Can the addition of Tilapia reduce your artificial feeding needs while maintaining growth of predators?

On another long running thread, we have been debating aspects of artificial feeding and its effects on LMB. I have argued that a LMB that gets its food without the aid of artificial feeders is a more aggressive fish than otherwise…that’s a hypothesis, yet to be proven with scientific data.

Please couple that above hypothesis with an alternate source of natural protein…Tilapia…. and you have a system that I’m testing that I believe may prove to be far superior to the common approach of using artificial feeders to promote growth in LMB. The system is basically this: feed your LMB natural foods, e.g. Tilapia, BG, fatheads, shad, etc. and you can have growth along with aggressive LMB behavior.

Some data for your consideration: Mozambique Tilapia begin spawning at 2 to 4 ounces in size. They are prolific spawners. Professional fish growers use, get this, fingerling LMB stocked at 400 fish per acre to prevent Tilapia from overcrowding in commercial ponds. 400 LMB per acre, just to keep the Tilapia from overcrowding so that they can put weight on the remaining Tilapia.

Another data point. Quote from SRAC publication, “Tilapia use natural food so efficiently that crops of 2,700 pounds per acre can be sustained without supplemental feed.” That’s not Meadowlark talking, that’s Thomas Popma and Michael Masser talking (two recognized outstanding fish biologists).

It is very easy for me to extrapolate from this data and see where I can reduce, or even eliminate artificial feeding with Tilapia and still sustain the growth in LMB. Again, reference my earlier hypothesis that a LMB that gets its food without the aid of artificial feeders is a more aggressive fish than otherwise.

In the system I’m experimenting with, LMB will be more aggressive and grow adequately or even better than with artificial feeding. In addition, there will be no longer a need for chemicals to treat algae or fertilizer to promote growth in fish and weeds.

It’s very difficult to condense a description of this system to a readable post. I have tried. In doing so, I hope some of you may understand the logic. It is a perfect match for my pond objectives of a chemical free, additive free, fishery that provides reliable consistent fishing.

When I argued about the relative merits of artificial feeding and how much protein and what about aggressiveness, I said Tilapia are the key to making this alternate approach work. My experiment is now 6 months in progress. I have reported observing LMB aggressive behavior that I have never seen in my ponds with artificial feeders. I’m encouraged, notwithstanding the negative comments for the Forum, that this system will work for me. At the worst, if it fails, I can always go back to artificial feeding, fertilizers, herbicides, etc. I’ve got nothing to loose and everything to gain, in my opinion. Thanks for reading.

ML, do you think the protien source really matters as far as 'catchability' goes? Okay, we've all caught bass and seen another forage fish with the tail sticking out of its stomach. Certainly not hungry but well fed, active and aggressive. That would support Gregs hypothesis. And, I'll bet he keeps careful documentation or loses his job. It doesn't stand to reason that his customers would accept a bunch of happy, full bellied, fish that couldn't be caught.

You, on the other hand are "feeding" your bass tilapia. I expect they will gorge themselves on your alternative offering. With the prolific breeding habits of tilapia, your bass will always be sated. If you catch them, it will support both of you guys outlooks. Both of you are furnishing/feeding the forage which turns into protien for the bass.

I keep thinking of the recent small bass I caught from a bass heavy pond and added to mine. Of necessity, they never passed up an opportunity to feed and still don't in my pond. They have been conditioned to eat anytime the opportunity presented itself. Maybe all bass are until they become hook shy or are genetically disposed not to bite lures. I'll bet that I could add a slew of BG's to that pond and reduce the catch rate.

I envy you the opportunity to conduct your experiment. You average 60 inches of rain per year. I average 22 and its not a sure thing. If I added tilapia, I could probably expect the same DO crash caused by fertilization.

One interesting observation. I have less than 20 catfish left in my water. When I toss feed, the bluegill come first and then the catfish. I believe the cats come to the sound of feeding BG, not to the sound of the feed hitting the water. I need to toss out feed at night when my BG generally don't feed to see just what rings the cats dinner bell.

I would like to know the pond sizes of Gregs customers to compare apples to apples. I think catchability might be more pond size or environmentally dependent than anything else.

Dave,

You made two excellent points that jumped out at me. One was raised previously by Ric when he questioned me on "what difference does it make whether the bass are full of protein from Tilapia vs artificial feeders?" Or to that effect...apologies to Ric if I misquoted his excellent question.

I may be wrong, in fact am probably wrong, but my experience as a rancher and outdoors person says to me that a predator that has to hustle for its food will be a more aggressive predator. A LMB will have to hustle for Tilapia and BG without feeders present.

The second point, on pond size, is very relevant, I believe. My rants have always been with respect to small ponds that I have personal years of experience with.

I'm convinced, unashamedly so, that Florida LMB in small ponds with artificial feeders, catch and release, and fishing pressure does not work. Many variables in that statement. I've been trying to isolate the variables with my experiments to determine what the main factors are and how to correct for them...standard engineering approach which has served me well in another life.

That's what this is all about for me. Thanks for the comments.

ML and Greg :

I have followed your debate on the aggressive trait , feeding behavior and forage bases , { I include pond carrying capicity } and genetics { the why and how fish act} with great interest. In essence you {pl} are covering the entire spectrum of the fish part of pond management. As you know I am eager to learn as much as possible about this and am and have been for some time conducting my own tests on the specifics of fish { LMB & BG/RE } behavior. Recently on the fourm we have been posting on genetics which is obviously a large part of this. For an example see the following , especialy Norm's last comment on pure genetic vs. learned behavior and the rate of genetic change of each.

http://www.pondboss.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=001834

Each of you know that I think highly of your opinions and am grateful for your efforts on the fourm. On this topic there is truth in both of your positions but I think there is more to the answer than any of us understand , given the current state of the knowledge base. We are each in our own way trying to add to the info base so that we all may understand better that which eludes us. Each is to be thanked and encouraged for the efforts and none criticized .

Both the scientific and engineering method are similar and you are each using it to test and draw conclusions . I don't think we have the answer yet and we are all struggling for an answer . That is why it interests us so much .
The quest for answers is the journey we are on and it is about enjoying the collective trip not about getting one answer right. Many times a correct and accepted scientific answer is later proved wrong.

A couple of basic points to start. Each pond is different . Each pond fish population is different including the genetics of the same species . Each pond's carrying capicity is different based on many factors. All of these enter into the equation. ML I did not think that your pond was much different from mine {and probably most of Greg's} in this respect until I saw the picture and BM's comment about your bloom. Our ponds require fert. to look like yours [with cow fert.}. We are all attempting to get to the right productivity range with fert/soils and/or feeders with no side effects. It would be an error for you to fert. and it would be an error for me not to fert. to reach the correct productivity range.

