Pond Boss Forums INTRO Questions & Observations Artificial feeding vs Natural Protein

Can the addition of Tilapia reduce your artificial feeding needs while maintaining growth of predators?

On another long running thread, we have been debating aspects of artificial feeding and its effects on LMB. I have argued that a LMB that gets its food without the aid of artificial feeders is a more aggressive fish than otherwise…that’s a hypothesis, yet to be proven with scientific data.

Please couple that above hypothesis with an alternate source of natural protein…Tilapia…. and you have a system that I’m testing that I believe may prove to be far superior to the common approach of using artificial feeders to promote growth in LMB. The system is basically this: feed your LMB natural foods, e.g. Tilapia, BG, fatheads, shad, etc. and you can have growth along with aggressive LMB behavior.

Some data for your consideration: Mozambique Tilapia begin spawning at 2 to 4 ounces in size. They are prolific spawners. Professional fish growers use, get this, fingerling LMB stocked at 400 fish per acre to prevent Tilapia from overcrowding in commercial ponds. 400 LMB per acre, just to keep the Tilapia from overcrowding so that they can put weight on the remaining Tilapia.

Another data point. Quote from SRAC publication, “Tilapia use natural food so efficiently that crops of 2,700 pounds per acre can be sustained without supplemental feed.” That’s not Meadowlark talking, that’s Thomas Popma and Michael Masser talking (two recognized outstanding fish biologists).

It is very easy for me to extrapolate from this data and see where I can reduce, or even eliminate artificial feeding with Tilapia and still sustain the growth in LMB. Again, reference my earlier hypothesis that a LMB that gets its food without the aid of artificial feeders is a more aggressive fish than otherwise.

In the system I’m experimenting with, LMB will be more aggressive and grow adequately or even better than with artificial feeding. In addition, there will be no longer a need for chemicals to treat algae or fertilizer to promote growth in fish and weeds.

It’s very difficult to condense a description of this system to a readable post. I have tried. In doing so, I hope some of you may understand the logic. It is a perfect match for my pond objectives of a chemical free, additive free, fishery that provides reliable consistent fishing.

When I argued about the relative merits of artificial feeding and how much protein and what about aggressiveness, I said Tilapia are the key to making this alternate approach work. My experiment is now 6 months in progress. I have reported observing LMB aggressive behavior that I have never seen in my ponds with artificial feeders. I’m encouraged, notwithstanding the negative comments for the Forum, that this system will work for me. At the worst, if it fails, I can always go back to artificial feeding, fertilizers, herbicides, etc. I’ve got nothing to loose and everything to gain, in my opinion. Thanks for reading.

ML, do you think the protien source really matters as far as 'catchability' goes? Okay, we've all caught bass and seen another forage fish with the tail sticking out of its stomach. Certainly not hungry but well fed, active and aggressive. That would support Gregs hypothesis. And, I'll bet he keeps careful documentation or loses his job. It doesn't stand to reason that his customers would accept a bunch of happy, full bellied, fish that couldn't be caught.

You, on the other hand are "feeding" your bass tilapia. I expect they will gorge themselves on your alternative offering. With the prolific breeding habits of tilapia, your bass will always be sated. If you catch them, it will support both of you guys outlooks. Both of you are furnishing/feeding the forage which turns into protien for the bass.

I keep thinking of the recent small bass I caught from a bass heavy pond and added to mine. Of necessity, they never passed up an opportunity to feed and still don't in my pond. They have been conditioned to eat anytime the opportunity presented itself. Maybe all bass are until they become hook shy or are genetically disposed not to bite lures. I'll bet that I could add a slew of BG's to that pond and reduce the catch rate.

I envy you the opportunity to conduct your experiment. You average 60 inches of rain per year. I average 22 and its not a sure thing. If I added tilapia, I could probably expect the same DO crash caused by fertilization.

One interesting observation. I have less than 20 catfish left in my water. When I toss feed, the bluegill come first and then the catfish. I believe the cats come to the sound of feeding BG, not to the sound of the feed hitting the water. I need to toss out feed at night when my BG generally don't feed to see just what rings the cats dinner bell.

I would like to know the pond sizes of Gregs customers to compare apples to apples. I think catchability might be more pond size or environmentally dependent than anything else.

Dave,

You made two excellent points that jumped out at me. One was raised previously by Ric when he questioned me on "what difference does it make whether the bass are full of protein from Tilapia vs artificial feeders?" Or to that effect...apologies to Ric if I misquoted his excellent question.

