What's the source of your "expertise"? If it s experience, state it. If it's someone else's work, give credit. If it's common wisdom, add that disclaimer.
People you are giving "advice" to deserve to know.
P.S. It ain't just me and Sunil.
Sure Theo, the source of my expertise is Willis, Anderson, Swingle, among many, many others. I take their findings and apply these principles with models. In the analysis I provided the inspiration comes for Anderson and Bill Cody.
If the proportions of the different length classes are known, then it stands to reason that the biomass proportions can be determined. That is all me, as for as I know, I am just trying to apply what I have learned from them. It is intuition that owning a pond with crappie will NEVER endow a person with. All the same, its is analysis of the biomass structure of the crappie that is unique to the OPs pond according the OPs own observations. I just disagree that someone else's pond is a clear example of what should be done with his pond. It is often said here that every pond is different. I agree with that, The advice should be pertinent to his pond and his data ... applying principles that are sound.
You complain about "tomes" and to be sure I really do wish I could explain things with much fewer words. But I do try to provide enough detail that anyone ... who with a mind to ... can replicate and review the analysis. For example, it is hardly any trouble to put together a spreadsheet and see for oneself. I can assure you, that if you, Sunil, and anyone were to do that they won't find fault with biomass proportions estimate. Some may even appreciate it. But as long as advice has to come from some prerequisite pond experience that isn't the same pond, I don't think the advice will ever be as good as it could be.
