Pond Boss Forums GENERAL QUESTIONS Water chemistry Ken's hatchery Recommendations

Deb or Ken, I asked similiar questions before but never got an answer. I'll try again. EX. 1 acre pond in Georgia and want to increase production and have 8 ppm hardness/alkalinity what specifically would you recommend? What products and how much? What do you feel is desired hardness and alkalinity level in this situation? thank you for your time

Is this the Ken HolyYoke down in Tifton?? At least I hope not....

Hey Greg! I think the problem in communication rests in the way we test. I will try to paste a copy of our water test to this link, but it might not come through. Also I am not back at the lab, so excuse any spelling errors I may have in the chemical names.

Let’s take your example of a 1 acre pond:
When a customer brings in a water sample, we measure out specific amounts of water for each individual test. I am not in the lab, but I will guess at close to a quarter of a shot glass for hardness and alkalinity. Then we do the following test
Hardness: a) Add 3 drops bufferin solution
b) Add two drops on Manver Hardness
c) Add Titrent solution drop by drop until the water turns red
to blue. We then multiply that number by 17.

Alkalinity: a) Add 1 drop of Phenophthale solution (1%)
b) Add 1 small packet of Bromcresol Green-Methyl Red Indicator
c) Add Sulfuric acid drop by drop until the water turns green
to red. We then multiply that number by 17.

Using this equation, not yours, we like to see water quality above 120 (this might relate to your equations as 7ppm, I am not sure). We raise quality with Cal-plus (calcium) and Bufferin (sodium bi-carbonate). We have found that every pond is different (some absorb chemicals into the soil as you know), but on average this works well for us. Now recommendations should vary with drastic depth changes, but in a standard situation 5 of the 50 lb bags of each will raise quality from 0-51 (mind you that is using our equations not yours). Hardness and Alkalinity need to be equal!
I hope we can go about all of this in a peaceful manner as I am ready and eager to learn what works for you. Ken has been out of college for a few decades, and I for almost 12 years, so any help you could offer would be appreciated. This is just what has worked for us and our ponds.

Any suggestions without slamming me !

Deb

No slam and thank you for the detailed answer. I have seen the water quality sheet and reason for my questions/explanations. We run a very similar test. Most folks agree hardness and alkalnity levels should be above 20 ppm. I think this is the same as what you want to be above 120 ppm. If not then how in the world can we compare? So why so high?

Ok, so you suggest the 5 bags to raise 0-51 so if you want 120 from most ponds in GA starting at 10 or less you need to add 10 bags about right? This is (old price list) $120 for CalPlus (hydrated lime, right) and $150 for bufferin or $270 plus shipping for 1 acre pond in example. This is not too bad but how long will it last will normal rainfall/excahnge rate?

Hey Deb you have been very honest so far so I expect another one. I hope folks are reading this, many times stick to quesions thread. thanks for your time and hope you understand my concern with these products.

Hey there! We are not using parts per million in our equation, and I think that is the confusing part. We just use a round "layman" figure which actually seems very comparable to yours. And Lord have mercy no that is not the right price. Our calcium is only $12.95 per 50 lb bag (reducing to $11.00 over 10 bags), our bufferin is only $15.95 per 50 lb bag (reducing to $13.50 over 10 bags), and our lime (which I believe you are confusing with the calcium) is only $10.00 for a 50 lb bag. We use this to raise pH, and with it being slack and not ag., we only recommend 25 lbs per acre per week to raise .5 on the scale each time.
I kinda think we are on the same page (or at least the same library ) but are circling around it. Tell me how you all measure and fix things please. Given time any chemical is going to have to be replaced due to rain/drought. Have you found a way not to have to do this?