I may be wrong, in fact am probably wrong, but my experience as a rancher and outdoors person says to me that a predator that has to hustle for its food will be a more aggressive predator. A LMB will have to hustle for Tilapia and BG without feeders present.

The second point, on pond size, is very relevant, I believe. My rants have always been with respect to small ponds that I have personal years of experience with.

I'm convinced, unashamedly so, that Florida LMB in small ponds with artificial feeders, catch and release, and fishing pressure does not work. Many variables in that statement. I've been trying to isolate the variables with my experiments to determine what the main factors are and how to correct for them...standard engineering approach which has served me well in another life.

That's what this is all about for me. Thanks for the comments.

ML and Greg :

I have followed your debate on the aggressive trait , feeding behavior and forage bases , { I include pond carrying capicity } and genetics { the why and how fish act} with great interest. In essence you {pl} are covering the entire spectrum of the fish part of pond management. As you know I am eager to learn as much as possible about this and am and have been for some time conducting my own tests on the specifics of fish { LMB & BG/RE } behavior. Recently on the fourm we have been posting on genetics which is obviously a large part of this. For an example see the following , especialy Norm's last comment on pure genetic vs. learned behavior and the rate of genetic change of each.

http://www.pondboss.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=001834

Each of you know that I think highly of your opinions and am grateful for your efforts on the fourm. On this topic there is truth in both of your positions but I think there is more to the answer than any of us understand , given the current state of the knowledge base. We are each in our own way trying to add to the info base so that we all may understand better that which eludes us. Each is to be thanked and encouraged for the efforts and none criticized .

Both the scientific and engineering method are similar and you are each using it to test and draw conclusions . I don't think we have the answer yet and we are all struggling for an answer . That is why it interests us so much .
The quest for answers is the journey we are on and it is about enjoying the collective trip not about getting one answer right. Many times a correct and accepted scientific answer is later proved wrong.

A couple of basic points to start. Each pond is different . Each pond fish population is different including the genetics of the same species . Each pond's carrying capicity is different based on many factors. All of these enter into the equation. ML I did not think that your pond was much different from mine {and probably most of Greg's} in this respect until I saw the picture and BM's comment about your bloom. Our ponds require fert. to look like yours [with cow fert.}. We are all attempting to get to the right productivity range with fert/soils and/or feeders with no side effects. It would be an error for you to fert. and it would be an error for me not to fert. to reach the correct productivity range.

To the point . I do not think the answer to your questions is just feeders [ or type of protien ] nor is it that full fish are more aggressive . I think both play a part . Aggression and feeding are not identical and many things effect catch rates . Much of it is genetic and over time genetic traits change as a result of outside conditions. Further the different traits change at different rates as Norm noted. I will not go into the different papers I have read looking for an answer. I will use one example that I am testing on to make the point.

Lake {16 acres}. Fert. with no feeders. Has nort. , fla. and all % cross of LMB and healthy population of BG & RE. RW on all are well above normal and all LMB and sunfish are very healthy and get plenty to eat. However over the last 4 years LMB aggresivness has dropped with minor improvement this year . Populations of all fish are balanced and all sizes of all types. Forage base strong. Near by 6 acre lake with same facts and problem but it has limited feeding . Fish in lakes are of different original genetic make up but additions are of same genetic make up.

Given the differences and similarities why the drop in catchability { aggression}. I don't know but am trying to find out. I don't think it can be explained just by feeders or full vs. hungry fish . They may both be part of the answer . I bet there is more to the answer than that , and it may be , I acknowledge based on faulty observation or the inability to control the test paramenters.

Sorry for the length of my 2 cents worth. I wish all of us good luck , cooperation and friendship on the journey . ewest

ewest,

Another great post. You clearly understand the engineering approach I'm trying to use to isolate variables and determine consequences. The problem is there are so many complex variables.

I realize the shortcomings of my approach and my own knowledge, perhaps better than anyone...but I'm trying to understand something which has been a central disappointment for me in Pond Meistering, the lack of aggressive behavior in LMB.

Honestly, I would appreciate any suggestions to change of approach or other "experiments" I could try. I'm willing and able, well sort of able , to build another pond just for such an experiment...and if I come on too strong, please remember it isn't personal, just a drive inside me that I have had since birth to find answers to complex questions.

It's a journey, not a destination.

p.s. guess you understand now why I don't like fertilization...you should have seen what it did to this pond, when I followed well meaning advice herein and fertilized to get rid of weeds by shading them out..it was a veritable explosion of weeds and I still have not recovered two years later.