To the point . I do not think the answer to your questions is just feeders [ or type of protien ] nor is it that full fish are more aggressive . I think both play a part . Aggression and feeding are not identical and many things effect catch rates . Much of it is genetic and over time genetic traits change as a result of outside conditions. Further the different traits change at different rates as Norm noted. I will not go into the different papers I have read looking for an answer. I will use one example that I am testing on to make the point.

Lake {16 acres}. Fert. with no feeders. Has nort. , fla. and all % cross of LMB and healthy population of BG & RE. RW on all are well above normal and all LMB and sunfish are very healthy and get plenty to eat. However over the last 4 years LMB aggresivness has dropped with minor improvement this year . Populations of all fish are balanced and all sizes of all types. Forage base strong. Near by 6 acre lake with same facts and problem but it has limited feeding . Fish in lakes are of different original genetic make up but additions are of same genetic make up.

Given the differences and similarities why the drop in catchability { aggression}. I don't know but am trying to find out. I don't think it can be explained just by feeders or full vs. hungry fish . They may both be part of the answer . I bet there is more to the answer than that , and it may be , I acknowledge based on faulty observation or the inability to control the test paramenters.

Sorry for the length of my 2 cents worth. I wish all of us good luck , cooperation and friendship on the journey . ewest

ewest,

Another great post. You clearly understand the engineering approach I'm trying to use to isolate variables and determine consequences. The problem is there are so many complex variables.

I realize the shortcomings of my approach and my own knowledge, perhaps better than anyone...but I'm trying to understand something which has been a central disappointment for me in Pond Meistering, the lack of aggressive behavior in LMB.

Honestly, I would appreciate any suggestions to change of approach or other "experiments" I could try. I'm willing and able, well sort of able , to build another pond just for such an experiment...and if I come on too strong, please remember it isn't personal, just a drive inside me that I have had since birth to find answers to complex questions.

It's a journey, not a destination.

p.s. guess you understand now why I don't like fertilization...you should have seen what it did to this pond, when I followed well meaning advice herein and fertilized to get rid of weeds by shading them out..it was a veritable explosion of weeds and I still have not recovered two years later.

ML :

I do understand your methods and the drive to find answers and the frustration that surrounds not knowing the why of LMB traits , especialy aggressiveness . To do so only requires that I look in the mirror . It helps to know there are many more in the same boat. That is why it is being studied.

I would not change your methods or expirmt. design or parameters . I think and expect interesting results . I think 2 good questions are do the feeders add to the problem and how much do the pure Fla. genes add to the problem. You have tried to isolate those with no feeders and F1 crosses. I think in your case the waiting by the feed area is learned {I hate to use that word as I don't think it fits bass} so lets say adaptive behavior which over time will tend to change the genetic tendancies of your bass population. How long it will take or the % chance I don't know ?

Since I don't have those facts in my test ponds I am trying the genetic approach . I will introduce marked 10 in. LMB with the genetic propensity for aggressive behavior and large size this fall after having adjusted the bass and forage base numbers this spring and summer. Will this exp. work and can I measure the change over time ? Even if I can will that be the sole or main reason for the change ? I don't know but will see what happens and post the results. If enough of us try to figure this out I bet over time we will have an answer or at least better understand the parts of the question of LMB traits. ewest

I have also followed these posts with interest. I tend towards your side of the equation, ewest. I believe that genetics play a larger role than food or learned behavior. Greg offhandedly mentioned that he bought aggressive bass because that is what his customer base wanted and if that is the case then what he later feeds them might not play as an important a part. ML has done something that I am afraid to do, stop feeding. I am worried that my little ones will be hungry.
All of my adult life was spent around people who were the result of their environment, in the beginning I believed that to be true, later I adopted a combo approach and now I believe that if you carefully examine each situation you can see which one, supplemented by the other, is what you are looking at. I believe that animals are much the same. That said however, I believe that they are more driven by genes than education. Example, a carp pond in England has 70 carp and has had them for years, many members had caught, 35- 40 members, each carp at least once. They were trying to raise money to buy several new carp. They don’t feed them, forage only.
Aggressive behavior is an inherited trait in humans, it can be taught, but not to everyone. Would it be any different with fish?
The quantum leap, ML, each bass you catch on a lure must go into your new pond, only lure caught fish are allowed, forage fish excepted of course. Over time you will have only aggressive fish or at least fish that exhibit aggressive tendencies. Then over a period of time you will either validate or not. I know you pen packin engineer types need to do every thing 100 times but a 100 ponds might be a stretch even for you.
Ewest, eloquently, stated that this is a topic that has more interest than information and we have much to learn. The beauty of this forum is the bringing together of the collective minds of a group offering a vast array of knowledge, oh yeah, and at least as many opinions.

How does one get 10 inch LMB with those genetic propensities?

Now that will be an interesting experiment. Details, please, details on your progress and results.

What a terrific discussion!

Rad, My son-in-law is a head HS basketball coach. He tells me that aggressive behavior in athletics is almost completely dependent on one's genetics...you are either born with it or not and it usually can not be taught. If LMB are that way, then we do indeed need different approaches.

ML :

My order was placed for the LMB last winter.They will be between 8-10 in. depending on when the hatchery and my ponds are ready , probably late Oct. In this case I have used the same source as some of Greg's fish . I do not buy all my fish from them but have used them for over 10 years and have been amazed at the quality of the product delivered. I bought some 10-12 in Fla. LMB from this source when they were selling only F1's for the reasons we have discussed. They were reluctant to sell the Fla.s as they did not want an unhappy buyer down the road. Only after I told them the fish were going in ponds with northerns and the idea was to introduce the Fla. genes did they agree to sell them. When the fish arrived they were 10-12 in. and averaged 1.3 lbs. They looked like small footballs . Beautiful fish in all respects from their coloration to their condition. They have through selective breeding developed the product described . I trust the owners based on prior history and their product after checking it out. That is , I agree , a variable in the expir. and we will see how it works. Because I support many suppliers in the pond mgt. busines I do not post names with products . I will send you a PM with the name and address if you would like it.

See below for expir. facts . I am following this plan .

http://www.pondboss.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=001433

ewest,

Yes please, name and address. E-mail me at ldhartley@hotmail.com. Thanks.

ewest,

I understand from the reference you are also not feeding BG or LMB in this experiment?

Is that still your plan, i.e no feeding? If so, together we should have some very interesting data.

I'd appreciate any coaching on sampling data you think is relevant to add to our information base. The wild card I have is Tilapia, which I really believe may significantly affect my results.

ML :

That is correct in concept . Let me explain. The only feeding that occurs is in one small area {2000 sq ft} behind a blocking net. The bass and BG in the lake can not get to the food or wait on the small feeding grow out BG. In esence there are 2 lakes. In the expir. lake { entire 16 acres less 2000 sq ft.} no feeding has occured either before or after the expir. started. Prior to the expir. start no feeding occured in any part of the entire lake. In other words the only feeding ever on this lake was behind the net for 3 mths during grow out of some 3-5 in BG.

