Pond Boss Forums MANAGING AN EXISTING POND Fertilization Fertilizer

I have a 28 ac lake. Stocked blue gill in fall of 2000, Bass in spring 2001. I have never fertilized it. I have read that once i start fertlizeing i cannot quit. The lake is fairly clear and the grass carp keep grass cleaned up. I was reading in my Bass Pond magazine that Mr. Lusk has received some new information about fertilizing. And there will be an artical about it in the May/June issue. But i live in KY and if i am going to Fertilize i will more than likely need to strat before i get my next mag. Question is what would be the best type? How would you suggest i apply it to a lake of this size. How many pounds per Ac. Anyone have any advive for me? Thanks, Billy

Search info here but several types of fertilizer. I whole heardly think water soluble powder type is best. It is more economicial, easier to use, easier to not misapply. It can be applied by boat on a lake your size by simply pouring over the side with boat moving fairly quick. We can fertilize a 28 acre lake in about 30 mins with a 15 hp outboard, longer with trolling motor.

You're right once you start you do not want to stop. You are raising carrying capacity of the pond by proper fertilization program. Not sure where you're located but have my western KY pond owners start in mid April most years. Wait until constant >60 surface temp.

A proper fertilization program will triple pond production over a clear pond. One last critical point is to check alkalinity is less than 20 ppm a lime application is probably necessary to acheive good phytoplankton bloom form fertilizing.

BTW we just bought land in KY and can deliver up fertilizer if interested, contact me, 770-735-3523 thanks

There are several potential problems with fertilizing that have made some of us swear off. The reason you can't quit is that is kicks your phytoplankton base into high gear and everything up the food chain benefits. However, if you don't continue the program the base isn't sufficient to support the new growth you have created.

Another problem relates to droughts. If a one acre pond is being manipulated to double the carrying capacity and then becomes a 3/4 acre pond, the results are predictable and heart breaking. Most farmers and ranchers know not to bet on rain.

I think of it like I do steroids. The results can be impressive but you are still messing around with Mama Nature and she sometimes gets even.

It is a good tool that should be used carefully and with eyes wide open. It should not be used arbitrarily but to solve a problem. If you can be assured of constant rainfall and no lack of wind and sunshine, then it would be great. If Greg is in the area and says it would be beneficial, I would trust his judgement.Think it over.

Dave thanks for your words of wisdom, but we have never had a fish kill from over fertilzing on any of our lakes we manage. I think you're right about drought having big effect. I think after I went to TX a few weeks ago what we call a drought in SE is far from what you get in parts of TX. This might explain why I feel fertilization program is well worth it and maybe the best tool for increasing fish in your pond.

I am not sure why if you have a 28 acre lake why you think you need more production. Do you have high expectations for a heavy harvest of fish or wanting higher numbers of big fish? If yes then fertilizaton may be in order. But if only one or two families are fishing and or eating fish from this lake then a clear water lake should be able to produce all the fish a couple of families need without fertilizing the lake.

Let's see if this draws fire-

Fish do not grow bigger or much faster in a fertilized pond or lake compared to an unfertilized lake. Fertilization just causes you to have more of each, both big ones and small ones. The management methods determines the sizes of the fish that are present.

Bill that one got me alright, maybe you need to come down here and see how a properly fertilized pond can produce #'s of large bass compared to unfertilized, with all else including harvest being equal. LIke I always say it is about goals but if you want to maximize # of big bass then yes if conditions warrant your losing a great opportunity by not fertilzing.

THink about it this way how much does a 28 acre lake cost to construct today? 100K-400K around here is probably right, So not worth it to spend $1,200 a year to maximize production from fertilization???

Greg, In West Texas, we pray for enough rain in the Spring to keep our water levels acceptable thru August. Too many fish and too much pond life can be corrected in a hurry.

I'll be glad to read the Pond Boss article on fertilization that is coming in the next issue....and see where I am wrong.

In my experience fertilization is a big negative risk...the risk of fish kills and to me the much bigger risk of explosive vegetation growth.

