the pond.
5. Dye the water in the spring and summer months leaving an 18-24 inch visibility for plankton growth.
6. Stock a grass carp or two in the spring also to reduce excess vegetation.
7. If you do have the power source for the aerator, try a Bug-O-Matic for about $129.95. This does not kill the insects, but wounds them (knocks off an arm, leg, or head) so they are still moving when they hit the water. Both the GG and the HSB love this.
8. Supplement with a high protein feed every day during the summer (floating pellet), then every 2-3 days during the winter (sinking pellet).
9. Most importantly keep check every few months on water quality. Alot of people don't realize or accept that ammonia kills happen every day. The aerator above should eliminate that, but you can't be too cautious.

I will deliver for free and help out with anything else I can slide by Ken for the experiment. With the above stated items (not counting every day electricity), you should fall under $1,500.00 over a two year period.

I know everyone is saying right now that these numbers sound extremely high, but if an experiment is to be done based on our recommendations for high yield (not just the everyday pond), this is the plan to follow. Maintenance is to be expected with these numbers mind you, but the benefits will be great.

I am looking forward to this,

Deb

Lord I forgot to mention GET RID OF THE CURRENT RESIDENTS PLEASE!!!

Gator,

I think you should go for it in the small pond...I'm doing the same in my "kid's" pond. We can compare notes, maybe get on the same delivery truck order...Deb, I want the same breaks.

Also, you must get rid of that LMB. Don't make the mistake I made when I (unknowingly) tried to grow out HSB in the same pond which had an unknown LMB of about the same size as yours...he/she cleaned out every single HSB, every stinking one.

I agree with ML...GO FOR IT...do it for the team

If what we here of these true GG are true you should be inviting us all for a fish fry say mid summer if you stock this fall

We all do what we like with our ponds. If and when I totally renovate I am leaning twards the GG myself. Right now I am just playing around with various bream to decide. Its a blast.

Thanks everyone,

ML, I agree, smaller is better in this case. I need to read your comments on Crappie vs. GG, I am a big fan of Crappie but have shied away due to the ongoing management issues.

Deb,

I need to think through a couple of issues:

1. I live 2 hours away from my property. Am I biting off more than I can effectively manage? I make it down to "check on things" 2 - 4 times per month average. I am a concerned that with the stocking plan, feeding requirements and full time aeration could present a maintenance problem - if so, what plan should we pursue for me?

2. Given an agreed plan. What are the expectations for this test? IE - What is going to a realistic goal for these fish?

3. Since my contractor is enlarging my pond this week, I need to measure it to confirm the size (after he is finished), this may affect your recommended stocking plan.

4. Do we need a control group?...Any volunteers? :p

FYI, I will be restocking my big pond with CNBG this fall - it will be fun to compare/contrast the results with the PB GG Test Pond.

5. Removing the LMB in NO problem, I have caught her several times…she will make a nice addition to my larger pond.


Gator

P.S. Dudley and Robinson - I gots to keep the wife...shes a keeper and she loves fish!

I don't think you are "biting off more than you can chew". The main thing to realize with a pond that far away is the need for aeration and a good check on water quality . Do you have a power source out there? If so then stay with the aerator and BOM feeder, also you might want to set up a Stren feeder on the bank that you could program to feed each day since you won't be around. If this is not a possibility then we do need to adjust numbers accordingly.

I know my recommendations fly in the face of everything else here, but we found in the early years with this fish that GG's grow quicker when stocked heavier. They are terribly aggressive when it comes to feeding (like steriod induced), so to do an accurate field test you need to follow our plan pretty close. As for water quality you need to refer to Cody, Lusk, and the many others who have been working water chemistry for years. I have stated many times this is not my specialty, and I still sit on the fence with what to use and not use.

What are the expectations? Stock as I recommend (fish, equipment, and dye) and you should be looking at 1 to 1 1/2 pounders by the end of next summer. This is not unreasonable at all.

I plan to have my truck over in that area the week of November 14th, so if that isn't pushing you too much we need to get going on this. I will give you all my numbers (home included) so you can keep in contact with me anytime you need to should you have question. I don't do sales so this is not a pitch for commission. I am really looking forward to this project.

Call me at the office if you need to chat!

Deb

PS- Meadowlark I feel like I have been accepted as part of this family so my plan is to take care of all of you to the best that I can. Have no concerns !

Deb,

Thanks,

I will be traveling to the UK November 13th - 20th. Dang it! It's always something.

Can we shoot for the week before or after? OR I am ok with a delivery while I am gone as long as we plan it out ahead of time. I have easy/good access.

I set my electrical pole last weekend and ordered it to be hooked up this week.

humm...lots to do. Better git busy!

Anyone have comments on stocking rates?

Also, a $700 aerator seems pricy. Do we really need to move one-half million gallons a day? I’m ok IF it is a requirement, but, are there better financial choices?

Let me get the pond measurements back to you this weekend and we can make sure my estimates are correct. I will collect water samples and take some picture this weekend as well.

Gator

Oh yes, almost forgot...we need some rain Deb - could you please do a rain dance too?

Hey there! That week is not set in stone yet. We could actually make it the week before or after, I just won't know until a little later.
That unit is a 1/2 horsepower 220 volt unit surface unit that sprays up 6 foot, and it pulls from 4 foot deep. Actually the price is reasonable compared to others like it, but like I stated before there are alot of others on the market. The important thing is keeping that dissolved oxygen up regardless of the unit you go with.

Give me a holler. I am going outside right now to dance for you !

Deb

The week following would work better for me...ML?

220v huh? ...220, 221 whatever.



Gator

Gator you asked here goes...
For your goals numbers are not too crazy, go for it.
1/2 hp unit price is good but may not be necessary for 1/10 acre pond. Worked quite a few fish kills none from ammonia but again not sotcking this high, normally a problem in aquaculture only. If deeper than 8 feet more efficnet with bottom diffused unit.

Still do not agree with dye usage but if wanting a true test here I guess follow to see how it goes.

Of course this is not a true test unless you feed like they say but I do not like feeding over winter depending on climate.

Problem is that if every single aspect is not followed then they can say that is why growth is not like advertised. Good luck!

Greg,

I welcome your comments.

Since this IS an unofficial "Pondboss" GG Test Pond, I would like to hear everyones view. On the aerator - perhaps my pond is smaller than 1/10th acre...need to measure...but that big of a unit seems overkill to me to. Will need to measure and think through this issue carefully.

I will say this, If there is a probability that not going with the recommended unit will screw up the test, then I will suck it up a get the big dawg.

In any case - I will report all the details and leave them open for debate.

Gator

BTW Deb - For the ka-zillion dollar investment I'm spending and you are shipping half way across the USA - I want some grand daddy sized GG's. How long until I have the 5 lbers likie in the picture?

Heck, I can jeck 1.5lb Crappie out of just about any lake all day long around here.

Gator,

I'm flexible on delivery schedule...and reserving the right to deviate from the plan...such as the dye. I'm not convinced on that one. My ponds already have tannin colors and green colors from natural fertilization. If the GG's don't grow, it won't be because of not using the dye, in my case.

The winter feeding of sinking pellets every 2 or 3 days sounds okay to me, in fact, sounds like a good thing to try. I love experiments! Let's get it on!

Gator we have people with smaller ponds than that who use this model effectively, but like I said there are other units available (but keep in mind that our unit can be moved to one of your larger ponds later). I do not agree with Greg though (I know everyone is surprised) about the bottom unit. With numbers this high, and the fact that you will be away most of the time, I would like to see a unit that chops and sprays up into the air instead of bubbling. This would help so much with the removal of ammonia and other obnoxious gases.

Greg- "Problem is that if every single aspect is not followed then they can say that is why growth is not like advertised". Not true, in fact we might be referring to you for water quality. Let's all put our heads together to make it work. Yes we have a plan here that we follow, but a few variances are allowed.

Deb

Oh yeh, forgot to mention that I updated our board here on the tentative delivery dates. I now have you all down for the week of November 21st. The dye will not change the growth of the fish in my opinion, we just use it to slow excessive weed and algae growth during the spring and summer. It has no nutrients in it, so we can take it or leave it on this pond. Main points are stocking numbers, aeration, and FEED (pellet and live).
Wow this is gonna be neat!!!

Deb

ML- did you check your mail today?

Gator, suggest you follow the 'solar aerator' topic and use a similar compressor, after proven in 8 ft of water. What will the max depth be?

burger,

My max depth will be no greater than 8 feet.

Deb,

- Would you prefer I have my water tested locally or send to you?

- For the GG feed. Can I obtain this froma a local aga store? Any brand...ect?

- I see no reason for the dye (at this point).

Gator

If you don't mind (and if it is not much expense to you) lets test both ways. Send me a sample and have one done locally. I say this mostly for selfish reasons I admit, but I am also wanting to learn through this experiment. I have stated almost like a broken record that the water chemistry thing is not my specialty so I would like to see what the differences (if any) would be, and what their suggestions are.

Our feed is a special formula that we have made and is not sold anywhere else. I could ship some to you by UPS but the shipping alone would run about $16.00 per bag with the feed being $17.95 per bag (50 lbs). We are in the process of adding a tandeum axle to our truck so that we can carry more weight, but I don't think this will be finalized before next year. Our floating feed is 38%protein/22%fish meal, so just get as close to that as possible. Our sinking pellet is 45% protein. Get as close to this as possible.

Don't put the dye in a new pond because you will limit the natural "chain of events" over the next several months. If you do opt to go with it, wait until mid to late spring to prevent excess algae and vegetation growth.

Deb

I will be back tomorrow when I have more time to deal with some misconceptions (myths) in this thread.

There are a couple statements in this topic that I want to discuss.
The surface aeration unit may help reduce the chance of fish kills but it will not directly reduce the amount of ammonia in a pond.

AMMONIA - Background. By far, most of the ammonia is produced in natural ponds by bacterial decomposition of organics. Ammonia produced by higher organisms is a small percentage of the total production. When the ammonia is produced or released it combines / attaches to water molecules. His is then called un-ionized ammonia (NH3). Un-ionized ammonia when present in higher concentrations is the form that is stressful and toxic to aquatic life. Un-ionized ammonia is more toxic at warmer temperatures and in waters with higher pH. Increasing the salt or salinity concentration decreases the toxicity of ammonia.

MYTH - It is often thought that ammonia is released from the water during aeration; bubbling or spraying water into the air (ammonia striping). Stripping ammonia from the water molecules can be done but not in normal pond conditions. If ammonia could be removed from the water by aeration (bubbling or splashing) then fish haulers who use violent aeration for transporting fish would never have problems with ammonia toxicity. Ammonia toxicity is a very big concern for those who haul or hold fish at high densities.

FACTS – First to convert all the ammonia to the gas form (NH3), the pH must be adjusted to above pH 12. Then, high volumes of air are added to the water to cause changes in the partial pressure ratios. Then a long contact time is necessary during the air-water splashing to create a large air-water interface for diffusion of air in and ammonia out. If the water is to be reused for aquatic life the pH of 12 has to be readjusted back to normal levels (pH 6-8). A quote from Water Quality in Ponds for Aquaculture (Boyd) “ Surface aeration (2kW) for 24 hours in 50 cu meters of water at a pH of 8.5 did not remove ammonia.” We know know why.

Ammonia (un-ionized) is removed from natural waters primarily by denitrifying bacteria and absorption by plants, especially phytoplankton.

The second point I want to briefly comment on is the quote:
If the surface aerator pulls water from 4-4.5 ft deep, what will the water quality conditons be like in the remaining bottom water in this test pond (bottom layer 3ft to 4 ft thick)? During summer heat and intensive high protein feeding, associated manure production and lots of fish biomass, the deepest water layer will definately become anoxic (without oxygen). During anoxic conditons lots of bad water quality things develop in this deep bottom layer of water. This degrades water quality can possibly jeopardize the overall health of the fishery. I contend that "surface fountains" have much better overall results when used in ponds 3 to 5 ft deep. For aquaculture ponds deeper than 6 ft, the bottom, diffused air methology would produce better results. Bottom air diffusion combined with surface aeration would be the ideal situation to have in a high biomass, aquaculture pond.

Bill thank you for making this point, one of which I was never keenly aware of until earlier today. I took the liberty late this afternoon to read the following:

www.aces.edu/dept/fisheries/ aquaculture/docs/5864154-SRAC4603.pdf

This explained in detail pretty much what you have stated above. As for the pull of 4 foot, would the 1/2 million gallon circulation of water caused by this unit in a pond 1/10 acre (like we are to use in this experiment) serve any advantage in pulling the deeper sediment? If one were to have to choose between the bottom unit and the surface unit, which would be best? I know that we have had more luck with the surface unit in the heavier stocked ponds, but as you stated our depths are on average 3-5 feet. In fact we have had kills in these same ponds with diffusers in the past. In ponds deeper than that we have relied on the surface aerator and monitored the bottom ammonia. If concentrations did rise, we applied microblift (purple sulfur bacteria) to digest the sediment. This is your area of expertise, so I will bow gracefully in your recommendations.

Thank you for any further advice,

Deb

Also could the design of the propellar used in the surface aerator aid in the separation of the particules thus adding some advantage to the release of noxious gases?

I do not consider myself a expert in every part of the auqaculture area but I do know some basic concepts.

The methods that you promote to grow the GG's push the limits for reliably and consistantly growing healthy fish. When at or above natural carrying capacities things can turn "bad" very quickly and some water quality parameters can kill fish very fast. Many times when dealing with all this "fish stuff", it always depends on the variables. This is why there can be so many ways to "get it done" and often it works. Sometimes it fails.

Deb asks I am not sure what you mean by pulling the deeper sediment? Sediment as in pond bottom sediments? Or do you mean deeper water near the sediment (6ft-8ft)?

I will assume you mean will the high volume of water moved in such a small pond cause the whole water column to be mixed. Again, it all depends. It primarily depends on degree of thermal stratification (resistance to mixing) and the amount of wind action which will usually be comparatively small in only a 1/10 ac pond. Very little wave acion will be produced even in a strong wind. Even though one is mechanically moving lots of water, the downward mixing force of the lateral surface currents is quickly dissipated as the lateral currents move outward and down toward the cooler pond bottom. The downward moving water will seek the path of least resistance as in travels down toward the cool water zone on the pond bottom. Whenever the downward moving water looses more energy than it has to push against the cool layer, the down moving water will then travel laterally back toward the strongest water movement source (aerator intake). The laterally moving water travels on top of the cooler water layer beneath it. Water pushing against water quickly (compared to air movement) looses momentum because of the fluid mechanics of water.