ML :

I do understand your methods and the drive to find answers and the frustration that surrounds not knowing the why of LMB traits , especialy aggressiveness . To do so only requires that I look in the mirror . It helps to know there are many more in the same boat. That is why it is being studied.

I would not change your methods or expirmt. design or parameters . I think and expect interesting results . I think 2 good questions are do the feeders add to the problem and how much do the pure Fla. genes add to the problem. You have tried to isolate those with no feeders and F1 crosses. I think in your case the waiting by the feed area is learned {I hate to use that word as I don't think it fits bass} so lets say adaptive behavior which over time will tend to change the genetic tendancies of your bass population. How long it will take or the % chance I don't know ?

Since I don't have those facts in my test ponds I am trying the genetic approach . I will introduce marked 10 in. LMB with the genetic propensity for aggressive behavior and large size this fall after having adjusted the bass and forage base numbers this spring and summer. Will this exp. work and can I measure the change over time ? Even if I can will that be the sole or main reason for the change ? I don't know but will see what happens and post the results. If enough of us try to figure this out I bet over time we will have an answer or at least better understand the parts of the question of LMB traits. ewest

I have also followed these posts with interest. I tend towards your side of the equation, ewest. I believe that genetics play a larger role than food or learned behavior. Greg offhandedly mentioned that he bought aggressive bass because that is what his customer base wanted and if that is the case then what he later feeds them might not play as an important a part. ML has done something that I am afraid to do, stop feeding. I am worried that my little ones will be hungry.
All of my adult life was spent around people who were the result of their environment, in the beginning I believed that to be true, later I adopted a combo approach and now I believe that if you carefully examine each situation you can see which one, supplemented by the other, is what you are looking at. I believe that animals are much the same. That said however, I believe that they are more driven by genes than education. Example, a carp pond in England has 70 carp and has had them for years, many members had caught, 35- 40 members, each carp at least once. They were trying to raise money to buy several new carp. They don’t feed them, forage only.
Aggressive behavior is an inherited trait in humans, it can be taught, but not to everyone. Would it be any different with fish?
The quantum leap, ML, each bass you catch on a lure must go into your new pond, only lure caught fish are allowed, forage fish excepted of course. Over time you will have only aggressive fish or at least fish that exhibit aggressive tendencies. Then over a period of time you will either validate or not. I know you pen packin engineer types need to do every thing 100 times but a 100 ponds might be a stretch even for you.
Ewest, eloquently, stated that this is a topic that has more interest than information and we have much to learn. The beauty of this forum is the bringing together of the collective minds of a group offering a vast array of knowledge, oh yeah, and at least as many opinions.

How does one get 10 inch LMB with those genetic propensities?

Now that will be an interesting experiment. Details, please, details on your progress and results.

What a terrific discussion!

Rad, My son-in-law is a head HS basketball coach. He tells me that aggressive behavior in athletics is almost completely dependent on one's genetics...you are either born with it or not and it usually can not be taught. If LMB are that way, then we do indeed need different approaches.

ML :

My order was placed for the LMB last winter.They will be between 8-10 in. depending on when the hatchery and my ponds are ready , probably late Oct. In this case I have used the same source as some of Greg's fish . I do not buy all my fish from them but have used them for over 10 years and have been amazed at the quality of the product delivered. I bought some 10-12 in Fla. LMB from this source when they were selling only F1's for the reasons we have discussed. They were reluctant to sell the Fla.s as they did not want an unhappy buyer down the road. Only after I told them the fish were going in ponds with northerns and the idea was to introduce the Fla. genes did they agree to sell them. When the fish arrived they were 10-12 in. and averaged 1.3 lbs. They looked like small footballs . Beautiful fish in all respects from their coloration to their condition. They have through selective breeding developed the product described . I trust the owners based on prior history and their product after checking it out. That is , I agree , a variable in the expir. and we will see how it works. Because I support many suppliers in the pond mgt. busines I do not post names with products . I will send you a PM with the name and address if you would like it.

See below for expir. facts . I am following this plan .

http://www.pondboss.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=001433

ewest,

Yes please, name and address. E-mail me at ldhartley@hotmail.com. Thanks.

ewest,

I understand from the reference you are also not feeding BG or LMB in this experiment?

Is that still your plan, i.e no feeding? If so, together we should have some very interesting data.

I'd appreciate any coaching on sampling data you think is relevant to add to our information base. The wild card I have is Tilapia, which I really believe may significantly affect my results.