With all due respect to the experts, the idea that fertilization can be used to control existing vegetation is flawed. Maybe it can help with fish numbers/growth, but it isn't worth the downside risk IMHO. If you have any vegetation growing, and you must or you wouldn't have the grass carp, then I urge you to think twice...no three times before fertilizing.

Maybe I did it wrong, but that also says the risk is great, the result for me was explosive algae and pond weed growth. Where before I had some algae/weeds, after fertilizing I had all algae/weeds.

If it wasn't for grass carp and Tilapia, my ponds would have been effectively destroyed for fishing because of fertilization. Think carefully before you plunge into this one.

Lusk, others would love to hear your opinion on the subject. Meadowlark I agree if you have vegetation or have lots of shallow water fertilization wil not help and in fact could make it worse. You I know sell feeders but that can not comapre to increase in pounds of fish from fertilizaiton. When coupled with proepr harvest more bigger fish are the result.

One little comment based on the interaction between Bill and Greg: A LOT of our pond fertilization decisions are based on geography.

Until I got down to Mississippi State University one time and saw it for myself, I just did not fully realize how infertile those ponds can be. The high rainfall in the southeastern part of the country creates those highly leached soils that have very little fertility. Infertile soil equals infertile ponds.

I just dug through a bunch of old records to look at alkalinity measures in South Dakota impoundments. I couldn't find a single measurement less than 100 mg/liter (~ppm), and many were up to 300! I once did a study on largemouth bass in ponds across the state, and we averaged 70 pounds/acre, and often exceeded 100 pounds/acre. Greg, what do you think: in unfertilized southeastern ponds, maybe they'd average 20 pounds/acre largemouth bass, or perhaps even less?

I sure don't mean to be lecturing to Bill or Greg. They both know this stuff as well or better than I do. However, I do think our pondmeisters need to realize how truly different these ponds can be in different parts of the country.

Dave

Dave caught me in the office so I can respond quickly for a change. I agree totally with your comments. Until this board I did not realize the magnitude diff in geography. I bet of the 200 ponds we checked last year less than 3 (that had not limed in the past) had alk greater than 12 ppm. I would say 25 lbs. bass/ac is about right when not fertilized. Of course we also have ponds below chicken house etc that are feritle but I rarely see that in my work. Rainfall and water flow are also important things to consider.

Also just want to mention I talk folks out of fertilizing all the time b/c their pond is not setup right or they do not need this practice to accomplish goals. However if max prod is goal I stand by it in the SE.

Greg,

Maybe I did it wrong. I certainly would like to have the benefits you and others speak of from fertilization.

Every situation is different....and it may be that because I have a cattle operation that provides nutrient rich drainage to my ponds, more fertilizer is not appropriate.

I can only speak from my experience...and am always looking for ways to improve my ponds...and learn from my mistakes and the expert advice herein.

I just know when I added the recommended liquid fertilizer(from Dunn's)a couple of years ago according to directions, within weeks I had shorelines that had underwater weeds that extended out to several feet deep and made the shorelines unfishable with everything except topwaters, and also had disgusting algae mats everywhere.

Like Kelly said, fertilizing a pond with existing weeds/algae is like throwing water on gasoline....it certainly was for me.

One good thing did come of that experience, however. It lead me to Tilapia for the algae control and that has been just terrific.

you mean gas on a fire?? I have made that same comment. Does the pond have quite a bit of shallow (<4 ft.) water? With cattle you're probbaly right you may have plenty of nutreints, ever check visibility during warm months? Is it less than 24 inches naturally? If so your right on no reason to fertilize. I'm jealous and wish we could stock tilapia in GA.

Yes, gas on fire....sorry, its Monday.

My water temps are about 64 now and visibility is about 24 inches. Pond has just started greening up following winter. Haven't turned aerator on yet. Thanks.

meadowlark that is probably the answer to our diff of opinion. see around here lakes that we fertilized last year are about ready to start back up, 58 degrees. We have Zsd of 30-50 inches. Unfertilized lakes that I visit have vis greater than 8 ft.

