Pond Boss Forums INTRO Questions & Observations Let's talk about fertilizer!

OK boy's! The door has been opened! What are the pros and cons on fertilizing a pond? This is a procedure we use to implement, but no longer use. Don't bite me just yet, but I want to see what all the opinions are out there.

Thanks,

Deb

Deb, I think it's about like every other tool. If you need it, use it. However, if your sechi disk test is OK, then you might be looking for trouble. Once you start fertilizing, it can be hard to stop.

In my arid climate, fertilizer means excess carrying capacity with a sure thing DO crash. Sooner or later a one acre pond becomes 2/3 or even 1/2 acre and you have 10 pounds of sugar in a five pound bag. Something is guaranteed to break. Nothing more heartbreaking than watching oxygen starved fish.

DO crashes taught me to take a holistic outlook.

Deb, or anyone who cares to reply...
My pond is over 30 years old, although it's never been fertilized it has always produced well. I've never had surface weed problems or heavy algae growth until recently. My new neighbor upstream from me has built a pond of approximately 1.7 ac. He's been applying a highly concentrated fertilizer once monthly throughout the summer. I'm seeing jellyfish like blobs of algae in my pond now. Water clarity has remained the same. Should I be concerned?

The stream that supplies both our ponds drains a 190 acre watershed of mostly hardwood forest. I was of the opinion that the watershed provided enough nutrient to maintain a decent fish population.

Deb,I may seem to be answering a question with a question but, why has Georgia Giant quit fertilizing along with their stocking plans?
Thanks in advance for any replies,
Tim

Tim :
Do they look like the pics on this site? If so they are bryozoa and you can read about them at the site.

http://www.millermicro.com/bryozoa.html

ewest

We found out quite a few years back that we were growing more weeds and algae using fertilizer. In turn we were having to use more chemicals and carp to control the "greenery".
Therefore we started coloring the water deeper than 18 inches, feeding the fish (that is how people grow), and aerating our ponds. No problems since then!

Question to ponder! Most anyone who has farmed has used pond water to irrigate their crops, right? Why do you think they do this? It has been proven that crops grow quicker and larger when irrigated this way. Guess what guys! Fish poop :p ! Nature has set up its own way to fertilize ponds. I sure would hate to know someone at daycare added fertilizer to my son's mash potatoes so that he would grow.

Bet I have ruffled a few feathers, but it is something to think about.

Deb

ewest, thanks for the reply and the link. What I'm seeing in my pond doesn't resemble bryozoa, it looks more like the artificial grass one sees in an Easter Basket, but finer in texture. The masses are free floating at the surface or just below it. I've owned this pond since 1980 and never observed what ever this is before.
Thanks again for the link on bryozoa, it's an interesting read about something I've never seen.

I am no expert, but I think there are situations where fertilizer would be your best bet:
If I had a big budget and plenty of time I would stock fish heavily, feed often, and there will be no need to fertilize.
However, if I had a small budget and a new pond, built on infertile soil, far away from home, I think I would stock lightly and feed the foodchain a few times per year with fertilizer.

Jeff I am no expert by far, but I think you may have hit the nail on the head. Our ponds are stocked heavier and managed daily. That would make the difference. Thanks!

Deb

Deb, How do you dye all but the top 18 inches of the water column?

Dave

Let me restate that. How do you add dye to water and not color the top 18 inches?

1 Quart of concentrated Ocean Blue covers (on average) a 1 acre pond 4 foot deep. This is really gonna sound like a redneck way to do things but...
Put a small piece of tinfoil on the end of a yardstick, and drop the yardstick 18-20 inches into the water. If you can see the tinfoil you add a little more dye. Then it is just a matter of maintaining the color. That top foot or so of water is important for photosynthesis, so too much color can be a bad thing.

Deb

Deb,

There have been posts herein which say that the coloring may kill good plankton and maybe even fry. Could you comment on that aspect of coloring? Thanks.