This whole concept is why bottom diffused aerators are better at mixing the entire water column (the driving and uplifting force of water entrained in rising bubbles begins at the bottom and usu deepest coldest part of the pond) compared to surface aerators that are sucking water from the well mixed and easily mixable upper, warmer, water layer. But keep in mind that surface aerators are better than bottom aerators at creating a highly oxygenated zone in the vicinity of the aerator. Often, just a high amount of DO in a small area will be enough to get most fish through a short, mildly stressful condition. And providing the fish are smart enough to recognize that the noisy, oxygenated refuge area as beneficial.

Deb asks - Both units have benefits. If I had to choose only one, I my opinion, surface aerators are best for shallow ponds such as hatchery ponds (3'-6')and bottom aerators are better in deeper ponds (7'-20'). (See NOTE below). But again, it all depends and there will be exceptions in many cases. I can quickly think of several. If I stocked at the rates Ken et al recommends I would have both types of aeration or at least have a surface aerator available when deteriorating water quality conditions occur.

NOTE: Ken et al probably hear success stories with surface aerators in deeper ponds and this is why he promotes them for all ponds shallow and deep. He has seen in many situations or instances the surface aerator can provide marginal and survivable conditions for at least some or most of the fish when things "turn bad" (thermal turnover) in a deeper pond. Bottom aerators tend to minimize the frequency of "things turning bad". There are trade-0ffs.

Survivability of fish in deep water ponds with a surface aerator, during a thermal turnover or during other poor water quality condition or COMBINATION of conditions will be dependant on numerous factors. I will not elaborate on them here. Many factors, biological and chemical, can interact to determine if fish live or die during a stressful period.

Deb asks - In my opinion no. The ammonia is a much tighter bond to the water molecule and the affects of the propeller is so gross in comparison, the propeller design should have no measurable impact to separate the ammonin from the water molecule. Keep in mind that the ammonia is not dissolved in the water but chemically bound to it. The aquaculture industry and sewage treatment industry have special strippers and extractors that are specially designed to remove gasses and dissolved organic solids such as proteins from water. However somtimes to strip certain chemicals from the water (break chemical bonds) the chemistry of the water has to be modified.

Your post above mentions that "you" (the hatchery) monitor various water perameters on a regular basis. Also in this regard, Ken et.al. has quite a bit of experience in knowing what "signs" to look for and WHEN problems are likely to occur. Often it is very subtile clues are signs of upcoming major problems. I think the majority of Ken's customers (novices), who follow his stocking advice closely, do not have his expertise, experience or capabilities and thus they probably obtain less than optimum results. The general or typical customers have a very wide range of background knowledge, fish raising experience and pond management experience. The various pond conditions throughout the eastern US are also widely variable. You probably do not hear a lot about great results from many of these growers. I think the truly successful customers are mostly the lucky ones, and "things" did not get "complicated" for them in their fish raising project.

Thank you Bill! Now back to research for me.

Deb

Oh, on the quote "Survivability of fish in deep water ponds with a surface aerator, during a thermal turnover or during other poor water quality condition or COMBINATION Of conditions will be dependant on numerous factors. I will not elaborate on them here."
I wish you would elaborate on this either here, another thread, or email to me please. I know I am "sponging" from you, but you are teaching me a great deal.

Deb - That sentence of: Survivability of fish in deep water ponds with a surface aerator, during a thermal turnover or during other poor water quality condition, conditions or a COMBINATION of conditions will be dependant on numerous factors. This speaks volumes. One factor leads to another factor, that is dependant on two or three other factors and those factors are dependent on something else happening or not happening; and on and on. With knowledge one could easily write an essay on the topic. It summarizes what one would learn in a limnology class plus some additional practical experiences. The typical limnology class material does not involve examining the impacts of mechanical aeration. Impacts of the various forms of mechanical aeration would be topics of advanced limnologial studies or term papers usually reserved for upper level students. As a graduate student I wrote a limnology term paper about Hypolimnetic Aeration. As I now look back on that paper, it was pretty simplistic. I do not have the time available now to fully explain all the "it all depends" of that sentence. Sorry. A good course in Limnology will start to "shed some light" toward explaining it.

Deb and Bill,

Thanks for the discussion, I am learning a lot here and will wait to hear the agreed to aeration recommendation. I am following the other thread on stocking recommendations and will see what is decided there.

FYI, I consider my pond experience limited/average. I think that IF there is a way to reduce potential management issues, we should, considering my experience. If that means less fish, then so be it. Given a choice of aeration vs. no aeration, I would choose none, but, I understand that it is likely that some type of aeration is required and I am willing to follow the recommendation. I plan to feed as recommended. I am willing test my water regularly and supplement the water with lime (or whatever) to improve/maintain water quality.

Given the above - I think that would put me in the category of the “average” pond owner with a desire to learn and improve my skills.

Deb,

I have a pond water sample, where do I send it?

Also,

I took some measurements yesterday. First understand we have had close to zero rain the entire spring and summer, so pond levels are far below normal.

The Test Pond is currently 60' x 30'.

At normal levels it is up to 75' x 50' or a little less than 1/10 acre.

My estimation is that a normal levels the pond will be about 8' feet deep. At full (flood) capacity the pond would be about 10 feet deep. I don’t expect the dirt work to affect the depth.

To-do list:

1. Pray for rain.

2. Re-Measure after my contractor actually shows up (supposedly this week). Depending on where and how much dirt he needs, it may affect the overall dimensions.

3. Decide if the pond needs cover, it is basically bare. Should I add cover or let the HSB have a field day?

4. Remove the big LMB. No problem. Do I need to whack the HBG? They are a few in there...think the LMB is taking care all but the big ones.

5. Send water sample to Deb.

Gator

I think we are both learning alot here. Given the post you made above, we will need to adjust numbers previously given. We will most likely stock based on the 1/20 acre number you gave because the rain might not be as willing to help us here. What is the average rainfall in your neck of the woods? Of course I don't think anything is average anymore, especially the weather. Can you add water if needed? You might have mentioned this previously, but it would be lost in the threads right now.

Your to-do list:

1. Pray for rain. (I'm with you on that one)

2. Re-Measure after my contractor actually shows up (supposedly this week). Depending on where and how much dirt he needs, it may affect the overall dimensions. - This also might just slightly adjust water quality depending on the age of the pond and the amount of work you will have him do. Probably will not make a difference. Also make sure you have a decent slope, or shallow area, for the minnows.

3. Decide if the pond needs cover, it is basically bare. Should I add cover or let the HSB have a field day? - I see no need in cover. Stock the small HSB with the giants as their growth rate in the first year should be about the same. It's the size of the mouth not the size of the fish that we need to be focused on. HSB are also pellet trained, so they will eat the supplemental pellets and minnows until spring when they can go at baby GG's. If you do wish to add some cover then do it for the minnows.

4. Remove the big LMB. No problem. Do I need to whack the HBG? They are a few in there...think the LMB is taking care all but the big ones. - Whack everything!!! The biggest mistake people make is putting a hybrid bream in with another bluegill. They will cross and the test will not be accurate if any of those babies live. Once the contractor is finished, rotenone the pond and then apply potassium permangeanate a few days later to sterilze. If you have local access to the gambusia, you can add these about a week after the PP, which should fall in line about a week before I deliver.

5. Send water sample to Deb. - Call me at the office Monday 1-877-536-3474. I will be at the Expo Tuesday thru Thursday, but I want my name written all over the package so that nobody else does the test. Stephanie handles most of the water testing, so I will let her know that it is coming in for me to test on Friday. Also have it tested locally if it does not cost you much so we can compare.

* Please aerate the pond. Since you live away from the site (2 hours right?) and you will be following a intense feeding program, aeration will save your rump if DO levels crash or ammonia levels go up. I am still favoring the surface unit with microlift if needed, but we will see what Cody says also. I fear that if you do not get rain, your water levels will drop more, and a diffuser will not cause the proper circulation needed. Besides, if you do get to the 10 foot level, the fish will go to the site of the surface unit if they start to stress.

Depending on finances, you might now opt to start with a slightly larger GG since we will be reducing the quantity. Call me!

Deb

I feel that Meadowlark will have issues with heavy stocking due to only being able to use solar aeration. He can only aerate 5-6 hrs. at night without the cost of materials going thru the roof. I will suggest to him to stock 300-400 in less than 1/4 acre, or else the 2nd summer will surely cause water quality problems.

Deb,

I will work with contractor on dig areas and leave shallow zones and clear out all existing fish.

For aeration – I will follow the current thread and work to use whatever we settle on for aeration and stocking plan. I like the idea of the larger GG’s!

Based on my experience and all of the work needed - we may be looking to stock later in the year. For some reason these thing always seem to take longer than planned!

Deb the average annual rainfall is 45 inches.

Gator

I am begining to feel like "Jason the slasher" in what seems like my persitent attacks against Deb.

Firstly, Deb (aka Georgia Giant Man), I hope you are keeping track of (listing on paper) all the unanswered questions that you have been given as an assignment. I understand that answers to some of the questions will take quite some time to answer, but most of the questions should be able to be answered without a lot of actual testing and research. Granted you may need to do some paper shuffling for some of the answers. I trust that you do not "conveniently" forget to work on some of the questions.

Secondly, it seems to me that after creating this post that I am picking on you due to my relentless questioning, written confrontations and what may seem like badgering. That is not my intent; it is my way of teaching you and showing you and others that there are valid alternatives that are scientifically based.

Keep in mind that here, we are mainly discussing the stocking and subsequent management of Alligator’s small GG test pond which is the topic of this thread. And also remember our goal is to have as few offspring survive as possible and no offspring survival is best.

1. LMB (8”-12”) as controllers of GG. Deb’s quote said - “This would be possible, in my opinion, if one had the ability to "pick and choose" the LMB that stayed in the pond. But as we all know, the large mouth once aged have the ability to eat whatever they choose. If even a handful got past that 8-12 inch mark, you could be dealing with a substantial decrease in the population of the original stock. Now take the LMB out of the equation, throw in the HSB, maintain aeration and feed, give or take the dye (according to density of plankton), and I believe a reduction in numbers should not be a problem.”

My experience with LMB does not totally agree with your answer. I have experience with several ponds that contained LMB as a predator in combination with limited forage conditions such as hyb BG, or red ear sunfish as the sole forage fish besides young LMB. In another 0.2 ac pond that I renovated last year, it contained an aged (over 10 yrs) LMB population and a "handful" of pure bgill. In primarily all these ponds the maximum size of LMB has been 14” and sometimes the maximum size was smaller. Maximum size of LMB often seemed to be related to the density of the LMB in each pond. My point is that if crowded LMB do not have enough to eat, their growth will be very slow and their top end size will be relatively small (abt one pound +or – a few ounces). The more crowded the bass are, the slower their growth will be especially with limited forage conditions such as those produced by GG’s or hyb bgill as forage fish. Crowded LMB around the maximum size of 12”-14” long require a decent number of larger sized forage items (3”-4”) to efficiently continue growth. If these crowded bass are forced to eat a limited supply of fingerling hyb Bgill (GG) one can not expect them to grow very much, if at all. Plus if the LMB are overly crowded, their top end size will LIKELY be less than 13”; maybe sizes of 10”-11" will prevail. It is also very doubtful that in a pond of 75'x75' the LMB will be able to get very large. LMB less than 13” will not, as Deb suggests, eat “whatever they chose”.

2. Deb also says – “If even a handful got past that 8-12 inch mark, you could be dealing with a substantial decrease in the population of the original stock”.

I doubt very much this would happen for Alligator’s test GG situation esp in a small pond only 75'x75'. Even if several bass happen to grow (probably very slowly) beyond the 12” mark, these larger bass would never be able to eat any of the original stock of Test Growth Ggiants (due to GG’s hopefully large size). As I see it if the larger bass developed they would do nothing to the overall study except bias it toward causing the overall average size of the GG to be GREATER or larger. This would happen because the larger bass could possibly eat some of the slower growing and smaller Ggiants. Almost every population has runts and I assume that a small percentage of each batch of GG are comparatively “runts”. THIS GOES BACK TO ONE OF MY EARLIER QUESTIONS IN MY HOMEWORK QUESTIONS FOR DEB, - What is the variability of growth rate in each population or batch of GG?. For example: Let’s optimally grow 1000GG. After 3 or 4 years what is largest and smallest and how are the sizes biomodally distributed? This could be easily checked in one of Ken’s YOY or grow-out ponds that has been drained.

3. Deb says- Too often I have seen customers who stocked low on the GG, followed 6 months or so later with LMB, fished out the original stock of GG, and needed to either cage raise small GG or stock larger and more expensive ones to prevent the established LMB from having an expensive dinner thus wasting the customer's money.
This is a valid point for most, but I do not think it really applies for Alligator and his test GG growth situation and esp in a 75’x75’ pond where it can be easily drained or renovated at any time.

4. Deb says- “ Remember please that a large number of our customers do not do aquaculture or pond management as a full time job, or even has an addictive habit. They are not interested in culling out the correct sizes at the correct times.”

I contend that occasional trapping and or fishing and selectively removing subsequent GG offspring to supplement those that the predators may have missed is not that big of a job or that time consuming. I do not want to be condescending here but, If one is not able to do these SIMPLE, pond management tasks, then they have no business managing a pond, especially one that is stocked to over capacity with the entire GG program or “philosophy”. To do that successfully, is in my opinion, not a job for the casual pond owner. Alligator especially since he as some pond experience, should have no problem with these simple tasks of occasionally monitoring or culling for the GG offspring escapees in a 75’x75’ pond. In 1 to 6 acres, now that is a different story.

5. Deb says- “Together in a pond these two fish (GG&HSB) have the most potential for individual growth without contributing to the "extinction" in the pond of the other.”
Everyone keep in mind here we are discussing Alligator’s testing of GG growth rates and not the general customer of Ken et.al.. I doubt that the combination of GG & LMB would contribute to extinction of either fish in our test pond. IMPT NOTE - Either predator will probably work in Alligator’s test pond.

However, I think the LMB would be a better predator than the HSB in Alligator’s test pond. Why?

A. LMB will be able to eat more of the larger sized offspring that may escape the predation of HSB “storm troupers”.

B. HSB have been proven in many fishery studies to not be efficient predators of sunfishes for several reasons previously discussed on this forum.

C. Alligator’s test pond could likely develop a weed problem either submerged or the filamentous algae type. In my opinion LMB would be a better suited predator in this case compared to HSB which has limited predatory efficiency in “weedy” or non-open water situations.