I sprayed liquid fertilizer from a hand pump sprayer from the shore in my one acre pond in it's first 2 years. The results were amazing and all of my friends were asking for advice. It teemed with life. Damn, I was good. Then 4 or 5 windless, cloudy days occurred and I got to watch die offs, 2 years in a row. Bigger fish went first. By the end of the long, hot, Texas summer my reputation had, to put it mildly, kinda waned. I was having to buy my own beer again.

I took the pledge and swore off. I've noticed no lack of productivity since and have had no DO crashes. I'm still loaded with bluegill of all sizes. I expect fertilizer is OK but you need to recognize the risk. If I knew I would always have dependable rainfall, I might do it. But then, I wouldn't do it unless I needed to.

For those interested in this fertilization topic, I am working on a lengthy explanation of my reasoning which supports my March 13th comment to Billy Schroeder. I will post the completd version on Thursday morning. To fertilize or not fertilize?? Greg suggests that I have never experienced a well managed fertilized BIG bass dominated fishery and I need to make a trip to see some of the fruits of his fertilization programs. Fishing trips are usually fun. I thank him for the invitation and I look forward to meeting him and learning and sharing experiences with him.

Here is my rationale which includes some insightful comments from Jason Roehrig regarding my statement from above -

POINT- cody and COUNTER-POINT- grimes.

POINT – Cody - "Fish do not grow bigger or much faster in a fertilized pond or lake compared to an unfertilized lake. Fertilization just causes you to have more of each, both big ones and small ones. The management methods determines the sizes of the fish that are present". I think the important point here in my statement are the words - fertilization cause MORE of each...

Counter-Point - Grimes -“ Bill that one got me alright, maybe you need to come down here and see how a properly fertilized pond can produce #'s of large bass compared to unfertilized, with all else including harvest being equal. LIke I always say it is about goals but if you want to maximize # of big bass then yes if conditions warrant your losing a great opportunity by not fertilzing.

Greg, Thanks for the invitation. If I ever get in your neighborhood I would definately like to hang around with you for a couple days. I like discussions similar to these, they provoke thought and present two sides of a topic or issue whereby others can learn and hopefully make better decisions. I think debate is a good form of education on this forum.

I sometimes get accused of being a “gloom and doom” guy, but I consider it a form of pragmatism or being realistic, although some may call it pessimism. I will try to present the “other side of the fertilization story”. Hopefully each can decide what is best for their impoundment and their needs.

Greg, I have experienced the situations of fertile waters and truly realize the large amount of fish that can be produced when fertilizer is applied to ponds in both original nutrient poor and enriched soils; south and north. Fertilization does definitely work to produce more poundages of fish in a pond. The plant, invertebrate and fish communities frequently respond basically the same way to proper nutrient enrichment in both north & south situations especially when alkalinity has been adjusted to higher concentrations. Integral to fertilization is temperature and growing season which have their affects in each type of trophic pond.

I had a bass fishing experience with a friend, several years ago, in a low productivity, clear water South Carolina large pond that helped contribute to my comment above. We went fishing in a 20 to 40 acres low productivity clear water pond somewhere near North Augusta. I fished it once with him and all we caught that day were 8” to 11” bass, but I did have a chance to teach him some finesse fishing techniques. He later fished the pond several times and managed to catch a few large bass and one weighed 8 lbs. Occasionally a few even larger bass than 8 lbs were caught by others from this pond. Keep in mind that not a lot of these big fish were caught from this LOW productivity southern, sand based, clear water, shallow pond, but truly big bass were present; however they were present in LOW numbers. I am convinced these extra large bass were living and growing on a diet of primarily 8”-10” bass. I saw little evidence of larger sized panfish in this large SC pond. However some other type forage fish besides bass were probably present.