I am not sure I am a coach more like a teammate. I am just starting the process of thinking about the sampling data , how to measure results and what of the prior data will be useful. I will keep you posted. Any thoughts on sampling or data would be great. A good strong forage base be it BG/sunfish , tilapia , shad , shiners or a combo is a prerequisite .ewest

I went to Arms fish farm a few weeks ago to pick up tilapia. Harrell had two holding tanks side by side. One tank contained thousands of pure Flordia bass about 2" long. The other tank contained thousands of Flordia / Northern mix bass about 2" long. These mix bass were not f1's but several generations removed. Both Flordia and the mix bass were pellet trained. As a demonstration of their behavior Harrell told me to put my finger in the tanks. The Flordia's all fled to the opposite end of the tank and the mix's came up to investigate. Just an interesting experiment for what it's worth.

Tentmaker Farm,

Yes very interesting.

By the way, how are you coming with your "experiment"?

I'm glad you posted and have been wondering if you have any recent observations to share.

ML,
Just an opinion here that might give explanation for Greg's aggressive fish food fed bass.

It's my thinking that fish don't feel hunger. As Dave stated Those bass weren’t hungry when they hit our offering.
They react to stimuli & from instinct. Both of course are determined by genetics as to each fish's level of aggressiveness.
If this thinking has merit it would explain why Greg’s fish are so aggressive. They aren’t just hanging around waiting to snatch a BG feeding on pellets or waiting for pellets themselves. The feeding activity itself stimulates the bass as well as other BG to start feeding. They instinctively know the sounds of opportunity & come running... aggressively.

Now, in the wild, it is the biggest most aggressive fish which dominate. As in a trout stream it’s the biggest fish which will have the best location to capture forage. Remove that fish & the next biggest, healthiest, most aggressive fish will take his place.

This is where I think Greg is coming from when he says his healthier well fed fish will be more aggressive than if they weren’t fed.
I truly believe what he is doing works & will work for most pond owners. After all it’s what’s being taught throughout the industry & has been proven to produce the desired results.

In my book professionals whether in engineering or fishery management are the experts in their specific fields.

All that being said, what you are doing I believe will also work & it’s what I will be attempting too.
I just think the majority of people will benefit more from following the tried & true first.

Ric,

"Tried and True" never advanced anything in the history of humans. It is safe, yes, but just not interesting to me.

If one is happy with what they have and do not desire/strive for more or better or seek to explore/gain knowledge, then status quo is the ticket.

I am not that way. I am not satisfied with my LMB behavior. I am not satisfied that the "professionals" can explain that behavior or modify it and most of all, I am not convinced that everything that can be known about LMB or ponds in general has already been discovered.

I simply reject out of hand the notion that the only people that can make a contribution to the knowledge/understanding of ponds/fish are those "professionals"....or that you have to manage 50 ponds in order to be able to speak.

I was 23 years old and sitting on a console in Mission Control when the first humans walked on the moon and there was not any "how to" manual then and people said it couldn't be done. I reject that kind of thinking, in fact abhore it.

Failure is a distinct possibility in my case. In my life, I have learned far more from failures than success. I relish the chance to learn, to contribute.

Sorry to talk about myself, and that got me in trouble with Greg, but I simply reject the notion that only "pros" can contribute to the knowledge base....and by the way, for the record, there is nothing in this response that is in anyway aimed at anyone other than myself.

ML,
I do believe you were the only one to have that notion so it's good that you rejected it.

Tried & true is not as mundane as you make it out to be. Especially in your field of expertise tried & true is the way to go! Would we have made it to the moon without all the testing, studying & learning what works? That's the tried & true.
Out of the box thinking is what the space program is about but if you only had one space shuttle, not another to test with no computer program to simulate with would you recommend radical untested changes for the upcomming mission?
If a new pond owner wants a good bass fishery has only one pond to work with & wants to get the most out of it would you recommend he abandon the tried & true? The basics? The stuff that has repeatedly worked?
No, your ideas as everyones are greatly apreciated!!! I happen to like them! But I would never advocate to the masses my ideas are better than the status quo or the tried & true .

Ric,

Perhaps I have not communicated very well. Indeed it is clear I have not.

I did not realize that anyone would see this thread as recommending radical untested changes for the masses. The thread title is in the form of a question. A question generally means the one asking does not know the answer.

My discussions, with ewest in particular, have been about ideas and concepts and experiments and variables and ways to get more information on the table.

I honestly thought this thread was about ideas which need to be tested, about experiments that we could do to improve our knowledge base.

For some reason, which is probably my fault, you and Greg previously have latched on to the thought that I'm recommending new radical untested approachs for the masses. That is not the case. I seek knowledge. I seek answers to questions. I search for ways to improve my ponds and my own knowledge of them and the creatures that use them.

If we must limit our discussions to the tried and true as defined by you or anyone for that matter, then I have totally misunderstood this Forum.

I thought that part of this Forum was a place where new ideas could be discussed, tried out, debated and reported on without personal criticism. I thought that it was understood that an experiment was just that and a hypothesis was an unproven concept.

I would like to have inputs from other forum members on this matter. If indeed tried and true are the limits of discussion, then I will abide by those wishes.

If indeed other Forum members see these expressions of experiments and concepts as advocating radical untested changes to the masses, then I will refrain from discussing them in the future.

In fact, since I do not fully know what is "tried and true" in this regard, I will refrain from posting at all and defer to those who do indeed know what is "tried and true".

Going to the moon was tried and true? Wow.
I know, I know, the principals that put us there.
Meadowlark I think you are being way to sensitive in your new you. Every post of your has had some kind of disclaimer, so I know you are not preaching to the masses.
I believe that this forum is only as good as the people posting, another wow, how corny, but true. What makes this forum so good is that everybody is really interested in the focus of the forum, ponds. Every one knows a little about a lot of things and some people know a great deal. Look at the fish trap thread or the solar panel, or posting pictures, Jersey and the Corp. Look back through the threads that have the most postings, great stuff.

M-L that explains your position to me. Sorry to come off so strong but it seemed some of the comments were personal, apparently not and sorry for the reaction. I really hope I do not come off all knowing and want to encourage you to continue your post. I just wish they were a little more toned down, and I do not mean that in a bad way at all.

You mentioned you want to share ideas. I agree and really do hope to learn from your experiment. However on many occasions you have taken the time to give advice to folks, no problem there. However I usually give out tried and true methods as Ric says based on the fact it works. For ex a guy from GA ask about fertilzing lakes ( I think this is right) you come on there and warn them about how bad it can be. Even after I say it can be beneficial I think you have came back again with how bad. Is that necessary? You provide your idea on how it worked on your ponds in TX and it may not apply to how it is in GA. Make sense?

