Greg , ML , and others :

To be clear about this matter. The idea or assumption in my prior post which ML quoted in his [as set out below} was what I assumed to be the thinking { basis } of CSullivan's pond pro's recommendation.

quote :

" Originally posted by ewest:
CSullivan :

The idea is these pellet trained bass eat fish food and therefore do not rely on the BG and so they don't add to the bass heavy problem. "

The sentence quoted would have been clearer if written as follows:

" In order to make that recommendation CSullivan's pond pro must working from the assumption that pellet trained bass eat only fish food and therefore do not rely on the BG and so they don't add to the bass heavy problem."

As stated in my post I do not believe this to be a sound idea nor do I think pellet trained bass will continue to eat pellets only if placed in a pond like CSullivan's. They are not a majic fish. The questions noted by ML are the reasons among others why the above idea is strange based on my understanding of pellet trained bass. I would be suprised if a pond pro would make that recommendation , so there must be something missing at this point.

No one to my knowledge { not me , Greg , ML , CB1 , or anyone} has indicated that they think pellet trained bass would work in that situation as described by CSullivan . The use of pellet trained bass is common place and widely accepted as an aquaculture method. But they are bass with bass genetics and they will do what all bass do as Greg noted .

When the report is issued lets see what it says , then if CSullivan wants our thoughts on the report we can go from there. ewest