Pond Boss Forums MANAGING AN EXISTING POND Fertilization feeding vs fertilizing

My 5 acre pond has a high flow thru rate, every time I get the visibility good from fertilization, a heavy rain comes along and wipes out my pefect bloom. Is it possible to use lake dye and feed to achieve maximum fish production and most importantly size?

Absolutely! I assume you mean scrap the fertilization due to water clarity issues and depend on artifical feed to get your fish large? and use the dye to control vegetation due to increased nutrients from the fish feed? However other than bluegills your fish will have to be feed trained from a hatchery. But your growth rates will be much faster and your fish much plumper on artifical feed.

I am doing this presently with bluegills in a very small pond. It has only males and they depend on artifical feed. I have dyed the water with aquashade to keep weed growth down.

My bass that I plant annually at 5 to 7 inches in floating cages in another pond are feed trained and they are liberated into the pond with larger predators by fall at 8 to 12 inches.

So ceicle,
If I had to choose between artifciel feed and Fertilizer, you would choose fertilizer??

I agree with Cecil. If you want fast growth & don't mind the cost of feeding that is the way to go.
However you will have the same problem with dye you have with maintaining a bloom. Dye is better used in a pond with little outflow.
BigPond, I believe Cecil was saying feeding would be best in Waymon's situation because he can't maintain a bloom due to large influx of rain. Feeding is easier though maybe not better in most cases IMO than trying to maintain a bloom & managing a forage fish.
However, even though they won't grow as fast I personally prefer my fish to forage naturally.

Thanks for all your replies!
I don't have a problem with vegetation at this point, when I renovated my lake I had the edge dug to about 2 feet all around the shallow end, So I have not used any dye at this point. In my situation it is cheaper to feed than to fertilize and a heck of a lot easier. I have 3 Stren feeders that feed 12 lbs. per day each for now. Any advice would be appreciated!

Waymon Neal :

Cecil is right you can replace a fert. program with feeding and shading. I am looking into that option on one of our ponds. There are a few things to consider.

What type of pond water level mgt. system are you using {standpipe , spillway etc.}? Without going into detail it should allow normal water flow to exit the pond with out losing the top 3 feet of water in the pond. Your normal flow should come from 5 feet deep and exit through a flow through pipe or siphon. With such a system we do not loose our bloom even with heavy rain and running springs even with a large watershed.

With this system we don't spend a lot on fert. and lime { about $ 750 a year combined on a 6 acre lake with flow through}. This leads me to the cost question. In this lake it will cost us 3 times as much to feed as to fert & lime and that does not include the cost of dye. To replace fert. with feed you will have to feed more and for a longer period. Based on your location 40+- miles from Gulf of Mexico you have a long growing season . I would guess 8-9 mths out of the year. Do you intend to feed the entire growing season? I question if you can replace fert. with feed and only feed during summer. I think you will have to feed a least as long as your fert program was {? March- Sept.}.

From the info I have seen in this area an unfert. unfed pond produces about 100lbs of fish per acre, a fert. pond about 300 lbs and a fed pond about 200 lbs. If both are used about 400 lbs. I do not know if these ratios help in determining how much you will have to feed to replace fert.

I assume you have a bass/BG pond and want a balanced population. If so you should consider what effect feeding BG with feeders will have on the catchability of your bass especialy if they are florida's. Many people {not me} both on and off this fourm have very strong opinions on this matter.

The prior manager of our ponds used a fert. program for 5 years with good results and then stopped . The stoppage destroyed the food chain and with it the fish populatin went in the tank. Because we did not want to kill the ponds and start over it has taken a long time to recover. Any decision which could have that possible effect should be examined closely.Good luck . ewest

ewest, I have a standpipe 30" with a 48" trash rack that extends 7 feet below the surface. We may go for 3 to 5 weeks without rain then one thunderstorm will put 2 to 3 feet of water over the top of the trash rack which sends most all your fertilize down stream. It might be possible to develop a good bloom from May until July, but that short time frame will hardly accomplish an above average fishery. It might not be as disappointing to try the fertilize and feed combo you mentioned, verses the fertilize and dye program.