Dave the best way to explain it is for you to do an experiment at home. Take a milk jug full of water, and then add several drops of food coloring. Check the dispersment the following morning. Keep in mind that ponds naturally get darker the deeper they go.
ML- the coloring does not effect good plankton because usually it is this "surface" plankton that use photosynthesis for carbon dioxide to oxygen transfer. Photosynthesis does not occur at the bottom of the pond unless you have COMPLETE clarity of the water. If this is the case, then you usually have a weed and algae problem starting so you are back to square one trying to fix things. Kinda like the saying that reads, "An ounce of prevention...". We have never had an issue with the fry (or minnows for that matter) being affected. My guess on this (and it is only a guess) would be because these smaller fish stay shoreline. They generally do not travel deep. Plus the added benefit of this dye is that it is non-toxic. It is a form of highly concentrated food coloring.
This has just what has worked for us guys.

By the way, it also makes your water nice looking (from a woman's point of view)!

Deb

Fertilizer serves two purposes, when applied and managed correctly. First, a healthy plankton bloom is a balanced mix of phytoplankton and zooplankton. Nutrients dissolved in the water column feed phytoplankton, which is natural food for zooplankton, which feeds the tiniest insects, which feed bigger insects, which feed newly hatched fish, and so on. Purpose one is to ultimately feed newly hatched fish. Think about those babies. When they are first hatched, the only food they have is what they derive from the yolk of their egg. Once that's absorbed, these young fish have no energy stores. They haven't eaten anything, therefore they have no body fat. They must eat now, and often, or many of them starve, quickly. Plankton is the fundamental source of food, at the very base of the food chain. Job one of fertilizer is to feed baby fish. The second role is to shade the water, to prevent excessive aquatic plant growth. When visibility decreases, the area which plant growth can occur is diminished.
While people often understand the value of fertilizer, the 'problem' occurs because they don't completely understand how to do it, and how to maintain a bloom. Realtors base value on three things, location, location, location. Fisheries managers focus on 'timing, timing, timing.' Miss the timing, and bad things happen. Fertilize too early, and you get no results. Water's too cool. Wait too long, and you feed plants.Fertilize too much and you run the risk of oxygen depletion. Fertilization is a simple concept, as long a the pond manager understands how to play the game.
Dye works in a simple way, too. It blocks a certain spectrum of the sun's rays, basically to prevent rooted aquatic plant growth from the bottom of the pond. While the concept makes sense, dye also inhibits phytoplankton growth at all levels. When the water is Tidy-Bowl Man blue, phytoplankton can't grow. Zooplankton can, but since they eat phytoplankton, their growth and quantities are limited. As the dye deteriorates in direct sunlight, water takes on a shade of bluish green, the greenish blue, then green....and so on. That's when phytoplankton begin to do what they do, once they can get required sunlight penetration.
In ponds that are not heavily fed, where the manager depends on the natural chain of events, a healthy fertilization program grows four to five times the numbers and pounds of baby fish than clear water.
I, too, have fertilized ponds and been rewarded with plant growth. But, it wasn't the fertilizer's fault. It was mine, because I missed the timing window, or didn't maintain the bloom.
Properly managed, fertile ponds will outproduce dyed ponds four to one with fish, in a natural setting.
Fish producers typically fertilize, followed with an intense feeding program. But, they always have a source of fresh water, fast, in case they mess up.
I use fertilizer often, with great results.
I tend to stay away from dye, unless the pond sits in an urban setting.
There's a big project in upstate NY where I spend lots of time. Fifty hatchery ponds adorn this private wildlife preserve. We are able to successfully fertilized about forty of those ponds. The others simply won't take a bloom, probably because of too much shallow water, or too much flow through. The fertile ponds outproduce all the others. About fifteen ponds are used for fathead minnow production, to supply fish for larger game fish production ponds. Those fathead ponds produce a huge amount of fish, due to the manageable levels of plankton. We stopped raising small fish in ponds which tend to vegetate and won't hold a bloom. That's where we grow tiger musky, larger largemouth bass on feed, advanced walleye and smallmouth bass on feed.
So, fertilizer is like many of the tools of the trade. Learn how to do it properly, and your pond is built with not much shallow water, and fertilizer is your friend. But, miss the timing window, and expect to be frustrated.