ML :

That is correct in concept . Let me explain. The only feeding that occurs is in one small area {2000 sq ft} behind a blocking net. The bass and BG in the lake can not get to the food or wait on the small feeding grow out BG. In esence there are 2 lakes. In the expir. lake { entire 16 acres less 2000 sq ft.} no feeding has occured either before or after the expir. started. Prior to the expir. start no feeding occured in any part of the entire lake. In other words the only feeding ever on this lake was behind the net for 3 mths during grow out of some 3-5 in BG.

I am not sure I am a coach more like a teammate. I am just starting the process of thinking about the sampling data , how to measure results and what of the prior data will be useful. I will keep you posted. Any thoughts on sampling or data would be great. A good strong forage base be it BG/sunfish , tilapia , shad , shiners or a combo is a prerequisite .ewest

I went to Arms fish farm a few weeks ago to pick up tilapia. Harrell had two holding tanks side by side. One tank contained thousands of pure Flordia bass about 2" long. The other tank contained thousands of Flordia / Northern mix bass about 2" long. These mix bass were not f1's but several generations removed. Both Flordia and the mix bass were pellet trained. As a demonstration of their behavior Harrell told me to put my finger in the tanks. The Flordia's all fled to the opposite end of the tank and the mix's came up to investigate. Just an interesting experiment for what it's worth.

Tentmaker Farm,

Yes very interesting.

By the way, how are you coming with your "experiment"?

I'm glad you posted and have been wondering if you have any recent observations to share.

ML,
Just an opinion here that might give explanation for Greg's aggressive fish food fed bass.

It's my thinking that fish don't feel hunger. As Dave stated Those bass weren’t hungry when they hit our offering.
They react to stimuli & from instinct. Both of course are determined by genetics as to each fish's level of aggressiveness.
If this thinking has merit it would explain why Greg’s fish are so aggressive. They aren’t just hanging around waiting to snatch a BG feeding on pellets or waiting for pellets themselves. The feeding activity itself stimulates the bass as well as other BG to start feeding. They instinctively know the sounds of opportunity & come running... aggressively.

Now, in the wild, it is the biggest most aggressive fish which dominate. As in a trout stream it’s the biggest fish which will have the best location to capture forage. Remove that fish & the next biggest, healthiest, most aggressive fish will take his place.

This is where I think Greg is coming from when he says his healthier well fed fish will be more aggressive than if they weren’t fed.
I truly believe what he is doing works & will work for most pond owners. After all it’s what’s being taught throughout the industry & has been proven to produce the desired results.

In my book professionals whether in engineering or fishery management are the experts in their specific fields.

All that being said, what you are doing I believe will also work & it’s what I will be attempting too.
I just think the majority of people will benefit more from following the tried & true first.

Ric,

"Tried and True" never advanced anything in the history of humans. It is safe, yes, but just not interesting to me.

If one is happy with what they have and do not desire/strive for more or better or seek to explore/gain knowledge, then status quo is the ticket.

I am not that way. I am not satisfied with my LMB behavior. I am not satisfied that the "professionals" can explain that behavior or modify it and most of all, I am not convinced that everything that can be known about LMB or ponds in general has already been discovered.

I simply reject out of hand the notion that the only people that can make a contribution to the knowledge/understanding of ponds/fish are those "professionals"....or that you have to manage 50 ponds in order to be able to speak.

I was 23 years old and sitting on a console in Mission Control when the first humans walked on the moon and there was not any "how to" manual then and people said it couldn't be done. I reject that kind of thinking, in fact abhore it.

Failure is a distinct possibility in my case. In my life, I have learned far more from failures than success. I relish the chance to learn, to contribute.

Sorry to talk about myself, and that got me in trouble with Greg, but I simply reject the notion that only "pros" can contribute to the knowledge base....and by the way, for the record, there is nothing in this response that is in anyway aimed at anyone other than myself.

ML,
I do believe you were the only one to have that notion so it's good that you rejected it.

Tried & true is not as mundane as you make it out to be. Especially in your field of expertise tried & true is the way to go! Would we have made it to the moon without all the testing, studying & learning what works? That's the tried & true.
Out of the box thinking is what the space program is about but if you only had one space shuttle, not another to test with no computer program to simulate with would you recommend radical untested changes for the upcomming mission?
If a new pond owner wants a good bass fishery has only one pond to work with & wants to get the most out of it would you recommend he abandon the tried & true? The basics? The stuff that has repeatedly worked?
No, your ideas as everyones are greatly apreciated!!! I happen to like them! But I would never advocate to the masses my ideas are better than the status quo or the tried & true .