D. LMB after 2 or 3 yrs are likely to spawn in the test pond and these small bass (YOY –4”) would be more efficient predators of the 0.5”-1” GG than the larger 12”-14” HSB. Original stock of LMB will in my experience eliminate the majority of the YOY bass after the first full year. I have dealt with numerous LMB only ponds.

E. LMB are a lot less likely to eat pellets than HSB. I suspect that predators who readily eat pellets are not going to be very effective as predators of small fish. At least it works that way with yellow perch.

F. LMB have larger mouths (gape) than the gape of an identical sized HSB. When considering mouth size alone, I contend that a 12" LMB will be able to eat a wider size range of hyb sunfish compared to even a 14" long HSB. For example a 14" HSB may ingore a 3.2" GG but a 12" LMB would ambush it.

Deb, and those interested in this topic, I have a question. Let’s step back and re-examine the goal of Alligator’s Study. I assume the goal of the Alligator test pond is to determine the GG growth rate and since Alligator has a very small pond, could he or someone else stock just GG in the pond, feed ample amounts of food, and each year DRAIN or otherwise completely survey the pond, do a check of growth, eliminate all offspring and restock just the GG adults? (Maybe Ken has used this same techinque)?. Do this repetitively (annually) until one is satisfied. A University may well do it this way since their work force is student study and cheap labor. I don’t think the ACTUAL goal is to check GG growth with using only Ken’s management / stocking philosophy. Do we have to check optimum GG growth using the only way that you know how to do it or have been taught to do it? Sometimes there are other ways to do something or achieve an end based on the actual goal that has been set for the project. What is Alligator’s goal for testing GG growth? We should re-examine this goal and the methods to be used. Maybe Greg G, Lusk, Bruce, Cecil, Theo, Dave W. or another will have an idea on this. Are any of them following this topic? I know Theo is!.

PS Deb says - ….”was your term "mischievous females" an indirect comment (or compliment) toward me?” Wishful thinking? Feeling guilty? I consider the female GG as pests and responsible for complicating one’s goal of raising huge hybrid sunfish. Eliminate the female GG from the equation and growing large GG will be much easier.

I have another comment on the stocking density topic regarding Alligator's GG test study.

I propose that before Gator does the final stocking, the active and interested board members arrive at a consensis of how Gator should conduct this study. However, we can easily leave it up to Gator and Deb to see what transpires. My ramblings will do nothing but probably thoroughly confuse Gator who probably is not well versed in topics of fishery management as an art and science.

Regarding stocking density of Georgia Giant hybrids. Deb agrees that growth potential is probably similar in GG stocked at a low or high density providing certain conditions are met in each case.

On one extreme, we put one fish in Gator's pond whereas at the other extreme we stock at Deb's high density of 400 GG in abt 5600 sqft (75'x75')and abt 8 ft deep, +/- 2'.

Deb's stocking idea is recommending relatively high dollars and maintence considering that Gator does not live on site and an electric aerator may be somewhat of a problem for him.

I think that somewhere in between one fish and 400 fish in the small pond there is a density of GG that will grow optimally WITHOUT aeration. I contend that aeration, at least in aquaculture settings, is primarily for minimizing fish stress and or kills in high carrying capacities combined with heavy feeding regimes. Reduce the carrying capacity (density) and adequately feed fewer fish and the need for aeration is deminished, yet optimum growth is hopefuly achieved. This fish management theory or method has worked previously with other species of fish, in many instances including natural and artificial settings, where some had deep, thermally, stratified water.

I do not understand why Gator cannot do this study, achieve the GG growth goals and not have to aerate his pond. What am I missing about this project?.

Nice chainsaw and hockey mask, Bill.

Reality check: You're being reasonable.

Thanks Theo. As a reward I included your name in the "group" mentioned in the above post.

PS - I do not know how Deb is ever going to pay me back for all the "free" teaching that I have been giving her and she has been asking for! Have you seen the cost of college credit hours lately? Is this considered a private college or state college; prices are different you know. I couldn't decide which smiley face was appropriate here.

BTW everyone, this is the "PB GG Test Pond". this was normal levels back in March 2005.



It is down by about 3 feet now. I keep thinking it would be awesome to have a camera mounted to a pole over looking the pond during our test - that way we could see live pictures.

Gator

Hey Gator I have another bright idea. Let's kick everybody out of the "cement pond" and use it to grow some whopper GG.

Gator, you and you alone should decide what you want to accomplish and the resulting plan for accomplishing it. Getting everyone's input is fine, but I respectively disagree with Bill's idea of requiring a consensus from a designated set of board members. As a professional engineer, I've seen the results of "consensus" decision making...it isn't usually pretty.

If your objective is to evaluate Deb's program, then it would seem a fair evaluation of that program would have to include key components/metrics from the program. Deb, it seems to me, should be able to define those key components/metrics and your decision is then to either do that or not.

Maybe that's an oversimplification, on my part, but if the test is of GG's and the associated program, then why is a consensus required or even desirable?

If the test has a different objective, e.g. stocking according to Pond Boss board consensus, then my comments should be ignored.

Bill :

Thank you for your efforts on this matter. I think your suggestions are exactly what is needed and are what I was hoping Gator would pick up on by my post on this topic dated 10-12.

I do not think you are being harsh at all. This is the only way we will know the science behind the GG and that is the only duty owed to the forum -- the scientific truth.

Every study I have seen says that LMB when stocked properly with HBG will control (eat) 95% + of the original HBG's offspring. Of course the HBG offspring are 95 % male. I assume the GG will have a lower % of males and thus have a potentialy higher reproductive output over time. If this is so then it is more important to have a very good predator like LMB rather than HSB. Further when BG and LMB are stocked together from the start ( 2in. BG in fall and 2in. LMB in the following summer) the LMB do not prey on the stocker BG for several years. The LMB growth rate is not fast enough to catch up with the BGs faster growth rate until year 3. By that time the stocker BG are to big for all but the exceptional LMB to eat. In our ponds a 3rd year BG is 7-10 in. and that would take a 16in. + LMB to eat it. It is rare for us to grow a 16in. + LMB in 3 yrs. remembering that the LMB is a year behind. That is the entire reason for the standard stocking program -- the BG create a sustained forage base because the LMB can't eat the original BG until after they have created a viable population usualy after year 3.

Please help us keep this topic science based and our focus on just that the science. Thanks . ewest

ps : This test should be about testing the reported growth rate of GG as Gator stated.

ML brings up a very good point about the goals of the study. Gator should decide on the goal for the study. However if the goal is to only determine what is the growth rate and maybe the life span of GG then additional advice about the methods to use may be advisable.

After re-reading the first few pages of this topic, maybe the goal of Gator has changed somwhat after he found out or realized what all was involved with Ken et.al.'s complete stocking philosophy.

PS - At least some people are completely reading my posts.

Ok, here's my thoughts:

I think GG should be evaluated in multiple ways. To be fair AND INCLUSIVE, one of these should be iaw the traditional Ken Holyoak recommendations which I assume is what Deb is working toward for Gator's 75'x75' pond. I think someone already issued the skeptic's warning "If we don't do it by the book, they would cite this as the reason for any failure."

(Before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes. Then, if you like the shoes, keep them. What's he gonna do about it, a mile back and barefoot? :p )

How have we proved anything about the "classic" GG stocking strategy unless we see it from a source we consider reliable? Where else are we going to get the complete skinny on it? If Gator is willing to do this (and ML is right, it's Gator's choice), I want to know the results. Maybe it'll work better than we expect. Heck, maybe it'll work as advertised. If not, Gator will have earned the Pond Boss Medal of Honor (you're not allowed to do that posthumously, Gator, except for dead fish) by having thrown himself on a live huckster to save his comrades. What greater sacrifice can a Pondmeister make?

I also want to see GG evaluated in a manner like we would treat hybrid sunfish in general (I think ML is leaning towards this), because that's where I really want to see it's potential. That's what we really know about it - it's a hybrid sunfish. I can accept a proprietary blend of genes. What will it really do if stocked in more conventional numbers (without other bream; most of the time I think it's a mistake to mix hybrid and non-hybrid BG) in a small pond with sufficient predators to eliminate the F2 and subsequent offspring? Yes, GG are for put-and-take - so are HSB, CC, trout, Smallmouths, etc. in most or all situations. Put-and-take species are tools that we can use if we understand them and want what they can do for us.

Deb has not (unless I missed it) claimed a tenth of what she has been blamed for. The only possibly crazy claim she has really made (and to be completely honest, it's one BIG claim and I think it's a bunch of hooey) is that GG will perform as advertised if stocked as advertised. I hope Gator (or someone with a good reputation here) will find out for us.

Bill:

I don't know either how Deb can pay you back for the education you are providing her. When I manage to pay you back for everything you've taught me, we'll let her know what method of reimbursement to use.

North American Journal of Fisheries Managemen
6t: 156-167, 1986
¸ Copyright by the American Fisheries Society 1986

Evaluation of Male Bluegill X Female Green Sunfish Hybrids for
Stocking Mississippi Farm Ponds 1

MARTIN W. BRUNSON
Rice Research Station, Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station
Louisiana State University Agricultural Center
Post Office Box 1429, Crowley, Louisiana 70527, USA
H. RANDALL ROBINETTE
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station
Mississippi State University
Mississippi State, Mississippi 39762, USA

quote below :

Largemouth bass effectiveness in controlling F2 hybrid recruitment was evidenced by the following: in the three drained ponds
containing largemouth bass (two bass/feed, one
bass/no-feed), the mean number of F2 hybrids per
hectare was 35; in the three drained ponds without largemouth bass (two no-bass/feed, one no-bass/no-feed), the mean number of F2 hybrids per hectare was 2,142. Other studies (Childers and Bennett 1967; Ellison and Heidinger 1978; Schaffer 1979)also have shown largemouth bass to be effectivein the control of F2 individuals in largemouth bass hybrid sunfish populations.

ewest - in the above referenced study you have to consider the stocking rate for the LMB. The density of LMB can be increased to improve the predatory pressure. Plus remember as an option Gator could do some thinning of offspring by sampling, trapping and angling.

Bill :

I agree. The most acurate test will be the one that does the best job of removing all the F2's. I think that will be LMB + trapping, seining etc. I think it will be harder to do that with HSB + trapping , etc. ewest

Theo,

I plan to evaluate the GG, but not necessarily Deb's total program. I want to see if GG's will grow as advertised, but in a pond environment that I know can be reliably and safely maintained in my ponds.

My objective is to have a great Kid's pond in addition to other ponds which have far different fishing experiences.

If the GG's will not grow, when stocked in a manner that I know reaches the limits of my little kid's pond's capacity, then I do not need to go to an even higher stocking rate to know that the GG isn't for me. On the other hand, if it does indeed grow out better at stocking rates I am comfortable with, then the GG will be part of a continuing program at my place.

There will be no other BG present, feeding will be done as recommended. and HSB will be stocked in the ratio Deb recommends. The final stocking rate will be what I am comfortable with knowing full well my pond and its environment.

I have no self-interest in the GGs, however, I've been following this thread.

As others have stated, there are simply two things to be evaluated, and they could be evaluated at the same time:

1) The Georgia Giant itself

2) The Holyoak method of stocking

However, the Holyoak method of stocking will put quite a pinch on Gator's wallet. Obviously, this is Gator's pond, and I haven't heard anyone coming up with any subsidized funds for his project; therefore, he is the final decision maker.

But, there are enough "fish" scientists available on this forum to give proper instructions on how to document this. Then it's finally up to Gator what he wants to do.

Bill, you've certainly pulled out the "big guns" of your experience and education. I certainly don't think you are too harsh though. More importantly, I feel you are giving Holyoak a taste of what expertise exists here on the forum.

This could be a very slippery slope for Holyoak.

Again, not that I personally care, but Deb, I assume your employer knows what you're getting Holyoak into here?

Bill, I know you have considered this, but, this is in Texas, where for 3 months the low temp. is 75 and high over 95, that even a small pond with medium stocking rates, some aeration would be needed with average to above average feeding.

Your thoughts.

Don't forget the MANAGED AS RECOMMENDED part. I think this is where the plow and clock both get cleaned.

I have thought of another question just out of curiosity.

If the offspring of the original GG are undesirable, is there not a possibility to make the GG sterile like HSB, Grass Carp, or Tiger Musky?

Bill,

The cement pond would work great! I could sit here at my PC and key in observations first hand. Not sure how they would fare when I crank up the hot tub!

All,

I appreciate your input and suggestions. I would like to ensure that whatever approach I (we) decide on is agreed to by Deb. The spirit of the test was to "try out GGs". If we take away from that, then we take away from the potential for success based on their recommendations. That being said – If Deb agrees to accept some “PB” suggestions, then I am fine with that too. AKA, pond dye.

I think we are still working through the aeration recommendation.

On the issue of LMB – I feel Bill has many valid points for Deb to consider here.

Keep in mind that my goal is GG, predator fish are secondarily important to me. If HSB get the job done and changing to LMB invalidate the test (from Debs perspective) then I go with HSB. If this is the case, then perhaps we need to do another test with LMB…I have another small pond, but don’t think I can spring for two tests at one time.

At the end of the day – I want large pan fish…GIANT pan fish in my pan!

Gator

Gator, you may need some help doing 'growth samples'.

Have pole, will travel.

Warning to all; this will be lengthy!!! (No surprises there)

First off we need to consider what is actually going on here. Different people have different recommendations and comments based on ...? Experience, hearsay, and personal opinion would be the answers I would choose. Some are on this thread to “prove us wrong”, some are onboard to help, and some are just curious. Several of you have tons of experience in this field, and this will serve well if adjustments are needed in the program. Now by all means I am not saying that everything we do should be done the way we say because we know it all. We don’t. Again that is part of the reason for my participation in this forum. I came on to present our side and defend a fish that has been “trash talked” for years without our knowledge, and I am here to learn. Review other threads and you will see that I have not put my “two cents in” at every chance I got. This is not because I do not care, but instead because the wealth of knowledge already on this forum far exceeds my experiences in this industry.

That being said let’s decide on what we want. Are the doubts here based on the fish, or a combination of the fish and stocking recommendations? A good point was made that Gator’s wallet is the one that will be tapped here. I have offered to help out as much as possible with free delivery and anything else I can get by with. Any other offers?