Thank you Bob! Boy this forum is an excellent source for a variety of beliefs and discussions. Thanks again for allowing us to take part.

On your Quote:
"There's a big project in upstate NY where I spend lots of time. Fifty hatchery ponds adorn this private wildlife preserve. We are able to successfully fertilized about forty of those ponds. The others simply won't take a bloom, probably because of too much shallow water, or too much flow through. The fertile ponds outproduce all the others. About fifteen ponds are used for fathead minnow production, to supply fish for larger game fish production ponds. Those fathead ponds produce a huge amount of fish, due to the manageable levels of plankton. We stopped raising small fish in ponds which tend to vegetate and won't hold a bloom. That's where we grow tiger musky, larger largemouth bass on feed, advanced walleye and smallmouth bass on feed.
So, fertilizer is like many of the tools of the trade. Learn how to do it properly, and your pond is built with not much shallow water, and fertilizer is your friend. But, miss the timing window, and expect to be frustrated".

Were all of these ponds fed supplemental feed? If so what was the protein content, and did it ever vary? If the coloring was not too shallow to affect the natural biomass, could you see it as a useful tool in combination with fertilization to prevent deep vegetation growth? In your "urban" settings, when dying the water how would you maintain the plankton populations to suffice the natural food chain you mentioned? Finally, how deep (inches) do plankton need to be in the column to perform their duties, and how deep until they become a problem?

Deb

Of the forty fertile ponds, we also fed five varieties and sizes of Silver Cup pelleted fish food. Protein and pellet size was determined by species and sizes of those fish. Protein ranged from 32-48%. Tiny fish and top line predators got the high protein, intermediate forage fish such as bluegill get the lesser protein.
I have not considered using dye and fertilization in combination because I have seen them as conflicting. I have also thought each renders the other moot. Finally, I have tended to look at each of those serving two completely different purposes. So, you have brought an interesting consideration. I have put dye in small lakes and ponds in late winter, hoping they could help put off rooted plant growth long enough for us to get a bloom. These ponds are typically ones we aren't able to attend to as often as we probably should. Sometimes it works quite nicely, sometimes it doesn't. I have learned each pond has its own 'personality' and once we figure out what works, we tend to stick with it.
In urban settings, we use dye simply because these landowners are less interested in fish production than having their pond aesthetically appealing. We don't particularly care if there are plankton or not. We mainly want no rooted aquatic plants, and a pleasant color for the owner.
Your last question...we try to maintain a secchi disc visibility depth between 18-24 inches for the safest fish production. Plus, we have learned to 'read the bloom.' That's important, too. When fertilizer is properly used, when water temperatures are consistently above 60 degrees in spring, we get a bloom within 5-7 days. The water turns a vivid green, almost the color of split pea soup. That's phytoplankton. Then, water color shifts over the next few weeks. It changes from vivid green to an olive color, then an olive/brown, the brownish/olive, then brown. As zooplankton feed on phytoplankton..that's why the water color changes. As the color shifts toward brown, we often nudge the bloom with a small dose of fertilizer.
Measuring the plankton tends to show it migrating in the water column, dependent mostly on sunlight. During dark hours, plankton may drop close to the thermocline, then rise to the surface during the day. So, the best answer I can give you for the last question is that dense, shallow blooms are usually the ones which scare me the most. A dense bloom, with visibility less than 10 inches, is scary. The thickness of that bloom may only be 10 inches, but it may be 30 inches, too. That tells the tale how scary it is. Thick blooms with shallow visibility are candidates for oxygen depletions, especially if the water is green.
Here's my parting thought about fertilizing and plankton. I see this as a temporary resource to serve specific purposes. If you want maximum production of baby fish, consider fertilizing. If you want to get a head start against rooted macrophytes, consider fertilizing. Many fish culturists feel compelled to fertilize during the entire growing season. I don't necessarily believe that. I think you can fertilize in the spring, feed babies, get ahead of plants, then let the bloom go through its cycles and not feed it again. Water clears, baby fish feed predators, rooted plants are put off long enough they likely won't become as serious a problem. This is my style of management.

