With recent stocking concepts of non-reproductive species and supplemental feeding introducing new variables, perhaps the definition of “balanced pond” should be revisited.

http://www.pondboss.com/forums/ubbthread...true#Post107069

 Originally Posted By: george1
Thanks to all for a very interesting discussion “Balanced Pond ?”

I agree with Eric, that we do not have a balanced pond - by academic definition:
“Not a balanced pond - based on your observation of few small LMB or CNBG. A balanced pond will have far more 2-3 in BG and 4-8in LMB than bigger BG and LMB.”

I agree with Todd that our pond is “balanced”, by “state of the art” definition:
"High protein fish food provides the basis for top-end growth even when the middle of the food chain is lacking. If we were to start to figure fish food into the PSD standard somehow, and I'm not sure how to do that, we would see a more balanced model. "

IMO, supplemental feeding and annual stocking of non-productive and/or same sex species require broadening of the academic LMB/BG definition.

Several forum members are involved in projects that I would consider “leading edge” technology that do not meet the standards of accepted academic definitions.



N.E. Texas 2 acre and 1/4 acre ponds
Original george #173 (22 June 2002)