Learnin,
I think that 300 lbs per acre-year makes a lot of sense for a small pond that is early in life. The total feed of 600 lbs adds ~300 lbs of forage potential to your 2 acre pond. Where ~179 lbs of forage potential is supplied by direct consumption of feed, (assuming Tulsa Climate) and the remaining 121 lbs is the forage potential resulting from the fertilization effects of the additional nutrients. How much of that potential is standing weight depends on the balance of your predators and prey but the feed gives you more poundage of fish per acre. Population #s being equal, this equates to fish of higher average individual weights than if you didn't feed.
I also think that hendog's 37 pounds per acre year also makes a lot of sense for a 54 acre lake. He may fertilize which is much cheaper than feed, but even if he doesn't fertilize, 54 acres is a lot of water. At the pond's current age (I think 10 years), it probably has a forage potential in the neighborhood of 400 lbs/acre and so ... well balanced ... 200 lbs/acre standing weight without feed or fertilization. So with 54 acres, more than 5 tons of fish. For one person, that's plenty to look after. Increasing fertility beyond that comes with a corresponding obligation for additional management (not the least of which would be aeration, additional harvest, weed management, etc). So for hendog, it makes a whole lot of sense to feed much less on a per acre basis. Still, feeding 10 locations the minor amount of feed he is feeding for his 54 acre lake gives him the fun of feeding fish, locations that concentrate fish, and for the dominant consumers of feed ... better condition and growth.