Deb, Print Bob's learned comments, reread them at least once a year, and keep them close as reference material. As you learn more about aquatic biology his words take on more meaning.

Using dye that inhibits photosynthesis in fisheries management is a very simplistic management style that reqires a minimum amount of knowledge of how the ecosystem operates, yet allows one to artifically boost the carrying capacity through artificial feeding of fish in a water body. I agree with Bob that fertilization produces larger standing crops and healthier overall aquatic ecosystems (food chains & detrital recycling) compared to using dye management methods. However the fertilization method requires a good understanding of what is going on in the water body. Few truly have or fully comprehend this required knowledge to make it CONSISTANTLY work properly over the long term.

Bill,

I am printing everything I can find on this forum to use as reference material, so suggestion is duly noted. And in compliment to you alot of good info has flown in from your posts.

Quotes from above:
"Using dye that inhibits photosynthesis in fisheries management is a very simplistic management style that reqires a minimum amount of knowledge of how the ecosystem operates, yet allows one to artifically boost the carrying capacity through artificial feeding of fish in a water body." - Bill Cody
"The fertilization method requires a good understanding of what is going on in the water body. Few truly have or fully comprehend this required knowledge to make it CONSISTANTLY work properly over the long term." - Bill Cody

Having had stated these two remarks I believe you would agree there are a large number of pondowners (backyard style maybe) that want a simple method, that like to feed, and that don't have the knowledge needed to safely "manage" their own "program" under the fertilization program. These would be the customers who would need the dye and feed method, correct?

Deb

Great series of posts...well worth printing and saving....but I'm still negative on fertilizing for my situation.

Here's a view from a non-pro, amatuer who loves hands-on pond management almost as much as fishing the ponds...the fun is in the journey, not the destination...and building, stocking, and managing my own ponds is a significant part of the journey.

On the plus side, Bob Lusk's approach addresses one of my biggest concerns, i.e. the concern that once you start fertilizing you have to continue forever...or face serious consequences in the form of starving fish. Bob's limited approach seems to address that.

Bob's posts re-emphasize the need for professional, or at the very least very experienced pond managers to administer the fertilization program. As a do-it-yourselfer, I find that approach unappealing. I enjoy pond management, and have no interest in turning over the pond management to a professional....the fun for me is doing it myself, even if that means it may not be as efficient as a professional pond manager.

My experience says that fertilizing to eliminate existing weed problems does not work...but again maybe a pro could make it work, but I have serious doubts. I know I can accomplish weed control, (not elimination because I don't want elimination), myself with grass carp and Tilapia. Texas official pubs on fertilization now say DO NOT FERTILIZE ponds with existing weeds...get the weeds under control first and then fertilize, if you so choose.

Lastly, the big advantage of carrying a bio mass 4 or 5 times an unfertilized pond, I do not believe applies to my ponds. My ponds are naturally fertile and generally have a 24 inch visibility through out the growing season. I'm not interested in overloading or even maximum loading. I prefer working margins.

As a result, I'll have maybe less fish per acre, but I can also not have too worry all the time about too much or too little fertilizer...like when a cat 3/4 hurricane knocks out your aeration for 3 or 4 weeks accompanied by high temps over 100 degs and no wind. I don't have to worry about a fish kill. Not one bit. I'll use natural fertilizers and accept a lesser load to be able to do-it-myself and sleep good.

Thanks to all for a great discussion and to Deb for the new thoughts. It's a priviledge to be part of the Forum. Thanks.