I in no way want to discourage your posts you are informative and knowledgable. IMHO you seem to come off strong on many opinions. ANother one is your preaching about hybrid and tilapia. I'm with you but some folks can not legally stock these. I know I had a major awakenieng on here when I posted about a few northern ponds. I quikly learned to sit back and see answers b/c many times folks that are there no way more than I about regional diffs.

Ewest very well stated I wish I could put in wiritng what I'm trying to say as well as you. I would much rather talk to someone in person. I agree about genetics playing a more important role than full belly. That was my point but apparently not explained so well.

M-L why do you want this bass source? These are the same ones I described as being pellet trained and you were very clear about no way are they more agressive. Glad to see your interest maybe you will trust ewest more than may advice.

Greg is making many important points here. One that I wish to comment on is the idea that something that works in one situation is good in all situations. That may not be true. Greg uses the example of fertilizing ponds. This doesn't mean that we don't have much to learn from each other though. In fact, it is because of these different situations that we can learn things that people in our own areas would never have thought of. In terms of genetics, it is too easy for us to get "inbred" in our own thinking and we need these fresh ideas.

Norm and others :

Norm , thank you , you are right but you are being to gentle. I like the genetic comparison.

I would like to try to bring a few matters into focus that we often don't put in our posts , but should . The question is how .

Even in cases when we are posting on "idea" topics between each other and obviously not giving advice be careful. It is easy for someone to not understand or mis understand a point or be offended especialy if it envolves a reader with less knowledge or one who quickly reads the post or if the post is not well written or is taken the wrong way. It even happens when the post is well written and easily understood. Such is the human mind . This applies most when the reader is not involved in posting on the topic.

I am sure , after seeing the great efforts of posters to help others , that no one on this fourm knowingly or unknowingly ever wants to cause a pond owner to have a problem or make a problem worse.

Norm , I think by definition if something works in one situation it " will not " work in " all " situations. There are to many factors at work for it to be statistically possible to be right in all cases. I am sure I remember most posters pointing this out , just not all the time. ML , Greg , myself and others have done so on the fert. question. You , Bruce , CB1 , Theo , Rad and others on genetics and others. Bill Cody points this out often with his " it depends" warning. I could go on with lots of other posters and topics.

There are to many differences from region to region , all the way down to pond to pond for their to be one size fits all answers. For example the large differences in soil type and content. With this basic pond building block being so different why we would think any other topic answer would be the same every where is beyond me.

Many times we have seen the comment made that it is not " rocket science " or " brain surgery " . True but not accurate . Think about the fact that pond mgt. as well as both rocket science and brain surgery involve the following , biology , chemistry , physics and engineering not to mention a few others. The idea that pond mgt. is easy is both wrong and dangerous .

We face a conflict between wanting to help { which often requires easy answers} and exploring and sharing ideas { which is often complex} . Science has faced this conflict for years. It is often handled with 2 rules , 1} in your advice do or cause no harm and , 2} in your ideas and expir. full disclosure and warnings.

How should we handle it ? I suggest as Bill Cody often reminds us we should be clear and state that " it all depends" and by cleraly stating that " one size does not fit all" . The use of warnings is required so that we don't harm a pond. Patience , civility , understanding , slowness to speak in anger and a thick skin should help us not harm each other.

Sorry for the long 2 cents worth. ewest

M/L, have been off line the last few days and trying to catch up on a very interesting subject and be heard! A lot of philosophical posts on the subject and all with deep points, but to get off the trail of the Budda and Confuscious it only makes sense that the hunter instinct is more prevalent in a predator that chases live pry vice hanging around the feeder whether eating feed or the feed eaters. A Tilapia is alive and has the natural instinct of survival, will do everything available to avoid elimination. The BG that hang around feeders are suckers...easy prey. Whether we be human or animal our instincts drive to the "easiest way". When a LMB has to be decisive to eat or starve it can only improve aggressiveness. Now the most important point is how much more aggresive?

Don,

That's what made sense to me also and I rely on common sense a lot. Thanks for your comments.

I have only a high school diploma to show for myself, (I am married to a wonderful lady who is a rocket scientist).

I have been involved with wetland mitigation and have a great intrest in waterfowl hunting. In my dealings I have met many biologist. They are without a doubt following strictly the education they received, the tried and true methods. There is a process to be involved with every situation and once that process proves a point that point is ground in stone until proven otherwise! I have had good luck combining the knowledge learned from biologist and common sense to "create" my own way of thinking.

Meadowlark keep thinking out of the box and posting up! Just leave the disclaimer that you are no longer following the tried and true......

I have had Tilapia for only two months now, I swear my Bass have gotten much thicker. Unlike ML I also was fertilizing and feeding and stocked Tilapia.....Kind of went whole hog!

It has been a roller coaster ride trying to fertilize, I have had good blooms each season only to end up with some DO kills. I have two diffusers and well water spraying which I think helped the fish kills to be small but yet still dissapointing. I have just factored in these loses with how many fish I have harvested and should still have a good stocking rate in my pond.

I do have some big Bluegill, most 9-12 inches. They are 2 1/2 yrs. old. My Bass have grown to 2 lbs and climbing. I think the fertilizing got my fish off to a good start, but question risking a big fish kill. Plus as of this year have some Algea to deal with.

Anyway this is a long rambling post and that's what happens at 11:45 p.m. To make a story shorter let me say that I am as of next spring going to pursue the ML way of thinking. I will not fertilize and I will stock Tilapia again. I will keep reading with great intrest to hear all sides of the story!!

Tilapia have spawned like crazy, in the past my bluegill have spawned many times during the summer and the fry would be everywhere for a few days and they are gobbled up by the Bass quickly and seem to dissapear. The Tilapia have added greatly to the fry seen around the pond and they are visible everyday now, walking the pond you can see the Bass constantly stalking the Tilapia. I'm hoping this gives the Bluegill somewhat of a break. I not only want big Bass but I also want to eat/harvest alot of Bluegill, I'm thinking the addition of Tilapia will make this happen for me.

I have a ton of respect for Biologist, Engineers, and people like me so EVERYONE keep posting up!

Woody,

Just to follow up. I have terrific BG fishing in my ponds with Tilapia. Simply terrific. Like you, I believe Tilapia take some of the pressure off BG. I love to watch the F1 bass in my experimental pond chase the young Tilapia "to the dirt". They actually force some of them out of the pond. Makes my heart race and puts a smile on my face.

I've got a 7ft ulatra lite spinning rod with a real nice medium size spinning reel, it's my redneck flyfishing rod! I love to catch Bluegill with it.

