From PFV's thread "How bad have I messed up"





I found these two tidbits interesting. I had always thought that the predator load should not exceed 50 pounds per acre and I don't recall ever reading a total "pounds per acre" amount (herein after referred to as PPA just to add another acronym in the mix and make life more confusing than it needs to be).

Are these two numbers 100 PPA for predators and 500 PPA for total fish count the reasonable limits for a standard pond?

I realize the answer is going to be "it depends" based upon the specifics of a particular pond (water quality, recruitment, type of feeding being employed, etc).

So I'm asking, if we have a theoretical one acre pond, no aeration, only forage based feeding (not sure if by "fed pond" Walt, you mean fed using pellets, but I'm assuming you mean pellet fed and you know what they say about assuming), with a standard ratio of predators to forage, are the two pounds per acre numbers above (as a reminder the numbers were 100 PPA for predators and 500 PPA total fish count, how could you have forgotten that already, it's only two paragraphs above, are you paying attention here?) what one should consider a reasonable amount? Or are these numbers based upon a pond that is using feeders and an aeration system?

I'm not questioning the judgement of Dave and Walt, I'm just trying to get edumakated.

The number I was taught at Iowa State was 400 lbs/acre in an Iowa pond with 50-100 of that being predators. Due to the rich soils and crop fields in most of the watersheds these ponds are considered naturally fertilized (or overfertilized); this was without pellets or aeration.

At Mississippi State I was told in Mississippi an unfertilized, unfed, unaerated pond was likely to hold 100 to maybe 200 lbs/acre.

IIRC catfish production ponds with massive amounts of feeding and uber-aeration can grow 1,500 lbs/acre.

Off to a great start, thanks Csteffen. Although I must admit that the fact that they taught you two different stocking densities in two different educational locations a bit distressing. I'm now beginning to wonder if the stocked density recommendation for New York city is going to be 5,189 PPA while the population density for Alaska is going to be .0087 PPA.

Different areas of the country have different fertility levels...

Based upon CJ's comment, I had written and was going to post about a correlation between high fertility levels in Washington DC ponds but realized that a horrendous debate could ensure. Accordingly, I have self moderated, thereby proving that I am in fact "master of my domain."

Carry on.

The fertility of the water is the major difference between the "Average Pond" of the two states. Also the hardness, alkalinity, pH, and possibly other water quality parameters differ between the "Average Pond" in each state.

This is just a SWAG, but a MS pond that is limed and fertilized should hold the 400 lbs/acre that an Iowa pond does.

Because of the amont of rampant fertilizer in the Wasington D.C. erea,they cant grow fish in ponds in that area.

That 100 pounds of predators can be misleading and, to me, means bass, catfish, etc. However, since everything preys on everything smaller, we would have to define the predator/prey relationship.

Case in point. Last Sunday, I walked up to my pond to apply some cottonseed meal for fertilizer. I noticed some tiny fish in an area about 3/4 inch deep, 3 ft long and one ft wide. They couldn't have been over 3/4 inch long. I have no idea what they were at that age. There were 2 inch bluegills hanging just outside waiting for them to move. Next, I walked down the pond and found a big male bluegill guarding a nest against 3 to 4 inch bluegills. He was working hard at it but.... Suddenly a 12 to 13 inch bass blew into the middle of the bluegills. It happened so fast that I have no idea whether he was successful. How to identify a predator or prey? How big can the biomass really be before we blow it with a DO crash? Heck, I don't know.

Good questions, Jeff. They've been pretty well answered already, but as far as where I got the figures I quoted, they're from TWRA literature on managing farm ponds in TN; the 500 pound figure is for a properly fertilized pond, not fed with pellet food. I may have mentioned pellet food because a pond that wasn't fertilized could still support that many total pounds with a daily feeding program (or I may have mentioned pellet food simply because as a child I was hit in the head a lot by supposedly stray balls in Little League baseball, but that's another story). But the 500-pound figure is listed as an upper limit, as in, "A properly-fertilized pond can support as much as 500 pounds per acre of fish."