One point I need to emphasize that may be misunderstood. Fertilization, in terms of fish production, focuses only on small, newly hatched fish. Fertile water feeds babies. These babies grow into a food chain, ultimately to benefit larger game fish which won't eat fish food, such as largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, walleye, etc. The concept of fertilization is simple, and I readily recommend it to a novice...as long as they understand the rules. The rules are...don't fertilize muddy water or ponds with infestation of plants. Fertilize clear water, with visibility greater than 30 inches. Mix the fertilizer well into the water column, when temps are consistently above 60 degrees.
While fertilization doesn't directly benefit large gamefish, it certainly sets the table for them during warm summer months. I believe fertilization sets the stage to prevent the biggest problem I see in fish management...overcrowded bass. If you do your job with the water, baby fish respond, then bass respond accordingly. It's a cause and effect thing. I have seen many, many ponds and lakes with overcrowded bass and plenty of adult bluegill where I was simply able to fertilize and make a huge difference in growth rates of existing bass. It's a simple, inexpensive solution to what could become a bigger problem.
I have seen lots of posts over the last few months where attitudes are beginning to shift away from largemouth bass, toward hybrid stripers and bigger sunfish. If people really understand the entirety of how fish and pond management works, the decision to stock other fish would be motivated more by the desire to diversify, rather than frustrations related to stunted,non-growing largemouth bass. This process is holistic, not piece-meal.
Personally, I would rather accept the challenge and figure out how to manage the pond completely, with any or all of the tools, than feel the need to settle with a strategy which doesn't meet my expectations.
At the same time, I completely understand the wants of pond owners to figure out what's best for them. If that means easier ways, do it. If it means trial and error, then a shift, do it. Meadowlark is right, it's all about the journey. That's the fun. Trying different things and figuring out what works.
I have the luxury to spend many hours in the field, in hundreds of different environments, trying to figure out what works best for that pond, for that client, for those fish, for those plants.
I love this job.

Deb - Your quote"...I believe you would agree there are a large number of pondowners (backyard style maybe) that want a simple method, that like to feed, and that don't have the knowledge needed to safely "manage" their own "program" under the fertilization program. These would be the customers who would need the dye and feed method, correct?"

ML basically answered your question in the previous post -Oct 02, 05, 7:02 and I basically agree.

Dye and feed has its own inherent problems if not done properly.

The info below is a copy and paste of an older post of mine detailing my experiences with fertilizer:

Pond is 1 acre and is a hole in the ground, not fed by anyones drainage, it is fed by well water and rain water. Pond holds water real good and filled up quickly.

February 2003

Add 800 Bluegill and 200 Shellcracker, start fertilizer program with granular fertilizer, no problem getting or maintaining the bloom.

June 2003

Add 100 1 inch Bass from hatchery. Start training fish to feed on fish chow, by early summer Bluegill are feeding well.

Late fall early winter of same year have a small fish kill consisting of very small fish "fry" found dead. Otherwise very pleased with Bluegill and Bass growth.

Spring 2004

Install Vertex Diffuser system figuring that last falls fish kill is turnover related. Start fertilizer program again. Maintain a good bloom, all is well. On July 3rd, 2005 catch and keep 75 medium sized Bluegill, they are very healthy and bite well, on July 5th, after several cloudy days in a row, I have a small fish kill(DO related) that kills 15 of my best Bass. Discontinue fertilizing program. End up the year with no more fish kills and fish are growing good, all is well.

Spring 2005

Early February during the first good warm up I catch some Bass, the seem to be biting well and healthy except they have red lips, Search Pond Boss to learn that I should not have ran my diffusers all winter, turn them off till April, all is well red lips heal up quickly, just added undue stress for my Bass.

Get a late start due to colder than usual temps and begin fertiziing program again, determined to do it right this time, Early March start fertilizing with liquid fertilizer this time. That goes good, start and maintian a good bloom. I watch this bloom with much dilligence. Use boat, trolling motor, and schechi dish to keep bloom at proper levels, (fuzzy at 18 inces , completely vanishing at 24 inces). In June I fish and catch some happy, healthy Blugill and again keep 45. A week or so latter news of cloudy weather and rain that's remnants of a hurricane headed this way, oh shit! Get schechi disk in hand, check's out same as above 18 fuzzy - 24 inch vanishing schechi disk, can't convince myself to add any more fertilizer so I'm going to ride the storm out. On the fourth day of cloudy weather my bloom crashed hard, vanished and killed 100-130 on my best Bluegill. Discontinue fertilizer program.

