I hear you RAH, and I wasn't necessarily implying that science be proven wrong. Actually, I think science may lie at the core of my forum perceptions as of late.

PondBoss is fortunate to have the membership it does. Among our diversified ranks we count engineers and architects, physicians and attorneys, scientists and educators. All far more intelligent than myself, and time spent heeding their advice is time well spent indeed.

I wonder however, and this is strictly personal conjecture, if that same rugged discipline that allowed these folks to achieve their goals, might temper their vision to any small degree? I don't believe that ponds can be fit into a box. Or an equation for that matter. But my perception is there are those who wish to do just that. Maybe I'm imagining things, or maybe I'm recognizing scenery from a dead end road I've traveled myself? Whatever the case, I don't think there is an algorithm that allows for perfect pond and/or fish management.

In this instance I don't see at as failed science, or science proven wrong, but a case of not accounting for all the variables. No two ponds are the same, and I think we could all agree on that. By extrapolation then, no single pond or fish answer can be correct all the time....whether it be in print, or passed along word of mouth.

As I wrote earlier, I realize there are standard practices and principles. Guidelines that are, more or less, agreed to be fundamental. I get that. But I believe there are just too many variables to be able to reduce the whole pond/fish universe into a universal constant. I would venture to say that there may exist wildcard variables in all of our ponds, unaccounted for as of right now. In other words, what worked last year, or is working right now, might not produce the same results next week. Recognizing and identifying those key variables is, in my opinion, where we sometimes fall short. I know I do.

Our science is all we have...we depend on it, look to it for answers, consult learned people from the past regarding its interpretation. But I do not consider what we know today, the endgame.

It's merely the best we have today. Tomorrow may be another story.

"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"

If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1)
And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1)
Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT?
PB answer: It depends.