My proposal would be this:

ML can raise the GG and HSB using PB proven procedures (and his experience) to achieve that goal. Gator can stock the GG with LMB or HSB and follow Ken’s guidelines as close as possible allowing a few variables. My thoughts on the HSB were my opinion of the fish based on customer response, and the fact that I like what they do in a pond (both as a predator and as a hook fighter). We sell and stock both, it is customer choice. But again, unless we are willing to make donations to the GG projects, the final decisions will fall on the individual pond owners.

Bill I do not fill you are being harsh at all. You have an abrupt way of stating things (as do many professors), but your comments are based on fact, and my “feelings don’t get hurt”. These facts are what I am studying. Make no bones about it; I have a 2 inch notebook started with info from this forum and other sites. I intend to learn as much as possible from my “homework” and put it to practical use. I will not “conveniently” forget any question posed to me (as you put it), but it might take time to respond because I want my answers to be based on scientific truths. I came on board as an employee of the company who was asked to defend our fish. If I did not still believe in our fish and most of our ways, why would I still be here? Review my posts and you will realize that over ½ are made at night when I am off the clock (not on payroll). That should be evidence of my sincerity here. By the way, I was assuming my educational experience through you was based on Georgia’s Hope Grant. If not then I will need a scholarship please.

Sunil quote – “This could be a very slippery slope for Holyoak.
Again, not that I personally care, but Deb, I assume your employer knows what you're getting Holyoak into here?” I am not exactly sure what you are implying by asking if Ken knows what I am getting him into. My recommendations on this forum are no different than those made to our customers (adjusted with each situation). It is a plan that works. For me to try to organize this project different just for the sake of the forum would be a practice in deception, and THAT would be doing Ken an injustice. What exactly are we “getting into” by proving our system works? If we indeed practiced in deception then first of all I would not be an employee here, and second I would not offer to jump into this test.
Also you stated:
“If the offspring of the original GG are undesirable, is there not a possibility to make the GG sterile like HSB, Grass Carp, or Tiger Musky? - Sunil
There is always the possibility of sterilization, but that would eliminate the need/want for a predator. It is not that the offspring are undesirable (they are a good food source for the predators); it is their survival that is undesirable. Sterilization is a procedure that has to be done on a very precise timeline. I will not go into genetics, magnets, radiation, and Monosex triploidy right now though, in fact Bill Cody could explain this better than I.

Gator this is your pond. You are left with the final decisions after processing all of the information here. If LMB are your fish of choice, then go for it as I do not believe it will affect the short term test. You are only going 1-3 years if I understand correctly, and the LMB should not over grow the F-1 GG in this amount of time. Not to mention you could trap and release like Bill stated. Also, if ML stays with the HSB then we will have a comparison “down the road” from you, so to speak.
This forum is full of experts. Everyone has a specialty, many have several. I do not consider myself an expert by any means, but to date I am the only one on this forum who deals with the GG on an almost daily basis. I have caught the fish, dissected the fish, and listened to numerous testimonies from customers who have stocked the fish. If I did not believe in the potentials for the GG, I would not be here. As Bruce stated in an earlier post I would have “folded like a cheap tent.”

Deb

Good reply, Deb.

What I meant about the "slippery slope" covers a few fronts. And again, I use the term "Holyoak" specifically because I am talking about the company, and not your own actions.

Let me start with an assumption that Holyoak has developed some kind of great "bluegill."

Whenever something happens in the world that is better, scientifically superior, advanced, different than the norm, etc., there are two ways that the inventor can go:
1) The first way is to embrace the scientific world, or powers that be, and go through the efforts to explain what the "new" development is all about, and to hopefully gain some kind of acceptance. This way is tedious, risky, long-winded, frought with many pointless steps, and many times not commercially beneficial (due to exposing what may be trade secrets). I am not saying that this way is unrecommended or worthless in any way.

2) The second way is to go directly to the end-user and develop your market from there; and to avoid the scientific/academic world. In other words, state the benefits of the "new" development, but not really allow and third party evaluations.

It seems obvious to me that Holyoak has gone with method number 2. I say this because of the fact that there is no information available about growth rates, size ranges, etc., and no photos available. After some 30-40 years of being in that business, the fact that these things are not available is kind of a joke. But more so, it indicates a SUSTAINED EFFORT TO NOT REVEAL the aforementioned items (keep in mind, Deb, that this all predates your presence at Holyoak).

Now to current date. Holyoak is on this forum now, and with Gator's project, about to put everthing on the table to this forum. As I've mentioned before, this forum has some of the most prominent experts regularly participating.

Kudos to Holyoak if they are now taking the "nothing to hide" stance, however, this seems very different to how the company was before it's entry into PondBoss. This is also happening under a situation that you've referred to a few times being Ken's health.

Also, I am pretty unbiased to this whole thing.

PS: I also want to comment that I am not suggesting that you, as an employee, are doing something wrong or without permission. It just seems apparent that this experiment, especially on the forum here, is at variance to the prior modus operandus of Holyoak.

On the sterilization point, I may be wrong, but I though that the main goal was big GGs. If they didn't reproduce, there would be no need for a predator.

This is just an "if" of course. The cost of sterilization could certainly be prohibitive.

Now you may not like this statement (but remember, Deb, it's not you): when the suggested stocking of predators:GG is 5:1, that's a lot of revenue that will be gone if there was a sterile GG.

I have been watching all the GG threads very closely and have resisted to post. However, after receiving Ken's colorful catalog I can no longer hold back. I don't want this post to be observed as "flaming" and I am NOT saying anything negative about the GG. In fact, I would have them in my pond right now if circumstances were right. Everything I post here I will try to base on facts alone.

The point I wanted to make here pertains to the statements made by Deb in the prior post: "...defend a fish that has been “trash talked” for years..." and your reply to Sunil's post on "deception". Here's a scanned section of part of the catalog that I've added arrows to:



1) Volume sold ZERO. - I find this extremely unrealistic, because I also received a price list with the catalog and bluegill, shellcracker, and copper head (?) were part of it! Are you saying you sell these fish, but you've NEVER sold any? That makes no practical sense, especially for a business.

3) Grow 1/2 inch to 1 inch. - When first looking at this statement it is hilarious, I mean after all you can buy 3-4 inch fingerlings. I do understand though it is referencing from GG column on "thickness", but the reader would never make that determination unless he read across the page. Isn't this deception, whether consciously or unconsciously intended?

4) No major growth rates in pounds ever noted. - Notice I underlined EVER. The reason: based on what this ad says, bluegill, redear, and sunfish will never, ever ever reach major size in pounds. However, the world record for bluegill and redear are both well over 4 pounds. How can this statement be true then?

5) Bite with no consistency. - I'll refer to ML's recent posts and interest in building a kid's pond prior to his interest in stocking GG as an alternative. His plan was to stock BG and some other species of sunfish if I remember correctly. Why? Because BG always bite. That's why they are great for kids, because they require no skill to catch. Now because this is listed under shellcracker, I can understand the catchability of this species, but even so it devious.

I also wanted to comment on 8) as it says grows UP TO 1/4 pound in two years. I am almost sure many members of PB have blown this number out the door. However, because I don't have any direct experience or proof I won't elaborate on this.

Once again I want to point out I am not trying to flame you Deb. I think you've been extremely strong and persistent in your postings, and was extremely glad when ML first stated he had emailed Ken about joining the forum. You are a welcome addition, as many have stated.

However, I still don't understand how these statements are not to be observed as "deception". In my opinion, I know I said I wouldn't give it; this could be a cause for Ken's reputation on this forum. After all, if a well-educated pondmeister looked over this ad, he would definitely catch the things I caught on to. And if they knew these things were completely false, why should he expect claims about your patented Georgia Giant to be true? I think little things like the above "ad" are what makes Ken seem like a liar and a salesman.

I didn't want to post under this topic, but since Deb mentioned "deception" and the defense of her fish I thought this maybe an appropriate time to point these things out.

Point taken Sunil, but consider this. Other than the recipe for the GG, has anyone before now ever asked for the proof? If you read a thread I made under another post, I explained that in the first several years of the development of the GG the research was documented and photographed. But this was in the 70's. After the fish proved itself time and again on the farm and in customer's ponds, Ken moved on to other "inventions". This documentation is in a basement in Jason's house on the other side of the farm. Not to mention buried with 40 years of other research. I hate to fall back on the "time has not been available" thing, but that is the sincere truth. Ken has never been the most organized person (just ask Duggan about Ken's desk since he is the only one who has visited the farm), so it will take quite some time to dig everything up. But I can do that in time.
I honestly believe there is a line in between your two points, and this is where Ken has been sitting for years. He shares what he has learned with his fish and techniques, has allowed studies such as that done in Virginia and now Ohio, and has accepted guidance and suggestions from others in this field. But he will not reveal “trade secrets” like the lineage of the GG.

As for the statement:
“It just seems apparent that this experiment, especially on the forum here, is at variance to the prior modus operandus of Holyoak.” No disrespect, but who ever actually asked to do this before. When I was contacted to join this forum, I had never known of the PB existence. Maybe I am wrong since my time here has been limited, but has anyone on this site ever picked up the phone and asked us to do such an experiment. I think years of reading hearsay in regards to our company have programmed a lot of brains in a negative light. Now I am here to defend what was said before, so it is an automatic assumption that I may be “coasting under Ken’s radar.” I am not. Ken is fully aware of what I am doing/learning. As I stated in the previous post I do not condone deception. I won’t deceive our customers or this group, and I will not stay with an employer who deceives me.

Chris I also see your point. We added to the catalog last year, but did not remove or revamp anything and from your post above that was a mistake on our part. Duly noted, and yet another project to work on (but it needs to be done). On the fish sales, I have not seen anything sold but the GG in the 2 years I have been here (save for maybe some bluegill for bass forage only). Even though we carry the others (very limited supply), the hybrids are what sell. On subject line three underline the word major instead of the word ever and see if it reads different. Last red arrow about biting with consistency refers to winter months I believe. ML wants to stock GG and HSB, not other bluegill if I am correct. Also these above are comparisons from our ponds. I am not saying you are wrong and in fact see good points in what you have brought out, but mistakes are not a true sign of deception. I can pull several dated articles (and threads from this forum) that state the GG is without a doubt a BG x GS mix. Now the consensus is changing if ever so slightly. But again I understand your point of perceived deception through verbiage, and you are correct. But I also believe that if Ken was a "liar" as you put it, he would not have held up in this industry for 40 years. Different people read different ways. For example you will note in the catalog where Ken recommends the use of ag lime (page 76), but to hear Greg say it (no slam on Greg here just an example) Ken is dead set against ag lime. Do you see my point? Again I am not saying the selection you scanned above is correct on our part (I agree it needs to be rewritten), but look at the whole not just the parts. Thanks for bringing this out!

Food for thought: Hank Williams Jr. has been a loyal GG customer for several years. He is a PROUD believer in the fish. I'll try to contact his crew and see if one of them will post.

Deb

Let me note that it should go without saying that changes need to be made in different areas. We joke to Ken all the time that he is stuck in a mid 20th century rut. Technology, advertising, and written expression are not his strong points. Guess that is another reason for me to be here!

Deb thanks for your reply and clearing some things up! Let's get back to Gator's and ML's pond. Can't wait to see results!

EDIT: I just noticed the above image I posted is not showing up. Not sure what's wrong, but I think I may have overrun my monthly bandwidth.

Just to clarify & for the record, I am not saying that anyone is being deceptive.

As you've said, Deb, you are the only one available to explain, clarify, defend, inform, etc. all of us about Holyoak.

That's really not so fair to you as you are also here to learn as a professional in this industry. That is one reason why I suggested you re-register as a person vs. a company person. However, the distinction could get blurred when Holyoak needs a spokesperson.

Once you are able to collect all of this research & documentation that Holyoak has done forty years back, you will need to decide how you are going to present it; perhaps I mean that you will need to decide if you will "defend" it.

TritonVT, I can see your picture with no problems.

Thank you, but I knew you did not mean it that way.

As for the documentation one of two things will happen:
#1 - I will scan everything and paste an entire 100 page thread (really I have not crossed that bridge yet because the information is immense from what I understand) Wanna come down and help me? (just kidding)

OR

#2 - I will find out I have been wrong this entire time, quit my job, and hide from you all somewhere way up in the mountains with my tail tucked.

Actually I am sure number one is correct based on the customer responses that I have seen, but it will just take time.

D

One new comment. A fellow Ohioian (GC) with a new pond talked to Ken this spring (2005) and bought 1000 GG for his 0.5 acre pond. This Ohio pondowner said that Ken told him he could use HSB or LMB as predator for the GG offspring. GC has decided to use HSB and is stocking them the week of Oct 17 2005. I was not aware of this information when I posted my long discussion about Gator using LMB in his pond. Deb has agreed that either fish will act as predator upon GG offspring.

Gator just needs to decide which predator or combination of predators to use. As already suggested, an interesting comparison would be ML use HSB and Gator use LMB.

B-meister. I do realize Gator is in TX and weather is different and often extreme in TX. This is why I provided the extreme example of one fish in the pond. Without aeration gator will definately have to adjust stocking densities to allow for TX conditions. Lusk or someone with good experience should be able to provide advice as to what density would be adequate without aeration yet still pellet feed the fish. This leads to another reason why non-feed trained LMB would be a better choice as predator without aeration. HSB will likely feed to varying degrees on pellets which will contribute to additional BOD (waste) problems in the pond. HSB and GG both eating pellets will require lower overall stocking density if aeration is not used.

GGman - The information that is archived in the basement is also probably not neatly organized tabularized and presented. It is probably a lot of rough notes. I doubt you will find any neat organized reports. I wish you luck in your search. It may be actually be easier to start from square one!

Bill, you are a brave man calling out Lusk for a hybrid Sunfish experiment ! Florida/F1/Northern LMB catchability, or xbreed weight gains, thumbs up...new hybrid threadfins with a cold resistance, he's in...but mix in a Green Sunfish ??? I'm betting his eyebrow goes up

We will see if our mentor even finds and reads this. VEry busy schedule you know. He should at least have an opinion of how many to stock in TX waters if feeding and no aeration is used to minimize the chance of summer kill. It should certainly be able to be done. Even if it is stocking only a few fish. The real trick for success here is to have enough backround and experience to provide good advice after assessing all the contitions and variables. That is a trait of a real professional or expert.

All,

Ok, where to start…

The Test Pond:
My contractor called to say he worked this week. I will remeasure the pond dimensions this weekend. I feel we will be working with about a 1/10th acre pond with a maximum depth of 8 feet at normal levels.

I had the water tested locally. ~6.5 Ph with less than 17 PPM. This a basic profile for my area. Deb, I am over-niteing a sample to you for a more detailed analysis.

