Pond Boss Forums INTRO Questions & Observations aguashade question?

my pond is about 1/2 acres with an average depth of 8 feet deep no areas less than 4 feet deep.in the past 3 months i stocked my pond with fingerlings fathead minnows, native bluegills, redear sunfish, and channel cats.i used the recommended number of fish from the book raising trophy bass by bob lusk.my pond had a tremendous amount of algae growth moss through out my pond and the aerator did not eliminate the algae growth.so, today i applied 1 gallon of aquashade to my pond.my question is about how long should it take for the majority of the algae and bottom plant growth to be eliminated? The second question i had is since the algae and plant growth should be eliminated soon should i still wait until spring time to start feeding my fingerlings or should i start feeding them now since the nutrients from the pond should be eliminated very soon? thanks for any help on this subject.

Newpond: I'm afraid someone misinformed you of the merits and capabilities of Aquashade.

1st: Aquashade is generally considered a "preventative" rather than a "curative" measure. So, it may be quite some time before your pre-existing population of weeds and algae disappear - if ever. Once weeds (plants) or algae extend to or near the surface, it is nearly impossible to inhibit enough sunlight penetration to cause their demise. On the other hand, if your weeds and algae are growing at no less than 3' (?) from the surface, the effects of Aquashade "may" help to reduce their rate of future growth.

2nd: The nutrients in your pond aren't likely to be eliminated anytime soon either. In fact, if the Aquashade is actually successful in controlling any algae or weeds, your "free roaming" nutrients will very likely increase - dramatically. However, the presense of Aquashade will (like it or not) be a severe hinderance toward any phytoplankton blooms that may have otherwise utilized any available nutrients.

I don't know if any of this answers your posted question. But, at least it should correct some of the misconceptions that were stated.

Newpond - I agree totally with Kelly's summary of the characteristics of Aquashade. He has a very good understanding of its uses and affects.

I will add a few extra comments and try and give some more insight to your questions.

When Aquashade is applied to an already stocked pond such as yours the dye acts or takes affect in water greater than 2 ft to suppress certain wavelengths of light transmision that are required by the growing plants. This assumes you apply adequate amounts of Aquashade to agree with label recomendations.

The deepest growing plant growth will begin to slowly die due to low light conditions. You may see a slow decline in algae growth and abundance over time as it deterioriates in the darkened environment.

One of the big decreases in algae that grow in the pond is with the growth and abundance of phytoplankton (microscopic algae) that constitutes the basis of the fish food chain. This basically means that less basic fish food will be produced in your pond. Thus now your fish have been put on essentially a lower food intake diet. Bottom line the same numbers of fish have to live on less food that is now present in your pond. If you try and maintain all the present numbers of fish each will become thinner because they overall will have less food. If you want to maintain plump growing fish, your options are: remove some fish, and or add more food to supppliment their diet.

From my experience with Aquashade used at label recommendations, I think it reduces the amount of fish that can grow in a pond by about 40% to 50%. I arrived at this amount because it limits the phytoplankton plant growth to the upper 2 ft of water, and the deeper water is no longer productive. Plus the upper 2 ft of water has a decreasing amount of productivity due to the gradually decreasing amount of light that is passing through the water to the point of extinction at around 2 ft deep. I think this then amounts to at least 40%-50% of the once producive zone in the pond.

My rule of thumb is feed the fish whenever they will visibly eat the food. Feed only what they clean up as you GRADUALLY add the food.

Nutrients will continually build-up in a pond with Aquashade especially if fish are fed. The nutrients will just not be incorporated or adsorbed by "typical" pond plants as fast as before Aquashade due to the suppressive affects of Aquashade. Sooner or later an algae or plant will invade the pond that can thrive in Aquashade and the nutrient rich conditions and then a new problem develops. These tolerant plants are often resistant to the common pond herbicides.

new pond, have you purchased the "water weeds and algae book" from bob lusk? it offers a lot of insight. KELLY and BILL, correct my if i am wrong, but, although aquashade looks pretty (and i've used it...gets costly), shouldn't new pond push the aerator to appropriate limits, and optimize his fertilization of the pond to rid of algae and unwanted plant growth and to maximize fish growth? (if he wants a fishing pond not just an ornamental pond)? next, add some carp to clean up unwanted grass etc. and treat sections of the pond algae with copper sulfate/Cutrine Plus? others?

Mark

It would probably be beneficial to know more details about the pond before making any specific recommendations - ie. pond's age, amount of organic buildup on the bottom, water source(s), water chemistry, etc.