Most everything I've read say's to not keep any Bluegill if raising big Bass is your goal, especially in the first few years of pond development. That's not an option for me, I'm excited to hear that your Bluegill are doing good with the Tilapia. Tilapia provide forage for the pond, maybe give the Bluegill a much needed break, and eat Algea.......doesn't get much better than that.

Woody,

Nothing better than catching 10 to 12 inch BG, IMHO.

Add in a fly rod to the equation and you really can experience the greatness of BG without sacrificing catch rates.

Buying a flyrod is on my list of things to do! Hope I can figure it out myself, I have never used one and have no friends or family to teach me. I'm sure though it will be fun learning!

George and myself will provide long distance help...George is especially adept at fly fishing from all the various aspects. I just like to catch fish with flies and fly rods....oh, and love to talk about fly fishing.

Thanks, I'm sure I will have some questions. Will be nice to have someone to ask for help!

Woddy :

A couple of things to think about . Not specific to your pond as I have only seen a pic. but in general.

An average pond { no fert. and no feeding} in the SE has a carrying capicity of 100 lbs of fish per acre-- 75 lbs of forage fish and 25 lbs of predator fish.

Same pond with fert. only ,-- 300-400 lbs per acre with same % forage and predator.

Feeding adds 100-200 more lbs. per acre

I think your pond has both fert. and feeding . If so then your carrying capicity is between 400-600 lbs per acre , 75 % forage 25% predator.

It sounds like your pond is in good shape and probably near carrying capicity.

The bloom/plankton is the base of the food chain. Both the BG and tilapia {especially} have to have the plankton to survive. If there is no fert. to keep bloom up the carrying capicity will drop by a large factor say one-half. In that case there will still be 400-600 lbs per acre of fish but only enough food [plankton and its out growth] to support 200-300 lbs per acre of fish.

This is why most all pond mgrs. tell folks that once you start a fert. program you should not stop unless you have a plan on how to manage this problem.

The person who long ago managed one of our ponds started a fert. program ran it for 4 years and stopped. The result was worse than a DO crash . In the DO crash all the fish die at once and you manage from there. In our situation it took 3 years for most of the fish to starve to death . Some were so skinny when you held them up you could see through them. That is when I was called in and because we did not want to kill the pond it took 6 years to recover.

If you have questions please get a pro to look at your pond before you stop fert. I would hate for you to go through what we went through. ewest

ewest,

In the case study you cited, why did they wait and watch for three years while the fish starved to death? Why didn't they simply restart the fertilizer program? Its hard to imagine someone just watching their fish starve to death without doing anything for 3 years? It's also hard to imagine that they didn't notice anything for three years. Fish do not suddenly get so skinny you can "see through them".

If they had restarted after one season without fertilization, what would have been the result, in your opinion? This case says to me that fertilizer is somewhat akin to an addictive drug...it makes your pond feel good but you can never quit.

*****Please, no one jump up and down and start flame throwing again, I'm asking EWEST what I consider an honest question and the comparision to drugs is an honest comparison and not meant to disparage anyone, certainly not EWEST...so back off before you start in again.*****

In fact, in one sense Tilapia could be considered in the same analogy. That is to say, after stocking Tilapia for some TBD number of years, you will have increased the number and size of the predators (assuming no extra fish removal). If after that time, you were to stop stocking Tilapia, then those predators will suffer the removal of the Tilapia. To my knowledge, there are no studies and I have not seen any case histories of this. I will never stop stocking Tilapia (never say never ) so I'm not volunteering to perform such an experiment.

p.s. why should anyone find it surprising that when you change a pond management technique, e.g. stopping fertilization, you are changing the dynamics of the pond...maybe for good, maybe for worse...there are no
garantees in life nor certainly in pond management.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilizer
ML take a look at this site if you get a chance, you probably already know this but I found it interesting. Now if I just knew the scarcest element. Some times the problem with great answers, I am not smart enough to know the question.
Oh, and I would say narcotic is a bit strong, food or nutrients might be a better comparison, no flame intended, JOMO, just one man's opinion.

Rad,

No problem with your analogy either...I was actually thinking of steroids when I wrote that and the growth hormones given to cattle. I raise cows and know that, yes you can promote growth with chemicals but at what price? What unknown consequences? There are consequences to actions...some good, some not so good, and some unknown for many years. We need to carefully think through those consequences before acting on our ponds.

p.s. Rad, yes I know a little about fertilizers, having been in ranching for over 30 years, but it was an interesting link nonetheless. Thank you.

EWEST,

While out mowing pastures in 100 deg temps, I wondered about your warning to Woody on ceasing fertilization in relation to him also adding Tilapia.

To wit, do you know that the addition of Tilapia will not offset completely or at least minimize to some degree the impacts to predator fish by stopping fertilization?

In the carrying capacity you cited (forage fish per acre with and without fert.), does that also account for a forage fish which takes its feed from bottom mass and vegetation as opposed to plankton?

Earlier in this thread, I referenced scientific data that shows that Tilapia can produce 2700 pounds per acre without supplemental feeding. Granted that may be in an optimum environment, but, can it not be possible that in a regular natural pond environment, Tilapia can indeed compensate for artificial feeding and fertilizers? That is the basis for my experiment...that and the need to improve LMB aggressive behavior.

The pond that I'm experimenting in has no added benefit of cattle "enrichment". No source of added fertilization, natural or otherwise, is available at all. That is why I believe it will be a good test against my hypothesis.

****Once again, to remind others, this is a discussion about ideas, about experiments, about a hypothesis which is yet unproven. It is not as they say "tried and true", but perhaps may lead to something which can begin to answer valid questions regarding the behavior of LMB and the need for feeding and fertilizers.****

Thank you, EWEST, for this discussion. It is what I was hoping for when I made the original post....a dialogue on ideas and concepts.

ML :

I was out working at the lakes and missed the first post. Grass has to be cut and feeders filled and .......!!!

I will try and address your 2 posts together. I understand the nature of our dicussion and no warning or explanation is needed. I am glad you included the warnings so others will understand.

First on the prior mgt. of our problem pond in question. Keep in mind as you read this that this pond was , at the time 15 years ago , not fished much of the year and no one person fished it a lot. The prior mgr.{ I am being nice} did not have any idea of what he was doing. No training no background no understanding of what was going on. A good fisherman but not a pond mgr. He heard fert. would improve fishing and it did for years 2-4 of the 4 yr. period. By year 5 the alkalinity , because no lime was added , was 7-10 ppm. With this condition the fert. did not work so they stopped not knowing what would happen. For the first 2 years after this point fish were still caught but were getting skinny and by year 3 it was to late. At this point I was asked to look into the problem . It was decided that the lake would not be killed but that a lime program would be started followed by a rational fert. program. It took most of a year and 60 tons of lime to get the alka. high enough to start fert. again but by this time it was winter. The next spring the fert. program was started but by then the fish were and had been dying and the rest were very skinny. The remaining fish ate many of the dying. From that point it took 5 years of fishing and fert. to get the pond healthy and balanced. There were other complicating problems to long to mention. This should answer many of the whys.