I will eliminate all existing fish this weekend.

Stocking:
I will go with the larger sized GGs and LMB. ML is going with HSB and this should provide some items to compare along the way. honestly, I would prefer LMB over HSB anyway.

Still need to work through the recommended stocking rates. On a 1/10 acre pond I think the recommended level is 300 GGs? I have been told 100 GG is more in line with “the norm”. Cost is not the driving factor for me on this issue, success is. ML, what stocking rates will you be using?

Aeration:
I did some checking around with a few folks (they are not on the PB forum) in the aeration business. I specifically checked with people who do aeration for a living and are familiar with my geography. Their basic recommendation is two-fold: given my pond dimensions, surface aeration is the best (albeit more expensive) solution. A ½ hp pump will be fine; although 220 volt is overkill (their words) 110v would be fine. Secondly, I have been told there is no reason to have aeration during the cool months. Their explanation is that the cooler water (mine is currently running about 69 -70 degrees and cooling) holds more oxygen and there is no benefit to running the aeration. One person was adamant on this point and we talked it over with another guy who had previously operated a hatchery and felt the same way.

I will provide aeration as required. I am leaning towards ½ hp system, preferably 110v since it’s easier to deal with than 220v. Any problems with this?

Comments welcome on the requirement for aeration during the cool weather months.

Now, what have I missed?

Gator

Why did they say 220v was overkill?
Why is 110v easier to deal with?
I'm very curious why someone would give this advise.

Gator,

You asked about stocking rates I would be using...haven't finalized it yet, but I did send Deb a proposal and waiting to hear from her.

My concern right now is the continuing drought over our region. Normally, we would already be in the rainy season. However, the fronts are coming through dry and if that trend holds, frankly I'm very concerned about stocking rates and will go very conservative. The next three weeks will dictate that..if the trend holds, i.e. dry fronts, all bets are off.

I agree with your research on aeration...and do not run my aerators in winter except for very brief times to knock the rust off.

Let's hope for rain and a return to normal rainfall patterns. With rain, I'll go for a relatively high stocking rate, but without it, will be much more conservative.

cazac,

If I need to plug in something, 95% of everything I own is wired for 110v. In a pinch I can run an extension cord from my cabin out to my pond. I already have cords, timers...etc. all 110v but I do not have the same for 220v.

Gator

GATOR - I tend to agree with the idea that surface aeration is less of a necessity in cooler waters. However I am not sure at what point where warm water stops and cool water starts. In other words when you can stop running surface aeration. In my opinion several factors will determine this. Opinions from the local "experts" will probably be good enough advice. In my opinion the fewer GG you stock than 300, the less you will need aeration. Keep in mind what is taught here about carrying capacity, over stocking, and feeding rates. The more you "push the envelope" the more risk that is involved.

ML and Bill,

I'm ok with pushing up the stocking rates as long as we stay within reason. Perhaps I can ask my local expert to put some parameters around when to aerate.

ML,

With my pond being so low, I might opt to wait out the rain and stock later in the year so we can get a good number of fish. What do you think? Surely this dry weather will break soon?

I have $350 of seed on the ground right now, I hope like heck it breaks. :rolleyes:

Gator

Deb,

Update on the water sample.

Funny story - My 6 year old had "pond water" for lunch today. Seems there was a mix up in the fridge this morning and he ended up with my sample in his lunch bag. Mom had a near melt down and ran up to the school, but it was too late...yes, son you had pond water.

I will collect another sample this weekend.

Gator

Gator,

I just don't like this weather pattern right now. We are normally getting Pacific fronts by now that bring 2 to 3 inches of rain a week, sometimes more.

Every front has passed through dry so far this fall season and the same is forecast for this weekend's front.

I haven't heard from Deb this week, but pushing back the stocking date would be fine with me and might give us a chance to see if this pattern is going to break or not. Let's hope it does.

Hey guys,

Sorry I have not posted responses to the above, but I have been on the road with the Expo since about 6:30 Tuesday morning. Give me a few hours to play catch up here in the office, and I will get back on here and post. Also ML I will look for and answer your email.

Thanks,

Deb

Hey Deb your pretty sharp, go post some ideas in the other threds and through your weight around a littel but ......no harm ment by it...just a suggestion....

Thank you, but my limited experience in this field has all been with my current employer. There is such a vast amount of learning to be had and shared on this forum, I am not sure what I could offer. With almost every post I read (things other than GG related of course), I find myself either agreeing with what someone has just said, or asking myself the same question that was posted. I may however try a few on for size .

This is how I see things to date (we might need to get a new thread going once this project starts so no one [including myself] will get lost). We have been discussing doing experiments with the GG bream in two different ponds in Texas (for any persons who have not kept up). ML will go with GG and HSB and use his expertise and experience to raise this pond. Gator will go with GG and LMB and follow most of the recommendations our hatchery has.

ML- I have returned your email. Do not hesitate to email again or call if you have any questions. We are in this together!

Gator- Sorry about the school lunch ordeal. Your water must be pretty clear. As for the aerator debate:

110 volt and 220 volt are the same price. Both are ½ horsepower units that perform well. There is however a few differences we need to discuss.
QUESTION #1- How far is your power source (meter box) from the outlet where you will plug in the aerator? I ask this because if your plug in site is 100 feet or more from your meter box, I am afraid you will have too much of a pull on the 110 unit. There could be quite a distance for the power to travel. On the other hand if you are closer than 100 feet you should be fine.
Electrical - 110 unit pulls 6.8-6.9 amps on start up whereas the 220 only pulls about 3.6 on start up. Both units come with 50 foot of submersible cord, but the 220 will not have a plug on the end (just bare wire). There is such a variety of male to female plugs for the 220 volt, that we leave the connection up to the homeowner. Not a hard job, and it does not cost much, but I want to give you as many facts as I can.
Personally I do not think the 220 will be overkill by any means. When it comes to DO levels, especially since your pond is low right now (and the weather is unpredictable), I think that “the more the better” would apply in your situation. Keep in mind both units cost the same, so the decision should not be based on the $ factor.

1. We will reduce the number of fish, and increase the size (if you wish too).
2. Leave the dye out of the equation, and we can re-evaluate in the spring.
3. The BOM does not kill bugs, but it instead provides a live protein source at night for the fish. It is our “sadist” bug light (cuts off arms or legs wounding the bugs so they drop into the water and wiggle around). It runs off 110 volt and is a good investment if you want to go that route (free food).

We generally only run our truck twice a year into Texas (spring and fall), so I would like to get these to you in November with ML’s load (to do a true growth comparison). Otherwise it will be March or April before we return to your area. You however know your pond and your finances better than anyone, so go with whatever is comfortable to you.

QUESTION #2- Do you have access to the Gambusia minnows or do I need to bring some? I can bring you 1000 for .10 each if you need me too.

I am still ½ asleep from this past week, so if I am forgetting anything please let me know.

Thanks,

Deb

The same results can be expected from 110 or 220 units. Some even use the same motor that is jumpered to run on either voltage. 220 is not an overkill, but as Deb said, it will draw 1/2 the current, thus will not get the loss of voltage in the cable(voltage drop). Current is what causes voltage drop.
Gator, if you are not within the 100ft, I can let you know what size cable you will need to run.

Gambusia minnows at .10 each, I have a 1/2 price sale going...I'll sell them for a nickle each

Gambusias are expensive as far as baitfish go. But they apparently do a good job of staying alive in ponds, and in the marketplace.

Ok, A couple of updates:

1. I have a new water sample, will send this week.

2. The dirt work is finished, they did a great job. The pond will be a maximum of 100' x 100' at normal full level. The drought continues. I'm leaning toward waiting for rain before stocking.

3. All existing fish decided to leave, man - that Rotenone really does the job.

4. On the aeration issue. I will use 110v (for previously stated reasons). My brother is handling the wiring issues - it is over 100 feet. He is a Master electrician + we are wiring my cabin in the next few weeks anyway. I still see no reason to run the aeration during the cool season.

5. Deb, on the Gambusias. I haven’t looked around yet. It’s been busy. Assuming your price is a good as others I get them from you. Eastland offered a ½ price sale (does that include shipping Eastland? ) Deb, I assume I will get the LMB from you to.

We need to decide on stocking rates. I was waiting to see what ML was doing on his pond.

Here is a updated photo of the pond (those are my two youngest boys standing beside it to give you an idea of size):

Sounds good! I will check your sample and call you this week (make sure your phone numbers are provided on the sample).

On the LMB, we generally sell out in early summer and are only left with the large ones. Do you have a reliable source for LMB?

You might want to email ML. He and I have already ironed out all the details on his pond. We may can do a three way call at some point.

Deb

Deb,

Sample in the mail.

I like ML's stocking rates, they will work for me too.

I also like the idea of the larger GGs.

Eastland fisheries has Gambusia's for a nickle a fish. Any chance you can match this reputable supplier?

I'm a month or so away from having electricty out to the pond. If I get in a bind, Burgermeister has volunteered to help. Thanks BM.

On the LMB - Can I wait until spring or should I stock now? What is my target LMB size now/spring?

I will call this week to go through the details...I prefer giving the weather a chance here (for rain) before stocking. According to my weather caster friend, we are in for a "wetter than normal" fall/winter.

Gator

Gator,

I sure hope your friend is right on the weather.

Just when is this wetter weather supposed to start? Sooner the better, as far as I'm concerned.

I've started working on my pond again. It'll rain. It'll rain a lot.

BrianH,

If you are still interested in a couple or more of GG's for your aquarium, my offer still stands. You can follow Deb's posts to see when they will be coming to East Texas.

Update time:

I just tested Gator’s water, and here are the results: (0.058419 grains per US gallon = 1 ppm)

pH = 7.0
Total Hardness= 17
Total Alkalinity= 17
Total Ammonia= 1.2 ppm

I am going to give my recommendations on this, and then I would like a weigh-in from others who are a lot more experienced in treating water quality. Also I believe Bruce is the HSB specialist, so I would like his opinion on what the quality must be to raise the HSB (as Meadowlark plans to do with his GG). As a general rule we have always stuck with 51 as the minimum total hardness for the hybrid stripes, so I would like other opinions please.

First and foremost the ammonia situation needs to be addressed. I have found microblift to be very effective on ammonia, but Cody or someone else might need to comment here. Gator did not state how deep the sample was taken from. We need to get him below .8 ppm before stocking. He also did not state how long it had been since he killed off the pond. This could also be affecting the levels (organic decay?).

As for the Hardness and Alkalinity we would normally suggest Cal-Plus and bufferin to raise these levels, but I am admittedly on the fence on this subject since being a part of this forum. If others here say to go with the ag lime, then let’s do it. In fact we do recommend doing this on new ponds (it is even in our catalog). The main thing is the end result of getting these numbers up for Gator.

Question to the forum-
We have always used the hydrated lime @ 25 lbs per acre per week to raise really low pH levels prior to stocking. Gator does not have a pH problem from what I see, but my question is in regards to dolomite lime with the high ammonia. Does the rule still apply not to lime at all until ammonia is fixed? It stands to reason that this would be the case, but again this is not my area of expertise so any comments based on experience would be appreciated.

Thanks guys,

Deb

Try these for info. ewest

ammonia

http://srac.tamu.edu/tmppdfs/8345539-463fs.pdf

water quality factor interrelationships

http://srac.tamu.edu/tmppdfs/8345539-464fs.pdf

All,

Deb and I spoke on the phone and discussed the possible cause of the higher than desired ammonia. One thing to consider is the absence of rain. Basically the pond has been sitting since early May "cooking" all summer with no additional water.

The point being: If we get the much needed rain, perhaps the ammonia issue may revolve itself? The pond is at 1/2 its normal capacity.

I am not a big fan of adding anything unless it is absolutely required. Perhaps we should retest after we receive more rain. Then make adjustments at that time. Any comments?

Gator

Deb and Gator, I think Deb's ammonia test results are too high based on the present condition of Gator's pond. I am wondering about the accuracy of Deb's test for ammonia OR the sample was not stabilized (preserved) before shipment and ammonia accumulated or built up in sample after it was collected.

Typically samples collected for ammonia analysis should be tested as soon as possible after collection. If analysis cannot be made immediately or soon after collection BUT if analysis is to be delayed for up to 24 hours then the sample must be preserved with either mercuric ion or sulfuric acid. I doubt Gator preserved the sample before sending it to Deb.
Also several common substances such as iron or sulfides can interference with the ammonia test. Other less common substances can also skew the test results. The type of test method used is affected differently by the above noted interferences of iron or sulfide. Sometimes the water sample needs to be distilled before it is tested for ammonia.

I am not a chemist but I do know enough to be wary of high test results especially if the sample has been shipped OR stored and the chemical being tested is not a real stable substance in pond water. Pond waters with fish densities of few, normal or no fish are not normally high in ammonia. I personally think before we conclude that Gator has high ammonia levels and that it needs to be fixed, we should have some input from PaPond who is a retired chemist from PA and who sometimes frequents this forum. Another chemist that I am not aware of may also be able to help out here.

Additional note. The hardness conversion factor for converting grains per gallon to ppm or mg/L is 17.1. Thus Gator's total hardness is in the ball park of 290 mg/L.

My experience with HSB in Ohio indicates that they do well in water with total hardness ranging from 200 -300 mg/L. Bruce condello can confirm his results from the midwest.

Quote from "Culture and Propogation of Striped Bass and it's Hybrids" edited by Harrell, Kerby and Minton states the following:

"It is generally accepted that water with a total hardness greater than 150 ppm is very good for phase I culture. Under hatcherty conditions, excellent phase I crops have been reared in fresh water ranging in hardness from 60-600 ppm".

"Stress problems resulting in mortality have also occurred in striped bass and hybrids when handling fish transferred from hard water to very soft water. Hybrids are somewhat more tolerant than striped bass to soft water, but should not be subjected to radical changes in water hardness".

That said, my hardness in all of my ponds ranges from 400-480 ppm so it's not an issue for me. I couldn't find any other references as to minimum hardness needed for HSB survival.

Thanks a lot Bruce for the informative reply!. Is PaPond or another chemist out there?

Follow-up information for Bill.

The sample was several days old, collected on a Monday, tested on a Thursday.

Also, I will be stocking LMB for preditors.