If any of you are familiar with fish communities of northern oligotrophic (nutrient poor) lakes (mostly in Canada), you know that truly big, trophy fish can be caught in these lakes. Big fish such as 20-38 lb northern pike, 7to10 lb walleye, 4 lb to 6lb brook trout and 18 to 38 lb lake trout are present in these low productivity waters. As many of you know other big fish have been reportedly caught from clean, clear nutrient poor lakes and sometimes ponds all across North America.

My point is that it does not take artificial fertilizer additions to produce large fish in nutrient poor waters. It does however take proper fish balance (numbers) to produce 1 to 2 big predator fish per acre or per several acres. HOWEVER if you want LOTS of fish with the potential of NUMEROUS large predator fish PER ACRE then fertilizer additions can help produce that type of fishery.

Dave D. and Meadowlark point out some of the pitfalls or dangers of a “casual” fertilization program. Highly productive waters can respond more quickly to poor weather conditions and create low oxygen problems faster for the fish and fish kills can result more often during adverse situations compared to ponds with lower nutrient levels and less overall plant growth. From my experience and lessons fish kills are more likely in nurtrient enriched conditions which tend to be inherently more ecologically unstable than in impoundments with fewer nutrients and overall lower organic loadings.

Here are some of the other things besides large numbers of big fish that you may be gaining by fertilizing: Maybe not right away in the first 20 years, but your grandkids may get the following rewards. Some of you may already be experiencing some of these consequences of supplemental fertilization OR the affects of long term NATURAL accumulations of nutrients. Both forms of nutrient inputs into impoundments have essentially the same final impacts.

Inland Fisheries Management In North America, Chapt 10,(1993) describes the affects of nutrient enrichment on lakes. “Consequences of nutrient enrichment include decreased water transparency, scums and mats of bluegreen algae, dense beds of submerged and emergent vegetation", and often dense surface mats or profuse growths of duckweed. Note – bluegreen algae and duckweed growths may not develop until the pond becomes more mature. “Abundant growths of plants annually die and accumulate thick organic sludge layers on the bottom”. Do any of these symptoms sound characteristic of your aging enriched pond?

“Dense blooms of algae can be deleterious to almost all uses of water making a lake or pond less desirable as a place for fishing, swimming, boating, and causing taste and odor problems in drinking water which are costly to treat”. Fish can also develop temporary "offensive flavors" in the flesh during certain algae blooms. “Algae blooms can be so dense that they SHADE OUT or limit development of aquatic submerged weeds”. CODY NOTE - This is one technique that is often used for weed management in southern and northern waters; esp fish hatcheries. The book goes on to say that when over abundant, excessive macrophytes can inhibit fishing, boating and adversely affect predator prey balance by affording too much cover for the prey. The survival of the entire fish community may be jeopardized when a dense plant growth decomposes” as DaveD. witnessed with his pond. “A huge biochemical oxygen demand from decomposition of excessive dead plants results in depletion of oxygen concentrations”. After 30 to 60 years of excessive undecayed sludge accumulations from dead plants on the bottom of a lake, the organic sediments and sludge may need to be OR SHOULD be removed to mitigate the ever increasing shallowness of the lake and the primary causes of the continual decreasing water quality conditions. Lakes / ponds may need to be rebuilt or dredged due to affects or results of accelerated inputs of fertility. At this point some suggest raising the water depth by building the dam higher. I ask, will money be available for this or will the lake have to evolve into a wetlands or become a lake with endless weed problems, nuisance algae or duck weed scums, poor water quality episodes and seemingly endless chemical treatments to suppress the continual weed growth due to too shallow of water and way too many accumulated fertilizers/nutrients?

NOTE: when the lake or pond goes from enriched eutrophic to become hyper-eutrophic (over fertile) the total fish biomass of the water will actually decrease in relation to the ever increasing fertility and degraded water quality conditions. Fish kills are a common symptom of hyper-eutrophic impoundments.