Waymon, I assume that your water quality is such that you have to fertilize. If so, take the inexpensive route. Find liquid farm fertilizer. It is dirt cheap. I believe you have to have a good phytoplankton base unless you're pro fish farmer who has it all worked out. I just can't understand raising fish without a good forage base. Heck, I've had seed and fertilizer dealers give me 5 to 20 gallons for nothing. It works the same as the pelletized stuff.

Waymon :

I am leaning toward a combination program on the pond in question using small amount of fert. and feeders . I hope the combo will offset the reduction in fert. Like you we do not have a weed problem.

I am not sure that I understand your water level control system. When your pond is full {but not losing water} and it rains and water level starts to rise does the water that flows out of your system come from the top 3 feet of the water column or from 7 feet? Our system takes the water from 5 feet and sends it through a 8 in. pipe into the standpipe and out behind the dam. We loose almost no water{except in winter} over the top of the standpipe which is 3 feet higher than the 8in pipe. If you can stop the loss of the top 3 feet of water then fert. will be much easier and less expensive.Good luck and let us know what happens. ewest

Waymon good advice so far. One quick point. I shocked a lake yesterday. Typical bass heavy BUT also had been in dye program for the last 3 years. It was the worst fish porduciton I have ever seen and think I have now shocked over 1,000 ponds.

My point is I have always spoke of negative impact of dye. This even surprised me. 8 bass and all with 65% Wr or less. Use fish food but if weed problem develops use herbicides or grass carp not dye except ok during winter months.

Greg, dye always seemed counter-productive to growing more fish to me - glad to see an expert agrees. I understand the use of dye for algae/plant control in ponds where fish are not a priority.

I'm still trying to figure out a guy down the road who puts a heavy dye load in his pond, which he is letting fill up with cattails. But that pond has some other problems, too.

ewest, My pond has a stream of water leaving it at least 95% of the time year round. My vertical stand pipe is 30 inches in diameter, and the trash rack that sits over the stand pipe is 48 inches in diameter. The trash rack extends 1 foot above the water level and 7 feet below the water level so as to force water from 7 feet below to overflow into the stand pipe and out of the pond. It's really a very typical stand pipe overflow system. With this system every time the water level rises 1 foot above the normal level you are pulling water off the top rather than 7 feet below.
I'm glad to learn that the pond dye is a bad idea, you fellows have convinced me to opt for the feed and fertilize combo.

Ah but were the bass and bluegill fed twice daily on intensive basis? I doubt it. I have relative weights up to and beyond the charts in my pond by feeding both species including trophy size yellow perch. Granted this pond is not dyed due to flow through but it it wasn't flow through I wouldn't hesitate.

My male bluegill pond is just getting started, but considering they are feed trained bluegills 100 percent I don't worry about the dye. I dyed a small holding pond that was packed with feed trained bluegills (both sexes) in the past, and had an incredible carrying capacity for the size of the pond.

The fish farmer I get my female perch from on an annual basis dyes all his ponds.

Oh, crud, Cecil, I just realized I could be construed as trying to walk over your production methods - which I think are outstandingly successful.

So I should try to amend my comment to say "I've never understood using dye while trying to grow more pounds of fish using phytoplankton as the main food supply," or I should just keep my mouth shut (but that would probably always be a good option for me, as you already know).

Not a problem Theo. I just wanted to show you it works for me. Please don't keep quiet as I enjoy your posts.

I agree 100 percent if a person had a recreational pond, and did not feed or only fed sparadically that the dye would stifle the productivity of the pond.

Hey cecil I guess my point is why dye at all? Feed and do not dye. We have more ponds right now that have feeders setup than ponds that we or the pondowners fertilize. I agree it will increase the produiction dramatically. However dye will even hurt when not fertlizing by eliminating phyto produciton from natural fertilier runoff. Of course a good feed program will also contriubte to phyo produciton as well.

In this situation, wouldn't dye be a waste of money since it too (just as his bloom has) will wash down the drain?