Gator

Ok, now I am totally confused with the water quality issue . The following quote is from Water Doctor’s website:

“What does GPG or grains per gallon mean?
Parts per million or grains per gallon are both used to describe the dissolved hardness minerals contained in water. One part per million (PPM) is one unit of a substance out of one million units of water. Grains, or grains per gallon (GPG), is a unit of weight. It is 1/7000 of a pound. One GPG, (1gpg) is equal to 17.1 PPM.”

http://www.waterdrs.com/hardwater.htm

(Now I know why I stayed away from chemistry and physics ). The the gentleman who did the test in Texas said that Gator’s water was less than 17 ppm. Also Greg stated under water chemistry the following:
"Deb, ok you are right we are going in circles. It is not my equation it is the standard way by most everyone in the pond industry. I use the same method to get the alkalinty and hardness, excpet I use a more expensive digitial titrator and can read direct results directly or use a calcualtion to get true ppm (or mg/l) Total Hardness. The formula you are using is based on the same thing, if not why do you come up with a completely differnt chart than anyone to send out to clients with the water quality report. They ssume it is total hardness and recommmend 120 when eveyrone else recommends 20ppm". But Bruce just said 60-600 ppm. HELP???
Please realize this is not a knock on the gentleman in Texas who tested the water, or on Greg (we had a nice long talk on the phone the other day and have respctfully agreed to disagree on some issues), but this is why I am still confused. Cody to the rescue please!!! I want Gator to be set up right with the water quality, and I am leaving this up to the pros (not me)!

As for the ammonia test, the procedure itself is fairly simple, but Cody is correct in the changes that can happen “in route”. When his water sample arrived it was relatively clear, but the pictures he showed here on the thread had an algae skim on the water surface. This would decay in route to me and raise ammonia levels, right Cody? Also this pond had been stagnant for a long period of time. My concern is in stocking a pond with any raised ammonia levels at all. The stress caused going from low ammonia to high could kill the fish But if the levels are low onsite, then we should be ok. As Gator said he would rather not have to add any thing.
How far do Overton and Lusk live from Gator’s pond? An onsite test would be better so we can get this accurate. As I stated in the beginning I really wanted Gator’s water test sent to me for selfish reasons. I am trying to learn this also and wanted to see the comparisons.

Thanks for the input/advice Bill and Bruce -

Deb

From what I understand Gator's land is in the pine belt and has acid soil. I would expect that if ag lime has not been added the alka. reading is 17 mg/L or 17 on a standard Hatch kit test, which is low. If so he will need ag lime. See below which is from above links ( the link covers ph, alka., CO2 & hardness in detail) :

Ideally, an aquaculture pond
should have a pH between 6.5 and
9 as well as moderate to high total
alkalinity (75 to 200, but not less
than 20 mg/L) and a calcium hardness
of 100 to 250 mg/L CaCO3.
Many of the principles of chemistry
are abstract (e.g., carbonate-bicarbonate
buffering) and difficult
to grasp. However, a fundamental
understanding of the concepts and
chemistry underlying the interactions
of pH, CO2, alkalinity and
hardness is necessary for effective
and profitable pond management.
There is no way to avoid it; water
quality is water chemistry.

Agricultural limestone can be used
to increase calcium concentrations
(and carbonate-bicarbonate alkalinity)
in areas with acid waters or
soils. However, at a pH of 8.3 or
greater, agricultural limestone will
not dissolve. Agricultural gypsum
(calcium sulfate) or food grade calcium
chloride could be used to
raise calcium levels in soft, alkaline
waters.

Chronically high CO2 levels
can be treated chemically with
hydrated lime, Ca(OH)2. Approximately
1 mg/L of hydrated lime
will remove 1 mg/L of CO2. This
treatment should not be used in
waters with poor buffering capacity
(low alkalinity) because pH
could rise to levels lethal to fish.
Also, fish could be endangered if
hydrated lime is added to waters
with high ammonia concentrations.
High pH increases the toxicity
of ammonia.

I'll throw in a guess, a response, and a ?

The guess: Gator's land is probably similar to mine in East Texas which is acidic and highly responsive to ag. lime. However, in my experience, it does take some time for the ag. lime to have the complete effect...about three weeks in my experience. I have to apply 4 tons per acre, also to get the best results....unscientific, yes, but works for me.

Response: Todd is between Buffalo and Centerville so he is a fairly good distance from Gator, I believe. I'm going to Todd's place on Nov. 5 and would be most happy to take him a water sample, if that would help matters.

The ?: Why the high ammonia levels? Can we be reasonably confident that the delay in testing is really the cause of the high ammonia levels? Like Deb said, it would really be a shame to stock anything and have it die. Gator told me that another test taken with the same time delay, in a different pond had no ammonia...which is why I ask the question as to root cause of the ammonia levels.

Again, Gator, if it helps to unravel this, send me the water sample the day before and I'll take it directly to Todd for his testing on Nov. 5. Not speaking for Todd, but I'm confident he will be glad to do the test based on his superb willingness to help.

Firstly Deb is correct that the conversion for grains to ppm (mg/L) is 17.1. My memory is getting foggy and I should have double checked before posting. I will edit my post above and fix my error.

I think Deb is probably correct about algal decay in sample transet and it caused increased ammonia. I think ammonia concentration is okay in Gators pond. To check if it will support fish put a small fish or two in a minnow bucket and put in the pond to be stocked. If fish live for two days pond is okay to be stocked.

I think I have had a lightbulb, maybe! I have been perplexed for awhile on this gpg versus ppm thing so I pulled out the Hach manual again just now. It does say to count the drops then multiply by 17 (or 17.1). Gator only required 1 drop before complete color change, which when multiplied by 17.1 would give the low ppm reading.
What am I missing here? I feel really ignorant on this topic (but I want things to be done right) so any help would be appreciated.
If Gator is really at 17 (or 17.1), then we need to raise him for optimum growth. Only problem will be the high ammonia levels with lime.
Thanks ML for offering to help on the local test. Maybe this will shed a bit more light. Lord knows I will benefit from it.

Deb

By the way, I noticed before that others were using some type of digital equipment when on site. Does that measure in ppm or gpg? Greg had stated 20 ppm as ideal, but could he have meant gpg of 20 x 17.1 = 342 ppm? See, told you I was confused. Give me fish, genetics, or bacteria and I am ok, but this stuff.....
Cody are you out there? Bruce? Anyone?

Is there a field tester for Ammonia?

Bill, the pond was supporting fish up until I applied the Rotenone this week. I killed off hundreds of 1” – 3” HBG.

FYI, I took the sample before the Rotenone treatment.

Gator

Hey Gator-
There sure is a test for ammonia. We offer one (through Hach) for $69.00 plus shipping, but you might find something more local (save shipping charges). I think that it would be a great idea for you to have one, that way you can continue to monitor levels once you restock as well as having the accurate results right now. The test is very simple (I can use it )

Deb

OK I have been out on lakes. Deb we are on good terms I will try to keep it this way so please hear me out I mean no disrespect but this whole thing is starting to make sense to me.

1. First we disagree on what is recommend for pond mgmt, I thought this was the case but you seemed to think it was the diff in gpg or ppm. You are indeed reporting ppm. IN aquaculture it might be that you want hardness/alk above 100 ppm or more. In pond mgmt most agree( I think) you want it above 20 ppm. IN GA I rarely see it above 10-12 naturally without lime. Now just last week hit a spot in NW GA htat had 180 so there are exceptions. Also guess what there is a high limetsone area near Alapha. This makes for a great sitaution for you to grow fish. However IS NOT NECESSARY for hardness to be this high to grow fish in a sportfish pond. It needs to be above 20 ppm for many reaons (limited time here) but no dramtic reason to get it to 100 ppm. EXCEPT with HSB I think it is real improtant to have high hardnes and the reason I feel we have limited success with survivial in many GA ponds. We can talk about this later but ask and most will tell you 20 ppm is what to strive for.

2. What are you reporting...17 ppm if his water is similiar to ML's. It is not 300's.

3. You are using a Very basic kit. Like I said almost all water in GA is less than 20 ppm. So the dropper method is very inaccurate. I use a diigital titraotr and depending on reagents can report to within 0.1 ppm with accuracy. Deb there are other cheap kits that have a conversion of 4 drops/ppm that would be big improvement.

4. What does he need to do. ML is doing exactly what I tell clients here if they have less than 20 ppm alkalinity.. add 4 tons of aglime.

5. Ammonia...you may have stumbled onto what I also disagree with in a major way. I have never seen a sportfish pond have a fish kill from Ammonia! I used to check it reguarly and have never had a reading as high as you just got. Ammonia is an issue moslty in aquaculture situation. I guess with the high numbers you rec. it could come into play. ANyone else want to explain this better to Deb. I know the catalog has a big full page that states "Ammonia is the number one cause of fish deaths". This is another one of those deceptive deals. This is probably true (I don't know) in aquaculture but Deb this is NOT the #1 cause of fish deaths a fishin' pond.

6. Why the high ammonia reading? Deb I believe you. I know you are not lying and probbaly folks in the pat have had high ammonia levels by the time the sample is tested but feel this is a "false positive". I'm guessing but bet the ammonia level for the pond in question is fine something happens as stated by Cody to the sample for it to read this high. Maybe there are testing procdures that can be improved? Deb I appreciate you trying to learn this stuff. I hope this will help use start to understand our recommendaitons better.

Gator :

We may have missed the boat by not starting with a soil test of the pond bottom. They are usualy done by your state Coop. Ext. Service. Very cheap here and they outline and test soil for for pond matters. $6 last time I had one done. Check on that with your county agent. It will give you a good baseline to work from. ewest

No Greg, you are right! I do feel things have taken a turn for our "relationship", but I am still very confused. You are listing 20 ppm, but Bruce quoted earlier today the following:

"Quote from "Culture and Propogation of Striped Bass and it's Hybrids" edited by Harrell, Kerby and Minton states the following:

"It is generally accepted that water with a total hardness greater than 150 ppm is very good for phase I culture. Under hatcherty conditions, excellent phase I crops have been reared in fresh water ranging in hardness from 60-600 ppm".

"Stress problems resulting in mortality have also occurred in striped bass and hybrids when handling fish transferred from hard water to very soft water. Hybrids are somewhat more tolerant than striped bass to soft water, but should not be subjected to radical changes in water hardness".

That said, my hardness in all of my ponds ranges from 400-480 ppm so it's not an issue for me. I couldn't find any other references as to minimum hardness needed for HSB survival." - Bruce C.

See why I am still running in circles with this. As I stated before we do not have the ability to run the in field tests like you all do, so our Hach testing procedure is what we use. I see where variables need to be noted, and again am learning. But I am getting some conflicting info. I mentioned once before that we might need to put our heads together to combine forces...any thoughts there !

Thanks to everyone! (Good point ewest)

Deb

Deb, that is the diff. that quote is for HSB. This is majorly diff than sportfish mgmt. Pleae can others quote there desired alk level for Deb so she will think it is not just me. If you read my post I said it needs to be high for HSB. IN fact I'm trying to raise HSB so they will not have dramatic diff in hardness when we stock them.

Deb, no diff. I feel stock/mgmt goes hand in hand. IN fact I state all the time to have a good pond to meet goals...Start off first with good stocking then maintain with good mgmt.

You folks do manage ponds via your product sells!

I understand you do not check the WQ in field that does not mean you can not get a good (more accurate) test kit in the lab. Alk/Hardness should not change in the sample sent to you. Any thought on what I said about ammonia?

Hey, I promise I am not trying to be hard headed but even ewest made the following comment:

"From what I understand Gator's land is in the pine belt and has acid soil. I would expect that if ag lime has not been added the alka. reading is 17 mg/L or 17 on a standard Hatch kit test, which is low."

That is why I am still confused!!! So yes, please let's have some weigh in from others on desired total hardness and total alkalinity readings in ppm. Lord I am glad we are not married. One of us might be in the bottom of a pond right now ! You know I am kidding!

As for the ammonia, I do disagree. I have done too many tests from people who brought in a water sample within a few hours of taking it, and they had really high numbers (even up in the 3.0 areas). These were not all from ponds we stocked either. The customers were experiencing drastic fish kills, and under microscopic evaluation I found ruptured vessels in the gill filaments. Once treated with microblift for three to four weeks, the ammonia numbers were drastically reduced. I still stand by high ammonia and low DO levels running neck and neck with high fish kills. Ammonia levels run high for various reasons (Cody can further this if he wishes) like organic decay, fertilizer runoff, fish death, excess feed...

Thanks for helping me keep this friendly!

Deb

OK, heading out, Deb ewest comfirmed what I said 17 ppm is low. Bring it up to well above 20 ppm with 4 tons lime and once back down below that level after a few years bring it back up. I think Deb when others find this they will add their comments.

YOu realize you can drop the gpg, you are reporting it in ppm. I used to use the same test years ago. Actually all you are saying with one drop is that his alkalinity is less than 17 ppm. Actual results can not be determined with that test kit, it may be 10ppm??

Deb, I hope BOb LUsk chimes in, I'm curious to see his and others take on ammonia. Do you understand the nitrogen cycle? SOme crazy things have to happen to get high ammonia, but I will not comment anymore on that until (hopefully others chime in, BC?)

Guys :

On my Hatch test kit one drop = to 5 ppm alka. If I put in the 4th drop and the color starts to change but not pink/red but kinda grey and then put in 5 th and it turns to red it means alka. is between 20 and 25. We are in the pine belt and have never had alka. above 40 even with lots of lime. While it would be nice to get to the 200 optimun for LMB it is not practial in $ or space in the ponds. Basic levels -- 200 optimun for LMB ( other sunfish probably close) 20 min. level for fertile pond and/or fert. use. less than 20 not good -- add ag lime. See ranges in links above and posted . ewest

Deb, Hach makes a unit called a digital titrator which is pretty accurate for field testing samples for hardness & alkalinity. You can get different strength reagents that will allow you to test higher concentrations quickly & lower concentrations more accurately. I wont say it's as good as the chemist in our lab, but I believe it is accurate enough & I think it would be a better deal for you. Also, it's not expensive at all.

Thanks Ross, the more I can learn the better. Is this unit only for field testing? I ask this because all of our samples are mailed or brought into my lab. I never get out "into the field" to do water analysis onsite which is why we have opted for the "drop" method to date.
Also, do you have any opinions on the total ammonia that Greg and I were discussing (and yes Greg I am familiar with the nitrogen cycle)? I am aware of the two different types of ammonia present, but our Hach water quality test only gives results in total ammonia without the differentiation available (although the link I will post below gives us a way to aid in separating the two through pH readings and water temperature). I have researched some online this evening and have discovered some scientific documentation of kills resulting from high levels of total ammonia in ponds. When levels get over .8 ppm, ammonia penetrates the gill filaments. In high enough numbers this leads to vessel rupture thus allowing bacterial or parasitic infections to enter the bloodstream. Obviously this compromises the immune system causing fatigue and decreased feeding (flu like symptoms) and can lead to death. Of course the total ammonia is increased with higher densities of fish and feed, but other factors also apply.
I pulled an excerpt from a link I will post below. Very interesting and simplistic reading.