YES, adding fertilizer can definately produce lots of fish, and when managed properly, more big fish per acre but all the above detrimental things can also occur over time with repetitive additions of nutrients to a water body and this is especially true in an impoundment with no outflow or one with a long water retention time. Be advised, adding fertilizer is not with out its risks or tradeoffs; even in southern waters. Robert Summerfelt in his chapter 10 of Inland Fisheries Management did not state that southern waters were exempt from the affects of over fertilization and problems of eutrophication.

I repeat my original comment, large fish can be grown in ponds or lakes without artificial fertilization as evidenced by the big fish that do get caught from nutrient poor waters. The main point here is that a person CANNOT expect very many of these “big ones” to be present PER ACRE in the non-fertile or unfertilized pond. But some big fish can be raised in low nutrient waters; especially if the proper numbers of predator and prey fish are maintained.

GROWTH RATE vs FERTILITY - It makes sense to Roehrig&Cody that a single bass with 10 pounds of forage in an oligotrophic, low nutrients lake should grow at about the same rate as 40 bass with 400 pounds of forage in a fertilized lake, when all other factors are equal in both situations. If the same caloric input is going into the fish in both situations and all other conditions are the same we think that growth rates should be about the same in both nutrient regimes. WE feel it all boils down to the fact that each predator has the same ration of food. We realize that it may be harder for the single bass per acre (hypothetical) to locate sparse prey in the low nutrient pond, so growth could be slightly depressed just due to increased energy costs of capturing forage items. However, It might be possible that some species may actually grow faster in optimum oligotrophic situations if crowding and density dependent factors are reduced. It is feasible that oligotrophic situations may provide increased growth potential due to less enviormental stressors and more stable water quality parameters, such as relatively constant oxygen levels, limited pH fluctuations, and increased water transparency for better sight feeding. BALANCE and proportion of predators to prey fish is always important to good fish growth in all impoundments. We think some species of fish such a lake trout may be better adapted at thriving in nutrient poor waters.

It comes back to what Greg said above … “it is about goals” and what you want from your pond. Of course most will want it both ways, clear water, low algae/weeds AND lots of big fish per acre. So far, to my knowledge, the “laws of nature” will not allow you to have it this way. From my experience, the closest you can come to having it both ways is to feed your fish artificial food. However, this type of feeding also, over time adds extra nutrients to your pond and increases the onset of lower water quality and associated problems as noted in the fisheries management book above. Artificial feeding at “reasonable levels” seems to nutrify or enrich a pond slower than a standard fertilization program.

Let’s look at some theoretical numbers for Billy Schroder’s 28 acre pond that stimulated this discussion.

TOTAL fish biomass in a truly nutrient poor water body could be as low as 44 lbs per acre i.e., 4 lbs of trout-bass predator and 40 lbs of forage fish/acre. Greg gives 25 lbs of Bass per acre as a common low biomass for waters containing LMB in his region. For my example I will use 20 lbs of LMB per acre and approx 180-200lbs for forage fish per acre. Inversely a well fertilized and managed pond can easily produce 4 to 5 times more fish biomass than the low fish biomass. The fertilized biomass could be 80 to 100 lbs of predator (LMB) and 800-1000 lbs of forage fish per acre. These are the high fish biomasses produced by proper fertilization that Greg referred to above. Obviously, the fish catching would be more in the fertilized, high fish biomass situation.

But, if we had a 28 acre pond of low alkalinity-fertility with a TOTAL of 560 lbs of bass (20lb/ac) and approx 5000 lbs of bgill or similar forage fish (200 lb/ac) the question becomes how many fish could be harvested per year from this 28 acre pond. I will not go into the details of possible size distributions of the 560 lbs of bass in the 28 acres. However, I think that 10% of the fish could be conservatively harvested per year from this pond i.e., 50 lbs of bass and 500 lbs of bgill from 28 acres. Assuming the fish are quality size, this is a lot of fish to feed one or two families.