On to your questions. If I fail to address one let me know.

Restarting the fert. under this situation would not work. In a normal situation you could stop for one year and restart and recover but why do that it would only cause less drastic problems.

I would not say it is like a drug but like a metabolism . If Lance Armstrong quits eating and drinking in large amounts and cuts his intake in half while trying to ride in the Tour de France he would get real skinny and collapse . It is about getting the pond to a high sustainable rate of production without doing harm consistent with your pond goals. I am talking about basics here for the avg. pond owner not about a person with your substantial knowledge and who knows well how to do scientific based expirs. There are not many out of the total pond world who can match you and/or some others on this fourm in this regard

I agree any large change in the food chain . be it fert., feeding, adding many more fish { tilapia or BG or Shad...}, or taking a lot of fish out can cause large problems. That was my point to Woody. I wanted to warn him to think about it first and if unsure get specific advice for his pond from someone with experience and knowledge of his pond food chain. Think carefully and learn answers before you cause a major problem.

My answers to Woody were not in relation to tilapia or BG or any other combo. of fish , forage or predator . They were in relation to total fish carrying capacity. No matter what the forage is it has to eat. If the food chain is jerked out from under the forage fish they will suffer. Not positive but I thought small tilapia lived off of plankton. What ever makes the plankton grow also makes the other plants grow .

The 400 lbs of possible forage in a fert. and feed pond in the SE are an average developed over the years by fisheries biologist . I know the average would include grass carp . Don't know if tilapia were specifically included but I would assume so because the number is used in avg. total carrying ability of the pond per acre. It is not applicable to aquaculture situations with high poundage per acre and extensive mgt. practices . The closer you get to the aquaculture situation the more lbs. of fish per acre.

Optimum mgt. practices can vary greatly . There are often many ways to reach ones pond goals . That is one reason this is fun. I don't think anyone knows the most optimum forage base for bass as a predator. There are several that are very good . As long as it contains at least one very prolific forage producer and they are of the right size it should work. Both BG and tilapia and shad can be prolific if there is food for them to eat and they can reproduce and or you replace them if they are eaten or die off. In the larger pond world most people { unlike those on this fourm} know little about pond mgt. and do not want to replace forage fish on an ongoing basis. That rules out t-shad. and tilapia for most people and more can't use them because of cold water. Use of either one can give a pond owner a very large boost in forage at just the right point in the yearly growth cycle. There is a lot positive about your approach. Some people use tilapia others t-shad . If I had to guess I would think tilapia would be better because the reproduce more , grow larger in a shorter period and die out at a warmer temp. I am no expert on that matter however .

I don't know how much if any tilapia compete with BG for food sources or at what size.

Send me a PM with your address and I will send you a copy of a very interesting article on forage fish size and bass selection of forage .It does talk about tilapia in the equation.

This post is so long I am not sure it stayed on topic or answered your questions. No doubt that most of this you know . I hope Woody reads all of this and makes the right decision for his pond based on the most info he can get. ewest

EWEST,

Answered most, and thank you for taking the time.

It is an Unbelievable pond manager that could not see the decline in his client's fish for three years, simply unbelievable. One lesson in that to Pond Meisters is learn all you can yourselves. There's just no substitue for a "smart buyer".

That case also points out the value of ag. lime. I would not be without it in my ponds, for sure.

The questions still unanswered, in my mind, regard how much Tilapia can offset the reduction/elimination of artificial feeding and/or fertilizers. I gather you feel either not at all, not much, or its indeterminate?

My instincts and research, and actual hands on results in a smaller pond, indicates that it can definitely be an offset, even a significant offset. Tilapia do not compete significantly with BG in the food chain. In my case, they eat algae and feed off the bottom. In my readings on them, it appears they can find food in almost any type of water situation. In fact, the literature suggest they even spawn at a smaller size and more often when they are not well fed.

I've maintained all along that Tilapia are the key to making this work, if it does indeed work. Last year, in a small pond (3/4 acre) with no feeders or fertilizer at all, the BG rebounded spectacularly in size and numbers from what they were before Tilapia. The bass were simply unbelievable in the before and after sense. It was an amazing thing to see. Today, that pond is exactly what I have been after. It is in balance, with no artificial feeders or fertilizers. It also has very aggressive northern/native LMB. So, in essence, I have already succedded in my objectives on a small pond and now will see if I can replicate those results in a larger pond ( 2 acres). If you have not read my paper on that experience, I would encourage you or anyone interested in this discussion to read it. I'm not talking about the Pond Boss article, I'm talking about the paper I wrote on which Bob based the article. Two different things.

That experience was the basis for this year's experiment. It was actually a simulation, if you will, of what I'm trying to do now in a larger pond (2 acres). I'm expecting similar results...time will tell.

This pond stuff is very complex, maybe not rocket science, but in some ways more complex. At least in engineering we can write equations and build models to simulate before building or operating systems. That is one reason I cite last year's "simulation".

Thanks for your post and I hope others will join in the discussion and especially if there is anyone else out there trying anything similar, to report on results. We need all the data we can get, if we are to improve beyond the current "tried and true".

p.s we aren't the only people trying to find these answers are we? Is the entire community satisfied with "tried and true"? Any response appreciated.

ML :

I did not intend to give the impression in my last post that adding forage fish would not greatly reduce the need to feed or fert. To the contrary. I think you can do exactly that if you know what to do and when and have access to the forage fish. I think you can remove a big part of the base of the food chain and manage around it. I believe I can and sometime fully intend to take one of our ponds that is very clear and great for swimming and not fert. or feed and have large BG/RE and med. bass { 2-4 lb avg.} just by manipulating the type , size , timing , number and variety of forage fish and possibly in addition using frogs , bugs and crawfish . But that is for another day when I have time to monitor the pond much closer and can grow out the forage fish or at least some of them myself. I think a clear {visa. 4-6 ft.} pond with the above described fish would be great for fly fishing or light line finesse fishing.

The person in question who made those mistakes with the pond was not a paid pond mgr. He was a family member {extended} who is a very good big water fisherman. But he does not know much about pond mgt. or science. Fifteen years ago most people had not heard of pro. pond mgrs. around here. The pro pond mgt. buss. was just getting established .

I have not seen your study only the PB article. I would be interested. email is ewest1@msn.com.

There are others studying these things. Many of them are Prof. , pro pond mgrs. or gov. employees/game&fish types . They are busy this time of year or are not fourm members. I will send you a copy of the article I mentioned if you send me an address. Can't email not digital. Will also forward a card for a free copy of mag. it came from. Thanks. ewest

PS-- My prior posts in responce to Woody were intended to address only the specific actions and circumstances of his probable situation . In my opinion there are many ways to manage a pond but if you are contemplating an action that will jerk the food chain out of balance much fore-thought should be taken before hand.