Ric,

Perhaps I have not communicated very well. Indeed it is clear I have not.

I did not realize that anyone would see this thread as recommending radical untested changes for the masses. The thread title is in the form of a question. A question generally means the one asking does not know the answer.

My discussions, with ewest in particular, have been about ideas and concepts and experiments and variables and ways to get more information on the table.

I honestly thought this thread was about ideas which need to be tested, about experiments that we could do to improve our knowledge base.

For some reason, which is probably my fault, you and Greg previously have latched on to the thought that I'm recommending new radical untested approachs for the masses. That is not the case. I seek knowledge. I seek answers to questions. I search for ways to improve my ponds and my own knowledge of them and the creatures that use them.

If we must limit our discussions to the tried and true as defined by you or anyone for that matter, then I have totally misunderstood this Forum.

I thought that part of this Forum was a place where new ideas could be discussed, tried out, debated and reported on without personal criticism. I thought that it was understood that an experiment was just that and a hypothesis was an unproven concept.

I would like to have inputs from other forum members on this matter. If indeed tried and true are the limits of discussion, then I will abide by those wishes.

If indeed other Forum members see these expressions of experiments and concepts as advocating radical untested changes to the masses, then I will refrain from discussing them in the future.

In fact, since I do not fully know what is "tried and true" in this regard, I will refrain from posting at all and defer to those who do indeed know what is "tried and true".

Going to the moon was tried and true? Wow.
I know, I know, the principals that put us there.
Meadowlark I think you are being way to sensitive in your new you. Every post of your has had some kind of disclaimer, so I know you are not preaching to the masses.
I believe that this forum is only as good as the people posting, another wow, how corny, but true. What makes this forum so good is that everybody is really interested in the focus of the forum, ponds. Every one knows a little about a lot of things and some people know a great deal. Look at the fish trap thread or the solar panel, or posting pictures, Jersey and the Corp. Look back through the threads that have the most postings, great stuff.

M-L that explains your position to me. Sorry to come off so strong but it seemed some of the comments were personal, apparently not and sorry for the reaction. I really hope I do not come off all knowing and want to encourage you to continue your post. I just wish they were a little more toned down, and I do not mean that in a bad way at all.

You mentioned you want to share ideas. I agree and really do hope to learn from your experiment. However on many occasions you have taken the time to give advice to folks, no problem there. However I usually give out tried and true methods as Ric says based on the fact it works. For ex a guy from GA ask about fertilzing lakes ( I think this is right) you come on there and warn them about how bad it can be. Even after I say it can be beneficial I think you have came back again with how bad. Is that necessary? You provide your idea on how it worked on your ponds in TX and it may not apply to how it is in GA. Make sense?

I in no way want to discourage your posts you are informative and knowledgable. IMHO you seem to come off strong on many opinions. ANother one is your preaching about hybrid and tilapia. I'm with you but some folks can not legally stock these. I know I had a major awakenieng on here when I posted about a few northern ponds. I quikly learned to sit back and see answers b/c many times folks that are there no way more than I about regional diffs.

Ewest very well stated I wish I could put in wiritng what I'm trying to say as well as you. I would much rather talk to someone in person. I agree about genetics playing a more important role than full belly. That was my point but apparently not explained so well.

M-L why do you want this bass source? These are the same ones I described as being pellet trained and you were very clear about no way are they more agressive. Glad to see your interest maybe you will trust ewest more than may advice.

Greg is making many important points here. One that I wish to comment on is the idea that something that works in one situation is good in all situations. That may not be true. Greg uses the example of fertilizing ponds. This doesn't mean that we don't have much to learn from each other though. In fact, it is because of these different situations that we can learn things that people in our own areas would never have thought of. In terms of genetics, it is too easy for us to get "inbred" in our own thinking and we need these fresh ideas.

Norm and others :

Norm , thank you , you are right but you are being to gentle. I like the genetic comparison.

I would like to try to bring a few matters into focus that we often don't put in our posts , but should . The question is how .

Even in cases when we are posting on "idea" topics between each other and obviously not giving advice be careful. It is easy for someone to not understand or mis understand a point or be offended especialy if it envolves a reader with less knowledge or one who quickly reads the post or if the post is not well written or is taken the wrong way. It even happens when the post is well written and easily understood. Such is the human mind . This applies most when the reader is not involved in posting on the topic.