"Of all the water quality parameters which affect fish, ammonia is the most important after oxygen, especially in intensive systems. In small amounts, ammonia causes stress and gill damage. Fish exposed to low levels of ammonia over time are more susceptible to bacterial infections, have poor growth and will not tolerate routine handling as well as they should. Ammonia is a killer when present in higher concentrations, and many unexplained production losses have been caused by ammonia."

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/BODY_FA031

Thanks also to you ewest! Have you ever tried anything besides ag lime to raise your levels. Obviously the higher the total hardness and alkalinity, the better the growth with less stress on the fish. Gypsum and sodium bicarb. are other options from what I understand, but you might have a soil absorbtion issue you are dealing with (or extreme water exchange). Just throwing random thoughts out there!

Deb

Deb, no not just for field testing at all. In my line of work, alot of the laboratory testing is done via burette titration. The digital titrator is good because it is as portable as any other testing equip....and I believe it is accurate enough to give you the results you need. As an I example of what meant by reagent strength: if hardness or alkalinity are expected to be >100-200ppm, I use a reagent where the multiplier is 4.0....if the hardness or alkalinity is expected to be <100 ppm, I use a reagent where the multiplier is .40 . Like I said, it allows me to more accurate on lower levels & fast/accurate on high levels. Once you get the hang of it, maybe a minute per test...so its fast.
On the ammonia, I cant help you there. I make my living with water, but it has nothing to do with ponds. It's heating & cooling water. You guys spend all your time trying to get stuff to live in your water...I spend all mine trying to kill every thing in my water!

Thanks Ross! Sounds like a good idea to me then. I will get with Ken next week and discuss this option (unit is inexpensive from what I can tell). We could get more accurate results in the lab, and our drivers could test water during truck delivery.
I know what you mean about killing everything. I spend all day long working on ways to improve and save, yet I can't keep blasted ich out of my son's 10 gallon aquarium. I have used everything from malachite green to formaldehyde, but I just can't keep those parasitic little buggers at bay. At present time I have opted to stick with frogs and crabs. Ryan is happy with that, so maybe "mommy the biologist" will figure out the fish part later. ? Maybe a green sunfish... ?

Deb

I always use the digital titrator (same as Greg) for generalized tests where it is required. However I do not perform water chem tests with accuracy of a standard chem lab. It is quite accurate compared to the "drop method & conversion number type tests" (dropper method)previouly discussed by Deb & ewest. My titrator came in the portable water lab.

Deb once you get ich cleared up in an aquarium, new ich episodes come in with newly introduced fish. Whenever you add a new fish it should be quarantined or treated until you know it is "clean". Treatment during quarantine can be as simple as holding the fish in the proper salt concentration for a week or two. This time period is usually the incubation period for the ich cycle. The onset of the ich cycle can be enhanced by elevating the water temp. If you do not do this quarantine step, then you will always be battling new infestations of ich.

Thanks Bill, but my problem is never getting rid of the stuff to begin with. For example, I resorted to 10 of the $.28 goldfish from Walmart this last time after I had left the tank "cooking" in formaldehyde for two weeks (to kill eggs). I used new gravel, rocks, and plants then added salt to the water for one week after fish were introduced. Two weeks later... you guessed it! So I have been on a parasite battle for a week now (down to three fish). I have the water temp at 82 which is high for the goldfish but I wanted to speed up the cycle. First time I dealt with this parasite I was medicating the water but had forgotten to remove the carbon filter. After a few minutes of feeling REALLY dumb, I began research. Still at a loss, but the frogs and crabs are happy. As a matter of fact I just returned from the pet store (6 more crabs) where the owner and I had a great big laugh over my situation. In fact he said "You can breed fish, identify infections, and remedy situations in large lakes, but can't keep a damn fish alive in 10 gallons of water. Don't tell your customers this!"

Deb

By the way Bill, what is up with you answering machine at home? When I hung up I wanted to go outside and rope something!

Hi guys,

Not to fan the flames, BUT...when I had my water tested locally, the advice I was given was: IF I am not going to fertilize - there is NO need to add Lime (in an attempt) to increase the total alkalinity above 20. IE - if you are not going to fertilize, then total alkalinity is not a factor.

I know this may seem to go against common practice - BUT, why would you need to adjust total alkalinity IF in affect you were not going to "do" anything with the water anyway? This seemed like a reasonable position to me.

Gator

Every pond is different. Some have a tendency to have too soft water stressing fish.
Some ponds don't need to be artificially fertilized but need the lime to better utilize the naturaly occuring nutrients.
And then there's ones goals for the pond.

I think before I gave that advise to someone I would have to know the answer to Why are you not going to fertilize.

Gator :

IMO whoever told you that is wrong assuming your water is as I think you have described ( acid as most in the pine belt). See the info below. In acid water not only does plankton have a tough time but so do the fish. If you are going to run a expir. it is even more important that the water not be the limiting factor. With low alka. you encounter 2 limiting factors at least for your fish . One is high stress related to wide swings in ph (alka. is the shock absorber , buffer to this) and two limited food production(plankton). Plankton is there with or without fertilizer. A limiting factor to its growth is acid water (may also be low fertility). Some ponds like ML's are naturally fertile but need lime to reduce the acid that is limiting its growth. The info below is from the link

http://srac.tamu.edu/tmppdfs/8345539-464fs.pdf

You have seen much on the forum on water quality as to all ponds. Note that it is NOT water quality if you need to fertilize only. Note the info below esp. the first para. and that it does not say only if you need to fertilize.

However, a fundamental
understanding of the concepts and
chemistry underlying the interactions
of pH, CO2, alkalinity and
hardness is necessary for effective
and profitable pond management.
There is no way to avoid it; water
quality is water chemistry.

Phytoplankton are microscopic or
near microscopic, aquatic plants
which are responsible for most of
the oxygen (photosynthesis) and
primary productivity in ponds. By
stabilizing pH at or above 6.5, alkalinity
improves phytoplankton
productivity (pond fertility) by
increasing nutrient availability
(soluble phosphate concentrations).
Alkalinities at or above 20
mg/L trap CO2 and increase the concentrations available for photosynthesis.Calcium and magnesium are essential
in the biological processes
of fish (bone and scale formation,
blood clotting and other metabolic
reactions). Fish can absorb calcium
and magnesium directly
from the water or from food.
However, calcium is the most important
environmental, divalent
salt in fish culture water. The presence
of free (ionic), calcium in culture
water helps reduce the loss of
other salts (e.g., sodium and potassium)
from fish body fluids (i.e.,
blood). Sodium and potassium
are the most important salts in fish
blood and are critical for normal
heart, nerve and muscle function.
Research has shown that environmental calcium is also required to
re-absorb these lost salts. In low
calcium water, fish can lose (leak)
substantial quantities of sodium
and potassium into the water.
Body energy is used to re-absorb
the lost salts. For some species
(e.g., red drum and striped bass),
relatively high concentrations of
calcium hardness are required for
survival.
A recommended range for free calcium
a value of 100
mg/L (250 mg/ L calcium hardness)
matches the calcium concentration
of fish blood. Tests specific
for calcium hardness should be
performed on samples of the
water source being considered for
these animals.
In water with moderate to high alkalinity
(good buffering capacity)
and similar hardness levels, pH is
neutral or slightly basic (7.0 to 8.3)
and does not fluctuate widely.
Higher amounts of CO2 (i.e., carbonic
acid) or other acids are required
to lower pH because there
is more base available to neutralize
or buffer the acid.

ewest

Gator-

Before you add anything take ML up on his offer for Overton to test again.
Pull a deep water sample like you sent to me, but also take a "paper towel sample" from the top of your water. In other words take a wet paper towel and drag it across the top off your water (to catch algae). Wrap this paper towel up in newspaper to keep it moist, and send it with your water test (through ML).
I suggest this only because of the appearance of your pond on page #6. It appears from the color only that you already have a substantial growth of algae/plankton. Since we really can not judge from the photo alone, Overton should be able to do a microscopic examine of your "paper towel" surface water to see what you have growing.
If indeed you already have this growth, and I think you do, then I would say no to the fertilizer.
Regardless of the fertilizer issue, in order to get optimum growth you MUST raise your total hardness and alkalinity (refer to ewest's excellent post above). On a pond this small it would not be very expensive to do this. Be it ag lime as others suggest, or the use of calcium and bufferin as I suggest (I am still researching the pros and cons on this one), it is imperative to raise these #'s.
Fish do not produce their own calcium. They must absorb it from their water source or food source. With a total Hardness of 17 (or below) your pond currently does not offer much for them.
The lower the total alkalinity, the more prone to stress. I use layman terms in the office by explaining it like this:

It is 20 degrees outside, and 90 degrees inside. You stand in the doorway all day long going back and forth between the two temperatures. The stress that this puts on your body and it's immune system is similiar to the stress that the fish go through when total alkalinity in a pond is very low.

Raising the total alkalinity puts a buffer on the water that stops (or limits) the fluctuation of pH and other things. I call it "raising the immune system in the fish."
So again, regardless of whether you fertilize or not (depending on what growth you currently have) you do indeed need to raise total hardness and alkalinity in that pond for the good health and growth of the fish.

Where is Cody to explain this better? Again I will state like a broken record that water chemistry is not my "thing". I have a simplistic approach in explaining, but I am still in the learning cycle in understanding.

Deb

Deb you will like the diigitial titrator. I understand how ammonia kills fish. I worked with ammonia quite abit in aquaculture at UGA. I don;t mean to sound like a broken record...I'm just saying it is VERY rare to get high ammonia in typical sportfish pond.

Gator, I provided the same advice last week. IMHO the main reaons for liming is to raise alkalinity so fertilizer (phosphorus) is more readily avail for phytoplankton produciton. Lime has other minimial side benefits. If not fertilizing I would not spend the time/money to lime.

Ewest so you try to achieve 20 ppm by ag lime additions? I want Deb to see this, so others please provide you desired alk level. I think if you go through old pondboss articles there have been three that state desired level is above 20 ppm. Bruce you have no idea how lucky you are to have such high hardness levels. It is a pain here to just maintain above 20 ppm.

Greg :

On all our ponds alka. in normal state is 9-10ppm. It is only through an ag lime program that we can get to 20ppm. We try to get it higher but with a reasonable program can only get to 35-40 max. Over 18-24 mths it will fall to the 20 level. We add more ag lime when it gets to about 25 and it will kick in in time to keep it above 20. We do not have high flow through but a little so that is not a big factor.

I have posted my thoughts. I would add lime even if we did not fertilize for the stated reasons. We do not use hydrated lime and will not unless an emergency occurs. IMO it carries to much risk in ponds and it does not last. Instead you get an alak. spike which dissipates quickly. In addition other bad things can happen quickly if you make a mistake in application --like killing your fish. On occasion I will use pelletized lime which is like concentrated ag lime (2.5 to 3 x ag lime)which comes in bags. ewest

Ric, Greg, ewest and Deb,

I appreciate your comments and suggestions. For the moment lets assume my values are exactly as Deb had posted (these are very similar to what was tested locally) I will re-test the water after we receive more rain:

pH = 7.0
Total Hardness= 17
Total Alkalinity= 17
Total Ammonia= 1.2 ppm

Greg’s comment - “IMHO the main reaons for liming is to raise alkalinity so fertilizer (phosphorus) is more readily avail for phytoplankton produciton. Lime has other minimial side benefits. If not fertilizing I would not spend the time/money to lime.”

This comment very closely matches the advice I was given by my local contact and I am assuming for the same reasons.

Given my measurements above and knowing I do NOT plan to fertilize – do I need to raise the TH/TA to 20+?

BTW, I am not opposed to adding lime (as a point of reference I did apply Ag Lime to my large lake) to the test pond. I am seeking to understand the pluses and minuses of doing so…

ric,

On this issue of why I do not plan to fertilize: I think it complicates the mangement of your pond (based on forum discussions) and feel my experience level + lack of knowledge puts me at a disadvantage for trying it on the GG test pond. I also have a basic belief that more is not always better. Honestly I have not spent enough time studying the pros and cons of a fertilization program to see if it is right for me.

Gator

EWEST,

100% agree. I can't describe in scientific terms like you did, but in plain English, in my ponds, adding ag. lime is critical..and as most know, I do not fertilize. The ag. lime has the effect of a catalyst by enabling far more efficient utilization of nutrients in the water. I learned about ag. lime's effects on my soil many years ago when I discovered that my hay fields actually produced more hay with lime and without fertilizer than with fertilizer and without lime.

In our acidic soils of East Texas, ag. lime is magic on hay fields, gardens, and especially ponds. I'll never be without it.

Gator, I am by no means an expert, but there have been several to post. The fact that the total volumn is small compared to when it fills, and that it is already on the low side, and it takes time for ag lime to dissolve, this is the perfect time to add lime. If you dont, I think you will be in trouble(or the fish anyway). Maybe I missed it, but has anyone recommended a soil sample to see if, when it is filled, it will still have any hardness? In a new pond, by spring there should be plenty of critters for the small fish without fertilizing.(if it ever rains) What will be the feeding regimen? Maybe we are all getting way ahead, huh? Best of luck. If you or your brother need help with the electrical, just holler.
Maybe Todd can set up the pond parameters; I wonder if he would divulge his chemistry for those nice wipers he posted. and maybe a couple people will come out of the Ga. meeting and volunteer for 2 small pond experiments there.

ewest almost identical results here. However we can get it to stay above 20 ppm for 3-4 years with 4 tons/ac unless they have high flow regimes. We due use hydrated lime ( only 3 times last year) but only if not possible to get in bulk lime.

Gator, there maybe readily available phosphorus naturally in your area, if then like Meadowlark stated lime is worth it. In GA that is not the case, many studies on effects of liming alone and little return on investment. So..it might be worth it even without fert. program. I understand fert program is tricky, but still rec. fertilization program if in GA low productivity soils without or feeding program you just have very few fish/acre.