Its in the archives . http://www.pondboss.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=92440#Post92440

Just as land differs a lot so to does the water ( water reflects the land it flows over). The universal solvent , water , picks up (absorbs) what the land has to offer. To the extent that it can be standardized a infertile pond can grow about 100 lbs of fish per acre , 25% of which will be the top predators and the rest forage. A Fertile pond will grow more depending on where it falls on the spectrum but in the same rough %s of predator and prey. A fertilized and fed pond (not an aquaculture system) can grow about 400 lbs per acre , but you better watch the water quality. Now here is the eye catcher stat. I have seen low alkalinity ponds that can only grow about 50 lbs per acre total and phosphate pit lakes in Fla that will carry 3000 lbs per acre with no fertilizer or feed.

Wow...Makes me glad to be working with six phosphate pits (even if they ain't in FL).

Wow, interesting reading. I'd be real smart if I didn't forget half of what I had previously learned, damn 1970s.

I would like George to come on and tell us how many pounds he thought he had per acre when he had his crash. I would bet he was higher than you might expect.

It would also be interesting to know how many pounds per acre Bruce Condello had with his hybrid stripers several years ago when that pond crashed. Bruce said he knew better but was pushing the limit.

Bruce?

A rule of thumb I kind of follow in my neck of the woods is the clearer the water, the less PPA a lake will carry. There are definitely ways to manipulate and increase that natural carrying capacity- Just realize that in doing so, you will lose some fish at some point if you stay too close to the edge for too long! I guess that is why it is so fun!!

Clear Water Strip Mines in my area grow some really big fish, but they really dont have near the PPA as the farm ponds do!

OK, how do you analyze pounds per acre? I can understand a commercial food fish operation that drains, adds water, stocks known sizes, samples average sizes and then harvests. But, for most of us who have a wet hole in the ground with breeding predators and prey, it seems impossible to do more than WAG. And, I have no idea how to do that. Water fluctuations, natural morts, fertilization, aeration, and fishing complicate it even further.

I've often posted about my small, maybe 1/16 acre, forage pond. It is about 3/4 miles from the house and only accessible via 4 wheeler. It has bluegills that are now up to about 3 to 6 inches in length. Summertime heat has dropped it about 2 to 3 feet. And, they are still breeding. Lack of help on seining means that I'm going to have my normal 90% summer fish kill. Mama nature is pushing my edge and has for years. I did seine about 6 weeks ago but now, the water is too hot for fish survival during transport and introduction into other ponds.

YES Dave that is the issue, how do you know. Reletively speaking after shocking so many lakes I can tell right away more or less than "normal" but that is as far as I'm willing to say. Lot of folks ask me when shocking their lake so how many fish do I have. I tell them that is not what I'm trying to answer with shocking, then go into all the factors that determine the number of pounds i.e fish they have. I told them we are getting a better idea of "balance" as well as some idea of productiivity. Jeff while this info is good it does little to help a pond owner. I say push the limits if you want or enjoy what you got.

Oh great, I was hoping that this thread would help me reach the elusive 16th good post goal. Leave it to me to ask an interesting but completely useless question.

We still love you JHAP... All your posts are good IMO. OK, well maybe not all, but at least 1% of them are! Heck, at 4036 posts that's like 40 good posts! See, way above your goal already!

Thanks for the kind words CJ, although 1% seems like an unreasonably high benchmark to me.

jhap probably a little harsh by me but I know you can take it. The quesiton is not useless in fact very educating. I guess my point is why worry about tyring to figure out what # lbs you got, do what it takes to get the lbs you need/want.

Hah! Maybe I missed 20 or so of JHAP's posts; or are ya'll counting the humorous ones too.

Ouch! I love ya, big guy.

# per acre = (number of fish per gal. x average wt, in Oz. divided by 16)
times about 44,000 times about 7 x average depth in ft. not counting anything deeper than 8 ft., unless aerated. give or take.