Yes there are waters that need nothing and can support over a thousand lbs of fish per acre. There are also a lot that can only support 50 lbs per acre with out help.
I would think that BOWs supporting only 50#/ac are as rare as BOW's that support over 1000#/ac. The vast majority will fall between 120 and 350, where the most outside this range will be more than 350. The tendency for all BOWs is to increase in primary production over time.
Just curious, is 1000#/ac an objective?
I've said this this before. Feeding is a way to have the equivalent of more water. If one has a 1 acre BOW that supports 250#/acre then feeding so it supports 1000# is like having 4 acres that support 250#/acre. The difference? The fed pond that supports 1000#/acre is much more difficult to manage. It requires far more attention to water quality.
If the problem is skinny fish ... harvest fish. If the problem is the fishing isn't good because there aren't enough of them ... then feed and harvest many more fish.
The biggest problem is skinny fish and the easiest way to efficiently fix that is more food and harvest. Total population mgt is not about if you can grow a few big fish as that is common in non-managed low nutrient ponds as well. In most BG/LMB ponds supp. feeding of BG is very efficient and mostly results in better conditioned populations when used in connection with proper harvest.
A fish population quickly fills the carrying capacity. The benefits disappear after a year or two. So I agree with the condition that one MUST harvest to solve the skinny fish problem,
even when the fish are fed. The problem isn't enough food, its enough food to go around. So harvest is the only long term solution for skinny fish while feed is viable long term solution for more carrying capacity.
