Pond Boss Forums Thread Like Summary - Old joke, New Quandary

A physicist, a chemist, and an economist are shipwrecked on a deserted island. All they have is one can of soup.

The physicist says “We could drop it from the top of that tree over there until it breaks open.” The chemist says “We could build a fire and sit the can in the flames until it bursts open.” Those two squabble a bit, until the economist says “No, no, no. Come on, guys, you’d lose most of the soup. Let’s just assume a can opener.”

Economists are infamous for making simplifying assumptions before analyzing a situation, mostly because the real world is so complex. So, true to my professional background, I'd like to make such an unlikely assumption and ask my fellow pondmeisters about the consequences.

Assumption: At some point, we develop technology that can oxygenate the bottom layer of water below the thermocline to the point that fish can thrive there all summer long. At my place, that means temps don't exceed mid 70s, barring perhaps a tropical storm rain event.

Frank, you are assuming that you can tell the TM what fish to eat and what fish to NOT eat.

Frank,

As always thought provoking questions. I often try to approach such questions like the economist but with the physicist's tools. I think the thing you need think through is a vision of the populations in the pond within the constraints of the limitations fish carrying capacity. You could hypothesize that capacity and then construct hypothetical populations. Simply apply the known rules for forage needs and you have a sense of what is possible and what it would take in terms of production of forage to support them. If those needs fit the weights you want to carry, hey you are considering something that holds promise.

I was once told in the results of a personality test that my personality type is "an architect of worlds". Probably nothing could better describe me than that. But I bring this up because my brother is actually an architect and he and I have had many intriguing conversations. Fishing and ponds are only two of my interests ... there are many more. But I recall a conversation with him about the challenges he faced with clients' limitations imagining real world spaces. Often a client can imagine something that is very real in their internal vision but problems arise fitting the vision within the spatial limitations because spatial awareness in the imagination doesn't follow Euclid's axioms. In a sense, the same challenge faces the pondmaster but the space is under the surface of the pond. To be sure, the inclusion of TM or RBT will create interactions. Both space and resources will have to be afforded them.

There is one thing that really stood out in your initial posting. Your main reason for consideration of the TM is to grow larger LMB. This may happen but if you have apply the can opener in order to sustain them then what will it cost? Also if the system providing the sustaining conditions fails, is there a risk all progress will be lost. What other opportunities might provide better results and be more reliable? If you could ... yourself ... control the population of LMB then you wouldn't need TM and the RBT would continue to be the great cool season blast. With limited competition, LMB grow huge and if you can find a way to completely control this ... you cannot fail to have the very large LMB you have your heart set on.

If the entire water column was saturated with oxygen, and ideal temperatures could be maintained as well, the biggest positive I see from that is a huge reduction in stress levels, and therefore, might increase fish growth and/or reproduction. In theory, it should also increase your biomass capabilities. Interesting topic.