The thread is developing a comical direction but to Al it is a serious matter. Phosphorous is one of those things we all depend. In water, it is probably the single most important driver of primary production (with one exception, the water chemistry needed to assist its cycling). In as much as this is true, water hardness and PH, are fundamental to getting the most out of the phosphorous in our water and are important fundament parameters.

When we don't have enough phosphorous, we really need it ... but too much is one the greatest pains of pond ownership. I would say it's one of the greatest pains of pond management but that actually depends on whether the pond manager is earning a living from too much phosphorus or if the pond manager is paying for the solution. There is a difference ... where one is plagued and another blessed by the circumstance.

If Al's lake had the perfect chemistry to get the most primary production from a perfect concentration of phosphorus we wouldn't be having this conversation. We'd be talking about things like species balance and primary production utilization. We would be solving and improving the present conditions with fun stuff ... as opposed to performing this rather mundane and unpleasant task of killing primary production (making muck) and sequestering nutrients (throwing away the nutrients he paid for). I'm not making light of the task as I understand that Al wants to get his pond into a condition where he can feed again.

Once again, feed gets a pass as an underlying contributor to excessive phosphorus.