I am sure , after seeing the great efforts of posters to help others , that no one on this fourm knowingly or unknowingly ever wants to cause a pond owner to have a problem or make a problem worse.

Norm , I think by definition if something works in one situation it " will not " work in " all " situations. There are to many factors at work for it to be statistically possible to be right in all cases. I am sure I remember most posters pointing this out , just not all the time. ML , Greg , myself and others have done so on the fert. question. You , Bruce , CB1 , Theo , Rad and others on genetics and others. Bill Cody points this out often with his " it depends" warning. I could go on with lots of other posters and topics.

There are to many differences from region to region , all the way down to pond to pond for their to be one size fits all answers. For example the large differences in soil type and content. With this basic pond building block being so different why we would think any other topic answer would be the same every where is beyond me.

Many times we have seen the comment made that it is not " rocket science " or " brain surgery " . True but not accurate . Think about the fact that pond mgt. as well as both rocket science and brain surgery involve the following , biology , chemistry , physics and engineering not to mention a few others. The idea that pond mgt. is easy is both wrong and dangerous .

We face a conflict between wanting to help { which often requires easy answers} and exploring and sharing ideas { which is often complex} . Science has faced this conflict for years. It is often handled with 2 rules , 1} in your advice do or cause no harm and , 2} in your ideas and expir. full disclosure and warnings.

How should we handle it ? I suggest as Bill Cody often reminds us we should be clear and state that " it all depends" and by cleraly stating that " one size does not fit all" . The use of warnings is required so that we don't harm a pond. Patience , civility , understanding , slowness to speak in anger and a thick skin should help us not harm each other.

Sorry for the long 2 cents worth. ewest

M/L, have been off line the last few days and trying to catch up on a very interesting subject and be heard! A lot of philosophical posts on the subject and all with deep points, but to get off the trail of the Budda and Confuscious it only makes sense that the hunter instinct is more prevalent in a predator that chases live pry vice hanging around the feeder whether eating feed or the feed eaters. A Tilapia is alive and has the natural instinct of survival, will do everything available to avoid elimination. The BG that hang around feeders are suckers...easy prey. Whether we be human or animal our instincts drive to the "easiest way". When a LMB has to be decisive to eat or starve it can only improve aggressiveness. Now the most important point is how much more aggresive?

Don,

That's what made sense to me also and I rely on common sense a lot. Thanks for your comments.

I have only a high school diploma to show for myself, (I am married to a wonderful lady who is a rocket scientist).

I have been involved with wetland mitigation and have a great intrest in waterfowl hunting. In my dealings I have met many biologist. They are without a doubt following strictly the education they received, the tried and true methods. There is a process to be involved with every situation and once that process proves a point that point is ground in stone until proven otherwise! I have had good luck combining the knowledge learned from biologist and common sense to "create" my own way of thinking.

Meadowlark keep thinking out of the box and posting up! Just leave the disclaimer that you are no longer following the tried and true......

I have had Tilapia for only two months now, I swear my Bass have gotten much thicker. Unlike ML I also was fertilizing and feeding and stocked Tilapia.....Kind of went whole hog!

It has been a roller coaster ride trying to fertilize, I have had good blooms each season only to end up with some DO kills. I have two diffusers and well water spraying which I think helped the fish kills to be small but yet still dissapointing. I have just factored in these loses with how many fish I have harvested and should still have a good stocking rate in my pond.

I do have some big Bluegill, most 9-12 inches. They are 2 1/2 yrs. old. My Bass have grown to 2 lbs and climbing. I think the fertilizing got my fish off to a good start, but question risking a big fish kill. Plus as of this year have some Algea to deal with.

Anyway this is a long rambling post and that's what happens at 11:45 p.m. To make a story shorter let me say that I am as of next spring going to pursue the ML way of thinking. I will not fertilize and I will stock Tilapia again. I will keep reading with great intrest to hear all sides of the story!!

Tilapia have spawned like crazy, in the past my bluegill have spawned many times during the summer and the fry would be everywhere for a few days and they are gobbled up by the Bass quickly and seem to dissapear. The Tilapia have added greatly to the fry seen around the pond and they are visible everyday now, walking the pond you can see the Bass constantly stalking the Tilapia. I'm hoping this gives the Bluegill somewhat of a break. I not only want big Bass but I also want to eat/harvest alot of Bluegill, I'm thinking the addition of Tilapia will make this happen for me.

I have a ton of respect for Biologist, Engineers, and people like me so EVERYONE keep posting up!