I have a soil test from a pasture close to this pond...does this help?

soil pH 5.93
nitrate ppm 1
Phosphotus 4 ppm
Potassium 75 ppm
Calcium 491 ppm
Magnesium 120 ppm

Recommendations:
Limestone 1 ton per acre
Nitrogen 60 lbs per acre
Phosphorus 30 lbs per acre
Potassium 55 lbs per acre
Sulfer(?) 20 lbs per acre

Gator

Gator :

What was the recomendation for -- pond or hay or trees or row crop? It may well help . Is that field in the same drainage as the pond ? Same type of land ? Will check mine at home and reply. ewest

ewest,

The recommendation was for crops.

The water shed for this field is different; however, the terrain is the same. Both have the same type of soil and vegetation. It is all post oak savannah with naitive pastures.

Gator

Gator I understand your position on fertilization. I don't fertilize either, but, the statement can be misleading & may have been taken out of context.
One may not fertilize because
1)the pond is already being fertilized from the watershed, or
2)there is no desire to produce more pounds of fish than the pond can naturally accomodate, or
3) (as may be the situation in your case with the GG test pond) due to large numbers of fish your pond produces it's own fertilizer via fish manure.
That's just three, there are many.

You're right though, limeing could complicate the management if for instance lime was the limiting factor in being able to maintain a bloom equaling 18" to 24" as read on a sishi dish.
If for example you had been maintaining a decent bloom of say 24" to 30" without adding lime, then you add lime & your bloom explodes dropping vis. quickly to 12".
It can get complicated & your cautious approach is smart.

I just wanted to point out that it's not so simple as "if you don't fertilize you don't need to lime".

Gator - Since you don't live near the pond and can not watch or monitor it daily then I don't think you should fertlize because fertilized ponds should be monitored closely in case of dense bloom crashes, overblooming, or other water quality problems due to fertilizer additions that could be missed during your absence.

I am not fully aware of the liming techniques, doses or processes, but if you are going to lime maybe spreading it now when the pond is low will be an esay way to apply it over most of the pond bottom. You should not need too much lime since your pond is quite small.

Adding some lime should help produce a light or moderate phytoplankton bloom which will be somehwat "fertilized" from the manure of the pellet fed fish. The bloom may not be as "rich" or thick as one produced by an inorganic fertilization program, but a moderate or light bloom would I think be beneficial.

If you don't add lime, I am wondering if the extra fish manure due to feeding will cause a filamentous algae problem due to the enhanced fertility (manure) and clear water. Without increased alkalinity (lime) phytoplankton will not develop and clear water will prevail. Clear water plus fertility will either stimulate rooted weeds or bottom growing filamentous algae. Since I don't deal a lot with soft waters and fertility, I am just providing some thoughts but maybe not facts on this.

Ric and Bill,

Thanks for input. I appreciate the fact that this is a complicated question and that is exactly my point. Adding lime is a very common practice in my area. It is done as a matter-of-fact in most ponds. I won’t throw out the common wisdom line, but it is very prevalent. Not to mention the fact now would be the perfect time to lime the pond. But, when a biologist who does this for a living and has managed ponds for 25 years, says “there is no need in my opinion”…I start to wonder, why am I doing this?

2 more considerations:

1. This pond has maintained 12” to 18” visibility all year long. Adding lime will make the water even clearer, right? This seems to be setting me up for the dreaded dye option...?

2. I will be on a year-round feeding program for the GGs. Should I be concerned with plankton blooms with the feeding program?

Gator

Gator,

12-18 inches year around is this a green color, check with secchi disc? If so no need to fertilize in fact it makes me nervous you are getting too many nutrients already.

No lime will not clear the pond, in fact it helps phosphorus make it less clear with more phytoplankton production.

Yes feeding lots of GG will put more nutrients in the water.

I'm not there put I would trust the local pond mgmr for his advice. Yep, too many cooks in the kitchen is a bad thing.

Gator :

I will pull out my soil test reports tonight and compare the findings and if they are close I will provide what the rec. were for a pond.

Water quality is key even if you don't fert. In high acid waters (under 20 ppm alka.) fish can easily become stressed. Such waters can only support a small fish #age per acre. If you are going to have normal to high stocking water quality is even more impt. If stressed by water with high acid effects fish , exhibit lower feeding whether plankton (natural food) or pellets, O2 levels in the water tend to be lower and the water tends to be less healthy for their growth.

Here is a simple comparison. Humans work best at a temp. of about 72f with normal cloths (pants shirt and shoes). If you are forced to work at 20f or 110f in normal cloths for an extended period of time your body won't function as well. Over time your body condition will suffer. ewest

PS : guys look at the water on pg 4 of this thread. That does not look like a 12-18 in reading or a planlton bloom to me but is at full pool and in March.

Gator - I tend to agree with Greg's last post of Nov 01. One thought about the local biologist's liming comments. I would double check with him about what the stocking densities (or the fish densities) were in the ponds he is referring to where you will not need lime. Does he know how many fish you are planning on putting in the test pond and that you are feeding on a daily basis?. Make sure he is not assuming you will be stocking a low or normal densitiy and not going to feed the fish. It is fine to follow his advice if you use his recomendations for stocking density. Make sure he understands the details of what you are planning on doing so you are both on "the same page" for goals of this project.

Gator :

For what it is worth I compared your adjacant fields soil test with ours which was tested for pond usage. Your ph was 5.93 ours was 4.5 both are low. Yours is less acid. Your calcium 491 is lower than ours avg. 800 so with low calcium you have less buffering ability. The rest of the elements of the test are similar. The recomendation from our test was a total of 3 tons of ag lime per acre -- 2 tons at time of test (Oct.) 1 more ton 6 mths. later ( March). No fert. was recomended until after lime had time to work and then to slowly add powdered water sol. Pro-Sol in limited amounts to reduce visa. from 4-5 feet to 18 in. This was for existing ponds with normal levels of fish lbs. per acre ( at the time 100 lbs per acre).

Your alka. if the test is right is 17 which is below the min. requierd alka. of 20 as stated by the SRAC publications noted above. ewest

Thanks everyone,

Thinking about the possibility of liming this way - what would it hurt?

Nothing right? I cant think of anything...

BTW, The person who tested my water was aware of my specific stocking and feeding plans.

Gator

I've been away quite a bit this fall but thanks to Bruce rattling my cage I'll add my 2 cents concerning the analysis of ammonia. Bill Cody is correct (as usual) ammonia must be analyzed within 24 hours to obtain the most accurate results, but even 24 hours is a long time in a solution which has the capacity ie. the critters bacteria etc. to break down ammonia into nitrite. This can be slowed down by refrigerating the sample until it can be processed. The absolute proper way to prepare the sample is to vacuum filter it through a millipore filter to remove anything over a fraction of a micron in size, followed by freezing. Usually this is done when a large quantity of samples are collected and all processed at the same time. While sulfuric acid will act as a preservative of ammonia it is usually used for industrial samples where ammonia is the end result of some reaction and is unlikely to break down into a nitrite or nitrate. These samples also are usually quite a bit more concentrated, 50 to 500 ppm range. Considering all of the potential organics that can be in pond water, the sulfuric as a preservative could cause interferences because it is a strong oxidizer, especially when we are talking the 1 to 2 ppm range for the ammonia. For the practical pondmeister who doesn't have a lab to play in, my suggestion is to but an aquarium test kit for ammonia, they are usually drop count titrations, and process the same sample two or three times. What you are looking for is consistency, if your numbers are close your technique is most likely OK and the results beleivable.
Bruce, if you are still awake after reading this I hope my opinion meets your expectation.

Thanks PaPond for the input. I consider you our resident chemist.

The topic of liming is of paticular interest to me because I have added over 30 tons to my 2.5a pond over 4 years with no results. By this I mean I cant get my alkalinity above 15ppm. I have limited flow thru but cant get it above 15. I apply the old fashion way with a sheet of plywood on my johnboat shovel on shovel off, man alot of work for no benifit. I have started using hydrated lime 50lbs per acre and for the first time am able to get my alk up near 30 and get a good bloom. I think the limiting factor in my pond is nitrogen because I added extra nitrogen this year along with the hydrated lime and established a good bloom. I reapply the lime every 6 weeks as it drops near 20.

PaPond,

Nice, as always!

PaPOnd thanks I hope Deb is reading that. I think you comments have alot to do with their hihg ammonia levels received over the years.

BigJake if that works keep doing it.

Yes Greg, I am reading every post I can. Remember I joined this forum to share our experience as well as to learn.
Thank you PaPond for that detailed explanation. That would explain alot of the high numbers we have seen. I understand the decomposition that can occur during transit, but would you mind expanding on possible high ppm concentrations on site. Also what would be your recommendation for a pond with high concentrations tested on site! Thank you again for your post. I have stated repeatedly that my grasp on water chemistry is not good. Any info you and Cody can give would be greatly appreciated.

Deb

High Ammonia. There are certain situations where a pond can develop high ammonia or nitrite concentrations.

1.The most frequent occurrence is in ponds that are stocked with lots of fish, i.e. an aquaculture situation. As fish biomass continualy increases due to fish growth the production of ammonia is continually increasing. I add a quote from the Southern Aquaculture guide sheet: " Most pond systems probably have a finite limit to the amount of ammonia and organic loading that can be managed." I assume they mean managed naturally. Deb says she has products to help in reduction of ammonia when it becomes high. In my opinion, if ammonia levels are high the pond owner is "pushing the limit" and is in potentially dangerous fish raising territory. Unless the causative agents are reduced the potential problem will persit. A fish die off will definately reduce the problem of high ammonia.

2. Adding high amounts of feed to lots of fish will result in more ammonia produced. Over fed fish and feed waste promotes more ammonia.

3. Cooler water will suppress activity of bacteria for conversion of ammonia to nitrite and then nitrite to nitrate.

4. Phytoplankton, who absorb ammonia, will not grow as well in cooler water, thus the likelyhood of high ammonia will then be greater.

5. Use of blue dye will reduce plant growth that can directly remove ammonia. The higher the concentration of dye the more likelyhood an ammonia problem will develop.

Any of the above combinations plus maybe a few I omitted can result in high ammonia levels in a pond.

Bruce will provide additional information below.

I'd like to add one more scenario for high ammonia concentrations, and that would be in watersheds or well fed ponds that have naturally high pH, in particular 9.0 or higher.

When the pH is high that means there are huge amounts of free hydroxyl groups (OH-) that will rob the hydrogen ion from ammonium (NH4+) yielding unionized ammonia (NH3) which is the form that is toxic to fish.

Another factor leading to high pH and consequently more unionized ammonia is the diurnal cycle of plant respiration and photosynthesis. Photosynthesis is the process whereby organisms convert carbon dioxide and water into carbohydrate and oxygen. The net reaction is:

6CO2 + 6H2O + light = C6H12O6 (carbohydrate) + 6O2

So there is net consumption of carbon dioxide during the day. This can lead to some ponds becoming deficient in CO2 during the day, raising their pH.

Incidentally, this situation can be remedied by adding alum. When aluminum sulfate reacts with water there are three H+ ions liberated which have the ability to turn unionized ammonia back to it's safer, ionized form.

Thank you both!
Now I am really curious as to the readings I had in the lab. I am sure a large majority was decomposition of algae during transit, but with not knowing the history of Gator's pond (original stock, feeding program,...), I wonder out loud why there should be anything over .1-.2 ppm based on the factors Bill stated above. Hopefully Gator reads PaPond's suggestion about a repeated test with an aquarium testing kit. An onsite evaluation would be a really good move at this time. Gator hasn't posted lately, and I am hoping he has not been too overwhelmed. Everyone here has presented alot of good points, but there have been a truckload of them for him (and me) to absorb.

Bruce- Is aluminum sulfate also used to clear muddy water?

Thanks again guys,
Deb

Deb

Deb, Here's the link to the first two posts I ever made on Pond Boss forum (I think).

http://www.pondboss.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=001127

It was an interesting thread and really got me addicted to this site. As you'll see I have quite a bit more experience using alum to affect organic concerns as opposed to inorganic problems such as silt suspension.

I'm not Bruce, but aluminum sulfate is alum and it is used to precipitate sediment from water. Additionally it is also used to remove phosphorous from the water column and suppress phosphorus recycling from the sediments.

I am adding here a post copied here from the following thread about the use of superphosphate to aid in FA reduction by CB1 because of the link below regarding its stabilizing effect on ammonia. Any comments whould be welcome.

http://www.pondboss.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=14;t=000203

CB1 :

Superphosphate is known in one form as 0-46-0 and is quite common and we use it as clearly the limiting chem. factor in our ponds is phosphorus and not nitrogen or potassium

Interesting in the link below is the comment on
trip.phosp. having a stabilizing effect on ammonia/manure.

Maybe you or Bill can tell us what that means in the context of our prior post where ammonia was discussed in relation to you growout pond. I am no chemist.ewest

http://www.omri.org/superphosphate.pdf

http://www.simplot.com/agricultural/plant/upload/Tripple-Superphosphate-0-45-0.pdf

Hi Everyone,

Just an update - STILL NO RAIN!

I just got off the phone with Deb. I plan to defer stocking until the spring because my pond is getting lower and lower. I checked the annual rainfall for my county - we are 20 inches behind, and only have 26 inches year-to-date. Our avarage annual rainfall is 46 inches.

I think ML will be stocking his pond - he is further south and (i think) has access to water for his ponds.

After I stock in the spring - I will start up a new post to keep everyone informed of the progress.

Gator

Alligator,

Check this out. NOAA is calling for a wetter than normal winter for east Texas. See:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/images/winter-outlook-2005-2006-precip.jpg

Hope they're right eh?

I hope thye are right - we could use it!

Gator

Alligator:

If you want to supply a campsite and put up with them, I can try and have my son's Boy Scout Troop come down to stay at your pond. It ALWAYS rains wherever they camp, sometimes to the point of forced evacuation!

I'll come down and wash my truck while the boyscouts are there. Lots of rain is guaranteed afterwards.

While Theo's & LBuck's suggestions are sound, I suggest you plan an outdoor wedding at your pond. Sure enough, you'll get some rain.

Granted you might have $10,000 to $20,000 in sunk costs for the caterer, band, minister, etc., but isn't it worth it?

Gator,

I'm pressing on and doing a nightly raindance...hasn't brought any rain yet, but no water turkeys either. I may be on to something.

Looking forward to seeing GGs in real life...Wednesday is GG stocking day.

ML, Good luck with your rain dance. I have several volunteers to have car washes, weddings and camp outs if that helps!

: )

Thanks everyone, sure enough if we did hold an event - the rain would come in spades!

Gator

ML, so the rain dance keeps the water turkeys away? Must be the 'funky chicken'.