|
|
|
Forums36
Topics42,113
Posts571,680
Members19,115
| |
Most Online23,413 7 hours ago
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 14,676 Likes: 509
Moderator Lunker
|
|
Moderator Lunker
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 14,676 Likes: 509 |
Norm:
I think one thing to keep in mind about small ponds is that they can easily be managed more intensely than larger waters. By easily - I mean with less cost or fewer labor hours or both.
Want a fish species that's likely to overpopulate - the numbers should be easier to control in less than 1/2 acre versus a 5 acre pond. Want to feed the fish - easier to do intensely by hand in a small pond at a level that would require thousands of dollars in feeder hardware for a big pond. Want to stock non-reproducing species - you can find out how a given density will work for less with fewer acres to stock.
If I had to make a choice between one 2.5 acre pond and 5 half acre ones, I'd take the five small ones. I could run three different sane stocking schemes and two mad scientist experiments at the same time.
"Live like you'll die tomorrow, but manage your grass like you'll live forever." -S. M. Stirling
|
|
|
Moderated by Bill Cody, Bruce Condello, catmandoo, Chris Steelman, Dave Davidson1, esshup, ewest, FireIsHot, Omaha, Sunil, teehjaeh57
|
|
|
|