I thankyou for the opportunity for some guidance! I live in North Alabama not far from the Tennessee state line. I know of no professional that works my area, and probably not going to get one that will travel all the way out to me just to monitor my one acre pond. Greg Grimes (Georgia) and another person from Birmingham, Alabama (2 hours away) are the only ones I know of. I appreciate and value the help offered. Ewest asked and I'm not going to skip the opportutnity for replies from you or ML, as well as others that are much more experienced than me. Even though my post is sort of off topic for the title of this thread.

I'm lucky to have any fish at all with all the things I've done wrong, here's the history of my pond:

Pond is 1 acre and is a hole in the ground, not fed by anyones drainage, it is fed by well water and rain water. Pond holds water real good and filled up quickly.

February 2003

Add 800 Bluegill and 200 Shellcracker, start fertilizer program with granular fertilizer, no problem getting or maintaining the bloom.

June 2003

Add 100 1 inch Bass from hatchery. Start training fish to feed on fish chow, by early summer Bluegill are feeding well.

Late fall early winter of same year have a small fish kill consisting of very small fish "fry" found dead. Otherwise very pleased with Bluegill and Bass growth.

Spring 2004

Install Vertex Diffuser system figuring that last falls fish kill is turnover related. Start fertilizer program again. Maintain a good bloom, all is well. On July 3rd, 2005 catch and keep 75 medium sized Bluegill, they are very healthy and bite well, on July 5th, after several cloudy days in a row, I have a small fish kill(DO related) that kills 15 of my best Bass. Discontinue fertilizing program. End up the year with no more fish kills and fish are growing good, all is well.

Spring 2005

Early February during the first good warm up I catch some Bass, the seem to be biting well and healthy except they have red lips, Search Pond Boss to learn that I should not have ran my diffusers all winter, turn them off till April, all is well red lips heal up quickly, just added undue stress for my Bass.

Get a late start due to colder than usual temps and begin fertiziing program again, determined to do it right this time, Early March start fertilizing with liquid fertilizer this time. That goes good, start and maintian a good bloom. I watch this bloom with much dilligence. Use boat, trolling motor, and schechi dish to keep bloom at proper levels, (fuzzy at 18 inces , completely vanishing at 24 inces). In June I fish and catch some happy, healthy Blugill and again keep 45. A week or so latter news of cloudy weather and rain that's remnants of a hurricane headed this way, oh shit! Get schechi disk in hand, check's out same as above 18 fuzzy - 24 inch vanishing schechi disk, can't convince myself to add any more fertilizer so I'm going to ride the storm out. On the fourth day of cloudy weather my bloom crashed hard, vanished and killed 100-130 on my best Bluegill. Discontinue fertilizer program.

I'v left out the introduction of Tilapia on May 30, 2005. They survived the DO crash and are doing well. They have spawned many times and my Bass are much thicker than they used to be after just 2 months of adding the Tilapia. On the other hand I had cut way back on my feeding hopeing the Tilapia would eat up all the Algea, they have done a good job controling it but I still have some around the shallow areas. I have recently started back feeding every other day.

I never had an Algea problem till this year, I had some very small areas of Algea all winter and early spring, I think maybe this was caused by running the areators all winter???, anyway I fertilized again as stated this spring even thought I had the small areas of Algea and that helped it grow even more, ofcourse.

So as of now I'm back to feeding the Bluegill regularly and not fertilizing due to the Algea I have in the shallow areas.

Woody,
I'm sure Ewest will respond, but I have heard this same story many times. I don't pretend to know the answers but have some thoughts/questions.
It's my understanding that a fert. regiment is used to maximize production of a pond. IE: A good bloom is the basis of a productive pond in that it feeds the small stuff that feed the bigger stuff (the phyto. feeds the zoo, feeds the fry) & so on.
If one is not necessarily trying to maximize production IE: 600# per acre, why maintain a maximum bloom?
Would not a 24" to 36" bloom serve to benefit the bottom of the food chain when only say 2/3 of max potential production with less likelihood of causing a DO crash? Esp. when feeding?
Also I'm curious about the statement of Tilapia not competing with BG. Don't they have a negative effect on the basis of the food chain & therefore the same negative effect on the BG fry?
Ewest, maybe you or Greg could address my ignorant questions?

ML- one other thing to consider is natural fertility in your area maybe quite a bit higher than say the SE. This will make a big diff in your answer of tiliapia as sub for fertilizaiton program.

Ewest- once again well said

Woody- one thing to consider is it seems we do not get the large swings in phyto bloom since using water soluble vs liquid fert. Also with heavy feeding very little fert is necessary in many cases.

Ric- I have many clients that have the goal of 24-36" or similiar. They are not worried as much about DO crash more asethetics. THey like to swim and want to see more than 18 inches, etc. So yes you are right 24-36 is far more productive than 6 ft. vis. One potential probelm though and woody might have this one. IF you try for greater vis and have shallow edges many times fertilizing only makes it worse b/c encourages filamentous algae growth (ML if only we could stock tilapia)

Woody and Rick :

Thanks for posting . I want to make a couple of points first and then explain.

Rick--excellent questions and answers. I think you got it exactly right . My thoughts on tilapia also but I am not an expert on them. It may well be that they fill a niche in the food chain { eat only that which BG don't eat} but I thought when small they ate plankton. There is no way anyone could possibly think that your questions were ignorant either in the sense of lack of knowledge or lack of being smart. You made the points in one paragraph that it took me a page to make.

Woody thanks for the info. It sounds like you are doing a good job of managing your pond. I will try to help where I can. It may be that your pond is working at max. capicity.

Before I forget most states have fish biologists in connection with their cooperative ext. services . That may be a source of eyes on help . If you use this or any other source of help , in advance { before they make an appointment to look at the pond} give them a written history of your pond with as much info as you can remember. They will be glad to get the info so they can prepare and focus in on your problems and they will know you are serious. They will not have the detailed knowledge of how your pond works like you do so any help you can give them will increase the chances that your questions will be addressed. If any expert gives you an answer that does not make sense to you check it out first. They may have missed something that you know about.

My thoughts/explanation. First DO problems in small ponds are not my strong point. I can only guess because I have not seen your pond and have no DO profile . My "guess" is that because you are so actively managing your pond with fert. and feeding with a dense fish population your pond is like an acquculture operation. That is it is running at full capicity . Your pond is a biological engine running flat out . We all know that if you run a car engine flat out for to long it is much more likley to break . A pond has a max carrying capicity --a biomass limit. It works off of water , soil , oxygen , co2 , food {nutrients} , light and heat all in combination . Because they all work together and depend on each other being there , if one is in short supply the engine does not run right. Like a car engine with the wrong fuel/air mix or bad spark plugs.

