I get that some waters are naturally fertile; as I noted twice previously, I work with several phosphate pits, and ponds don't get more naturally fertile than that. But I will grant that a big difference between Texas and Tennessee is the amount of rainfall, and thus the degree of surface-acreage loss due to evaporation during the summer; I've never had a pond lose seven feet in one year (though it has happened here years ago during a bad drought, but I wasn't managing ponds then).
So I completely understand that that's an important consideration in Texas, and one not to be taken lightly. I also recognize the truth of what Eric notes in saying that some ponds don't need fertilization; but even on the chart for that one region of MS for which MSU doesn't recommend fertilization, it says, "usually not needed," which is a long way from, "never needed." And, that's one out of five regions; they recommend it as a blanket rule for the other four regions of the state.
So I recognize that it's not always, 100% of the time, the right approach. I just don't see how that, or careless methods of application, translates to not recommending it anywhere there's fertile soil when it could make a huge difference in the quality of fishing for a lot of pond owners who live in such places. I live in an area that used to be one of the biggest sources of phosphate in the country, and there's a lot of extremely fertile soil here; and fertilization has made an enormous difference for me. Perhaps I should have included in my recommendation that David read up in the archives on potential dangers of fertilization. Probably the obvious question at this point for David would be, what does your water look like? If it gets a good bloom naturally, there's no need or reason to fertilize; if it doesn't, his fish will not grow as large or as fast without it. Just my $.02 from phosphate country.