I also am confident with proper predator management, that a dozen or so large sized LMB could be grown in a 28 acre low productivity lake. You may not be able to harvest them but a few could be grown to large sizes. This was verified from my experiences with the small lake mentioned above in my SC example. The question I posed initially was, is 560 lbs of bass (50 lbs harvestable) and 5000 lbs of bgill (500 lbs harvestable) enough fish biomass for you and how much does Mr Schoreder need? How many families or anglers need to be served by this 28 acre pond? How many fish do you want to catch per outing and how often do you plan on fishing or harvesting fish? Can you live with fewer fish and obtain better long term water quality for your lake? OR do you need or want fabulous, magazine style fishing conditions?

I am confident that some fish for numerous fish meals could be harvested from this unfertilized, low productivity 28 acre small lake especially if the owner maintained one or two fish feeders. It comes down to - How much money and management does the owner want to put into this pond? I suggest that the cost of annually fertilizing and or limeing a 28 acre pond may for some people be cost prohibitive. I also suggest that when a pond or lake has a high fish biomass present, it takes more effort (work & money) to maintain or insure the larger biomass fishery is well balanced. When fish numbers need to be adjusted in high biomass situations it takes more time and effort, simply because there is more fish biomass present to be dealt with. For example, MORE fish will probably need to be removed, harvested or manipulated per acre to achieve a desired goal of a balanced or trophy fishery compared to several times fewer fish in a more nutrient poor pond of the same size. This is fun for some, but time, work, effort and expense for others. Sometimes when nutrient concentrations and fish biomasses are high a formidable amount of effort needs to be expended to properly adjust the fish numbers in 28 acres of water. Are the owners up to the task of implementing the amount of effort required to achieve the goal?

On one point I know Greg and I do agree: “It is about goals”. What is right or best for your situation.

Postscript. The booklet “Management of Farm Ponds in Kentucky” recommends that you should not fertilize if the pond has adequate natural fertility, if the transparency of pond water is less than 18” deep or if there is noticeable outflow over the pond’s spillway.

Bill I appreciate your time in providing this valuable information to the readers of this site. I probably should state more info in my post, but I just do not have the time it takes. I really do read alot of your post especially detailed info on algae that I did not already completley undrstand. I work many weeks 60-70 hours and enjoy this site as one of my outlets. My point is thank you for the background but I knew all the above. I have the INland Fisheries book on my shelf. I used it as a teaching tool when a TA in fisheries biology class.

One major diff is in what "my clients" want vs. what many wanted 20 years ago. You stated a couple of times about enough food for many familes. That is not the goal of Mr. Schroder nor many folks in SE that own a 28 acre lake. It is sad really but to own a lake that size someone usualy has pretty good income b/c it is darn expensive. With that said it is a waste to not spend a little more on fertilization if they have the right sitaution for it and want to maximize bass potential.

WIth this being said yes they want the fishing they read about in magazines. If fertilization helps produce more big fish we are going to recommend it, period. Bill we also manage about 60 lakes in metro Atlanta, guess how many we fertilize about 8. Why, this is not what the client needs. I talk them out of it because as you state they will not harvest enough fish to make it worth the effort to keep it in balance. I agree it would probably make the situation worse.

Ga is unique because in south GA you can have a 10-11 month growing season while in the mountains close to me we have oligatrophic lakes. I have shocked up some huge bass in these very clear lakes. Yes they were in balance and not many bass per given shock hour but great fishing and I would not suggest changing this by fertilizing. Instead take advantage of the situation and stock trout, etc. I guess I'm saying I know it is about balance.

This is why in Mr. Schroder's case he knows he will have to harvest more bass. He might even hire me to shock out a certain number of bass per year. I'm taking him fertilizer next week. His originial question was what type, how to use, etc. I'm glad you balance things out but I just wanted to hit home with my point that fertilization has its place since you kinda acted like it has limited use.

My comment about coming down was not stated to offend rather to explain the difference in the south. When I went to Missouri I realized just how different the natural fertility is in different regions. I will tell you I'm not working in the north,too much for me to learn in this life time. However for many clients in the south that want to maximize the number of big bass in their lake I will continue to highly recommend a proper fertilization program.