Does your well water have enough oxygen ? If not that could be part of the problem . I suspect that you don't have any real problem that moving away from max. output won't cure. What Rick said may be the exact answer. That is let up on the gas a little. Consider only fert. enough to get 24-30 in visa. and , if you need to feed a little more. Under the conditions you described this should lessen the chance of DO problems. I know how hard it is to control a bloom even when you try. So many uncontrolable factors like weather , rain/no rain , clouds/sun , hurricanes etc. My suggestion is to start each spring slow on the fert. so you don't get a build up of nutrients in the water that may explode when july/Aug/Sept. with high heat and low rain arrive. Because you are using areation and may have a build up of nutrients in your soil which come up in the areation you may want to wait to see if your pond needs fert. to start off with in the spring. You could get your pond bottom soil tested to see what , if anything , it needs or does not need. We always take soil samples so that we have a baseline to work from. One concern I usually have with increasing visa. {light penetration } in the warm part of the year is the potential for FA {algae} growth . You may well have this covered with the tilapia -- a good move. You may have enough fert.in system to last till fall. I see that Greg has come on board and also answered some of your questions while I was writing. Please note that he has some of the same points as I do on natural fertility . If you do back off on the fert/# lbs, of fish you may need to eat a few more of the BG and bass and tilapia to lower the #/lbs of fish in the system prior to reducing the carrying capicity in order to keep the remaining fish fat and happy. Keep us posted. ewest

ps . I agree with Greg that water sol. fert is much better. It is easy to use and works faster which makes it much easier to do a little at a time. Also liqu. fert. is much easier to make a mistake with ie water ratio and getting to much in one spot. in the pond . Water sol. is like throwing out sand easy to control amount and location. After a number of years of testing we use water sol. most and then use some grainular on platforms for its long term dissolving ability.

pss thought I would add the below info by Bill re aeration :

Bill Cody
Lunker
Member # 24

Member Rated:
posted May 24, 2005 08:01 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does aerating affect the algae bloom?. It all depends. Numerous things come into play with this feature.

1. Strength of the mixing currents and what percentage of the pond's volume AND surface acreage is being turned over or mixed.

2. Nutrient load and nutrient reserves in the pond which provide food source for the algae are important stimulators of the bloom.

3. Water clarity and bloom density (number of organisms per milliliter are important in affectding the bloom.

4. Frequency and length of time that the aerator operates. Continuous running would usually cause planktonic algae to be in deep water only a relatively short time.

5. Algae speices. Each species responds differently to the variables. There are thousands of species of planktonic freshwater algae that could be living in ponds across North America. Some will be supressed by the circulaton affects whereas others could or will be stimulated by the circulation. Others such as certain fragile colonial types could be broken and disrupted by the movement and currents; ddurable colonial forms are very tolerant. Some algae tolerate low light conditions very well. Some algae go into suspended physiology during low light or low nutrients only to be reactivated when conditons improve.

6. Weather conditions and season (temperature / daylength) can be important players in how well algae survive regardless of aeration and or movement or depth of the individuals.

7. If I really thought about this and did some book searching I could find other reasons.

8. Basically - As a bottom line, It all depends. This is why one person can swear the aeration solved his algae problem and in another's case the aereator stimulated their algae bloom.

[ May 24, 2005, 08:08 PM: Message edited by: Bill Cody ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 1669 | From: Malinta OH | Registered: Apr 2002 | IP:

EWEST,

Will send the Tilapia paper and address. I would really like to read any articles related to this topic. The more info the better. Thanks.

Woody,

As you probably know by now, I'm not a pro-fertilizer person, but it seems to me that taking a pond to max capacity with fert or any other means is not a good long term practice. We all need margins, myself more than others.

I found it interesting that the Tilapia survived the DO crash. From what I have seen of them, they can survive, even thrive, under conditions which would choke an ordinary fish. The only thing they can not tolerate is cool water.

I think if I do fertilize next year that I will back off to a weaker bloom but I'm thinking that a weak bloom just may "feed" Algea.

I'm sure some of the Bluegill fry get eaten by the Tilapia to what extint I don't know, I don't think many Bluegill fry are surviving the chase from the Bass, I'm hopeing that the Bass will key in on the Talapia and not the Bluegill so much.

Thanks for takeing the time to post up some help and ideas!

Greg, I purchased some water soluble fertilizer from Mr. Davis (thanks for hooking me up with him!) I got it when he delivered my Talapia. I was going to use it on my next application but had the crash before I got the chance. If I fertilize next year that is what I will use. I am back to feeding atleast every other day now if not everyday, between that and the visiting Geese I may not fertilize at all. If I have no sign of Algea at all once the temps warm to 60 degrees next year I may try one more time and maintain 24-36 inch bloom as suggested.

Greg, Am I reading you right that you would use Talapia if legal in your area? Thanks for takeing the time to reply to my post!

Thanks for the reply, I have my well water going thru two "shower" heads and shooting up in the air, the pond was filled with and since topped off with the well water, I also had it tested, I don't think I have any problems there except the fact that adding cold water to warm water is likely to cause some Algea.

My Vertex system is running with 2 diffusers as well.

I think I have just experienced the classic bloom die off after many cloudy days.

I am going to continue feeding thru the summer and harvest a few fish as well, next spring I will have to decide on..... if and how I will fertilize, if no Algea is present when the water hits 60 degrees I may try for the 34 - 36 inch bloom as suggested, gonna play it by ear, so to speak.

Thankyou again for the all the great information!!

At the moment I'm not pro fertilizer either.... Will be a tough decision for me next spring! I think the Talapia are very hearty fish! I have a mix of Talapia, not sure if yours do this but have you ever seen the momma Talapia protecting her fry by putting them in her mouth? I;ve seen her spit out the Talapia between her and the bank and fight off Bass and Bluegill (actually bumping in to one another), if the fish get to close she puts the fry back in her mouth.

Woody,

How's this for impressing you with BS...I think it's actually called the buccal cavity (mouth), the place where she keeps her young. They are quite the fish to observe.

Have you observed the mating warmup? Foreplay, I guess? The males dart in and out all around the place, very entertaining to watch. Not so fun, but nonetheless interesting is to watch the "death dance". I don't know what else to call it but when the water temps get down around 55 degrees, they do this weird death dance, often times it results in them being eaten by a HSB or LMB. Really a show to watch.

ML I have not seen the mating dance, but I will keep an eye out for it now. It's going to be an iteresting fall watching these Talapia.

Alright, which is it Talapia or Tilapia? a vs. i ?

According to no less than the Bass Masters fish provider, our own Sunil, its with an "i"

Websters

And he's right.

ttt