However, with the info provided thus far, I would be inclined to suggest using GREENCLEAN to temporarily control any excess filamentous algae - but only after physically removing any large algae mats in order to avoid the cycling of nutrients, of which it sounds as though there's an excess.

Also, with an average depth of 8' (for a 1/2 acre pond), adequate aeration would likely do wonders since it probably gets very little vertical circulation from surface wind-action. I suspect that this pond is quite capable of developing a thermocline - which isn't good.

As for the bottom plant-growth (no specific specie stated), I probably wouldn't get overly concerned with it at this point - unless it/they begin to pose problems.

It sounds like filamentous algae is the main issue. So, if he can deal with the filamentous algae in such a manner as to avoid inhibiting future phytoplankton blooms, the bottom plants will help utilize organic nutrients in areas of sufficient sunlight penetration - and their populations will be kept in check by the phytoplankton blooms that are hopefully established in the future. Besides, his newly stocked forage fish will undoubtedly benefit from the habitat and O2 afforded by a native plant population that occupies somewhere between 15-20% of the pond.

GREENCLEAN has shown to be a great spot-treatment algaecide for smaller ponds, with very short-term effects. He'd have to allow the already added AQUASHADE to dissipate before expecting any phytoplankton blooms. In the mean time, supplimental microbial treatments might also be beneficial.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of grass carp (Asian white amur), as their impacts are difficult to predict and impossible to regulate - unless you're a good shot. Maybe I'm biased because of my profession (though I try to avoid it), but in many situations, properly selected and utilized herbicides usually offer a greater degree of target specificity and impact-regulation than grass carp.

Bill? Anything to add or adjust?

Two final notes:

AQUASHADE has its place in the management of many water bodies. However, I very rarely recommend its use in ponds being managed primarily for recreational fishing. On the other hand, if aesthetics and low-maintenance objectives are the primary focus, AQUASHADE is certainly a strong consideration.

GREENCLEAN may be a little pricy for larger ponds/lakes. Though its cost appears to be falling, GREENCLEAN is probably best suited to smaller ponds. I prefer CUTRINE PLUS over copper sulfate on larger ponds and lakes (for algae control) for numerous reasons already covered in many earlier posts. However, it is important to avoid over-applications and over-use of CUTRINE, which could easily impact the desirable phytoplankton along with the targeted filamentous algae.

I agree with all of you about the Aquashade and GreenClean issues. Both of these solutions are temporary solutions to the problems.

From the description that Newpond had provided and from my experince, the Biochemical Oxygen Demand is not being met in the pond. There is an aeration system in the pond, but if it is undersized, it is actually allowing the nutrients to be released into the water column and be used by his algae present.

I agree with Kelly that further information about the pond would be benefical to determine the correct size and type aeration system needed. A circulation rate of aprox. 0.75 times is typically needed to satisfy Biochemical Oxygen Demand and bring the Oxidation Reduction Potential into a positive reading thereby bonding or locking up the nutrients that are being used by his algae.

To correct your situation, it may be as simple as either adding a diffuser or changing the type of diffuser at the end of your airline.

If you will supply as Kelly suggested, the pond's age, amount of organic build up (muck depth) water input source, (watershed, spring, stream), what the land around the pond is used for and any water chemisties, I should be able to calculate a turnover rate for you.

I assume from newpond's original post that it is a new pond and the fish he described were the first stocking. I assume muck buildup will be minimal in the new pond. If a small 1/2 ac pond, had an inflow aquashade would be about useless due to low retention time so I assume no or very little inflow or outflow, probably a "dugout" pond. I am not sure about the identity of the "bottom plant growth" which may or may not be algae. The species should be known before speculation or opinions are provided.

Newpond also did not know the "rest of the story" behind Aquashade before using it. Aquashade like many other products has limitations.

Large amounts of "moss" are common in new ponds and the owner usually panics. Initial nutrient loadings of new ponds usually present problems regarding some sort of plant growth. Nutrient ratios determine which plants become dominant. Often a sales person leads a pond owner to believe that an aerator will solve their "moss", "algae" problems. Maybe yes, maybe no. It depends primarily on the source of the nutrients and the type/species of algae as to how much help an aerator will provide at reducing "moss", "algae", "plant", "weed" problems.

Since his aerator did not do much to deter his filamentous "moss" algae, I conclude that it was "fed" by one or a combination of: 1. the algae is growing due to dissolved nutrients washed, rinsed, or pumped into the pond, 2. excessive additions of fish food - fish manure decay, 3. more nutrients are present than the aerator system can assimilate. Every aerator has a nutrient assimilation optimum or maximum.

Kelly's advice is sound and well based.