I hope I can continue to make this statement but not a single client has ever had fish kill associated with over fertilization/phyto crash. When done properly it is easy to not over do it. I have had calls from folks who have over fertilized and killed fish but no one that uses our water soluble 10-52-4.

I also have several clients that do not attempt a "textbook" program. They had 6 ft vis and fertilize to achieve 3 ft vis. It makes sense they want the clear water but also a "little" more production. With deep edges this has worked and not led to vegetation problems.

So when do you want to head this way? I will take you out on the shock boat, but be for warned I will pick your brain about plankton the whole time.

My lengthy post probably had the gloom and doom theme about fertilization. I wanted to make sure those that took the time to read realized there are two sides to the fertilization story. There is also middle ground to fertilization as you pointed out.

For everyone following the thread this far, there are always pros and cons to everything you do to your pond. Most of those with experience here will agree - Learn the advantages and disadvantages of management method and then do what seems best for your situation.

Bill,

Thats the best advice I've seen on the board...

"Learn the advantages and disadvantages of management method and then do what seems best for your situation."

We should make that a banner statement.

Meadowlark - Thanks for the compliment. My intent to the lengthy post on fertilization was to try and present some of the negative aspects of fertilizing; especially long term fertilization and the possible repercussions of over fertilization. Fertilization can have side affects if "things" get out of control or everything does not go as planned.

Greg may have taken some of my comments as attacks which they were not. I realized he probably knew everything that I was saying. I took the time to put that post together as an alternative point of view to fertilization so interested pond owners could hopefully think about if they really needed to use fertilization for their pond. Resonably good fishing can be achieved without fertilizing a pond. Greg also aptly pointed out that fertilization can be done in varying amounts to slightly boost the productivity which many do not consider.

I personally think pond fertilization is sometimes treated too lightly here and that it will be the panacea for everyone to have great fishing. As Greg points out, when done PROPERLY fertilization can have great results. The same is true about medicine but not everyone should practice it. Even good doctors sometimes lose a patient.

All human medical patients eventually die. The life of a pond parallels that of a human; ponds also age and die. However in the case of ponds the accumulation of fertility - nutrients causes the aging process and eventual filling in with dead organic material until the once deep pond over time becomes shallower and shallower until it is a marsh or wetlands. Shallow ponds are often renewed by deepening, and rebuilding; so far humans are not so lucky in this respect.

I'm very interested in what the Pond Boss has to say in next months issue. There is supposed to be a "surprise" article on fertilization.

For me fertilization does not work and in fact harms my ponds...but I'm sure it helps in other situations.

Thankyou to everyone for posting up on this subject. I am torn on fertilizing. I have experienced a small fish kill (last season) from fertilizing. I comtemplated greatly (should I, or shouldn't I) fertilize this year. Well, I just recently fertilized the pond. I will keep a closer eye on the situation this year (daily).

Last year I was useing granular fertilizer (old school) Got the bloom established, When it was time for the third application, I went to change out the bag (bag is laid in shallow water with top removed) I discovered that the granular fertilizer had not disolved in the water, it was just a clump of wet nasty fertilizer. My bloom evidently crashed and my larger bass "floated" .

This year I have switched to a liquid fertilizer and I will be armed with skechi disk in hand , damn near everyday I will check the depth of water clarity! I have read eveything I can find about fertilizing and will continue to ponder.

My pond is going into it's third summer. I had good luck with fertilizing the first year and hope to this year.

I want my bluegill fingerlings to have some plankton to eat so they will feed well my largemouth. I want visibility to be low enough to shade out the algea. I want to grow really big bluegill and bass. That's not to much to ask!!!!

I felt this subject needed much more discussing here and I am thrilled to see that it is.

Glad to see you trying it again. Have you tried water souluble? It is easier and more efficent than liquid. I also think b/c of the low application rate it is is safer if following directionsof 4-8 lbs/acre/app. I have a dealer in north AL if you want to try a box $35/25 lbs. Good luck with the fertilization program.