I'v left out the introduction of Tilapia on May 30, 2005. They survived the DO crash and are doing well. They have spawned many times and my Bass are much thicker than they used to be after just 2 months of adding the Tilapia. On the other hand I had cut way back on my feeding hopeing the Tilapia would eat up all the Algea, they have done a good job controling it but I still have some around the shallow areas. I have recently started back feeding every other day.

I never had an Algea problem till this year, I had some very small areas of Algea all winter and early spring, I think maybe this was caused by running the areators all winter???, anyway I fertilized again as stated this spring even thought I had the small areas of Algea and that helped it grow even more, ofcourse.

So as of now I'm back to feeding the Bluegill regularly and not fertilizing due to the Algea I have in the shallow areas.

Since makeing this post earlier in the year, my lastest observations are:

Tilapia have done a gret job of reduceing my alge levels around the edge of the pond, they have also fed many bass with their offspring. I maintained a weak bloom the rest of the summer even after adding no more fertilizer.

Next spring will be a big decision time for me! If I have no Algea visible when the water gets to 60 degrees I may introduce a bloom with water soluable fertilizer then back way off and not fertilize much the rest of the summer unless the water gets real clear.

Or: I may not fertilize at all but will definitly keep feeding fish chow and add Tilapia.

Tilapia will definitely be added either way!

Is it just me, or do others get the impression that fertilizer and chemical eradication of pond vegetation seem to go hand in hand?

Our biggest mistake was fertilizing a new pond. We have maintained a feeding program the following three years with bottom diffuser aeration system. Visibility has been maintained at a near constant 18 inches.

Heavy infestation of algae and bushy pond weed this year, that is now being controled with grass carp and tilapia.

Fish poop is more than enough fertilizer – biological weed control only – no fertilizer or chemicals for Me……

George Glazener
N.E. Texas ¼ acre and 2 acre ponds

I guess fertilizer would be OK for an intensely or maybe professionaly managed pond with a dependable water level.

I live 70 miles from my land and can't stay on top of things like I would like to. Also, my ponds are now 2/3 of the size they were prior to the drought. Had I fertilized, I would be in real trouble. I have good recruitment of BG and don't need any more. I tried fertilizing and saw 2 DO crashes in 2 years. Never again. Early this year, I had a four foot visibility. Later, after enough fish poop, I have about 18.

Deb you wanted my opinion here goes. Bob has stated much better than I can the reasons for fertilzing. I base my opinion on past experieinces. I have shocked 3 ponds where they heavily dye the lakes. Two were not fed one was. THe one fed was not too bad prety much a typical pond as far as produciton goes.

The other two with constant dye to keep it blue had extremely low fish porduciton. The amount of small fish was almost noexistant. DYE LIMTS PRODUCTION! We use alot dye, office parks, and to lesser degree subdivisoin ponds where fishing is secondary to aesthetics. However it hurts a fishery, period. I know you recommend feding with dye but you are still limitng primary production with the use of dye.

I think I know how it might help with GG growth. You stated in another thread you want to limit the reproduction, somethign like that. Well dye will acomplish this, with supplemental feed helping grow the GG I can see that working.

ANother point... we fertilize very lightly when we have heavy feeding, it is not neccesary b/c like you said the poop is fertilizer.

One last thing b/c I just gave out this advice yesterday, pretty ironic really. Client in TX had your dye, loves the color and has our feeders feeding the ponds. He thought everything was fine beacuse the bluegill fed like crazy when feeder goes off. However, the small bass were tiny, extremely slow growth. Why?, the dye has limited the amount of reproduciton/recurtment of tiny fish/insects that fed the small bass.

My suggestion was to fertilize if necessary to maintain 18-24 inches. He would still get good color this way and ok to dye November through March if he wanted too b/c too cold for produciton at that time. He has $110K well pump for water source when needed or would not have suggested this.

On another note he had bought Reward from Ken's for cattail control. I told him to not use it and save for submersed weed growth. Reward will burn the foliage but does not control roots. I went to town to get him an aquatic labelled glyphosate to use instead. Do you recommend Reward for cattails or was he mistaken?