Deb

Off the subject, I know the baby thing is still new, but has it sunk in that they might all have taken root. Take a pillow with you to the doctor's office and place it on the floor behind you when ya'll go in for the first sonogram. I don't even now you but am terribly excited. It brings back memories. And by the way I meant what I said about non-fish questions and discussions. I will even give you my private email or home number. God bless you, your wife, and the new life that you have NO CLUE what you are getting in to. If you go after fatherhood with the tenacity that you have posted here, your gonna be great.

Being read Greg, good stuff

I just can't buy Kens ideas. To do so flies in the face of every aquatic Biologist I have talked to or read from. Also my own personal experience.

Biologists in most Southeastern States recommend 500 BG per acre at initial stocking time. Others recommend 1,000. The difference is in the waiting time to stock predators. I'm not a Pro but have certainly lost a lot of fish from fertilization and thus overstocking with a resulting DO crash. Of course, I'm in an area of low rainfall where one acre can become 2/3 acre in a hurry. That's reality in my part of the world and overstocking can be unintentionable but still fatal. I've initially stocked several new ponds with a seine. I've also killed my share of fish by either neglect or "experimenting" with over stocking.

We also try to keep our predator load at about 100 lbs. per acre. That seems to work; sometimes too well. If I wanted to catch a bunch of bass and catfish, I would overstock. Those starving fish would be easy to catch.

Starting off with pond dye sounds questionable. There is a cycle of life in the "normal" body of water. It begins with plankton that is started by light entering the water and ends with whatever is the top of the food chain. We have all seen the pictures. Assuming that all fry would feed in the top of the water means some fish would have to adapt differently (RES). Actually it seems to say that all fish would have to become topwater feeders. Maybe I'm wrong here. As stated, I'm not a Pro; just a pond junkie.

Nothing wrong with a bug zapper. Others have reported getting favorable results with them but they won't feed the masses.

I'll take Bill Duggans word about the growth rates of the GG. Evidently, Ken has developed a faster growing fish and deserves a lot of credit. I believe I would only use them to supplement BG so I would have a continued forage base.

I understand how some of the stuff works that Ken recommends. It's a different balancing act that I think very few hobbyists could make work on an ongoing basis. Count me in the "Oh Ye, of little faith crowd".

Deb, ok you are right we are going in circles. It is not my equation it is the standard way by most everyone in the pond industry. I use the same method to get the alkalinty and hardness, excpet I use a more expensive digitial titrator and can read direct results directly or use a calcualtion to get true ppm (or mg/l) Total Hardness. The formula you are using is based on the same thing, if not why do you come up with a completely differnt chart than anyone to send out to clients with the water quality report. They ssume it is total hardness and recommmend 120 when eveyrone else recommends 20ppm.

This makes me (and others in the know)wary when I see this so if it is different look into the calcualtion and see what you recommend for total hardness not some equation diff than everyone else.

On my example I did use the right price just went ahead and did the math 10 bags x $12.95, for 1 acre pond to raise to 120, get it.

Ok, on to major difference in opinion yes I did not figure out way to get around the rain dilution, it was taught in class. It is called agricultural lime. When done properly at 4 tons/acre you can get 4-6 years without having to add other chemicals to raise the level to above recommend level of 20 ppm. However the water quality test suggest to the client not to use ag lime b/c it slow reacting. Correct it is but also slow to be reomved from the pond. Can you see my point and why I get upset when I see the water test? It suggest products that will raise the alkalinity to really high levels but only for a short period of time then guess what they have to buy more. If it is a 0.25 acre pond maybe not a bad idea but with a 2-5 acre pond will cost $1,000's and have clients spend that with you only to have poor water quality when I test the water. Thanks again for your answers.

Greg, do you use a Hach Digital titrator?

I would have to try Ken's formula exactly before condemning it out of hand.

It appears that Ken's method is "brute force", as opposed to the balanced method that's favored by biologists. I liken it to harvesting wild wheat vs. a modern wheat farm. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. Modern wheat farms require high maintenance with massive equipment, chemicals, and expensive improved seed planted every year.

As we know, many experts rail against massive monoculture for raising wheat, but there's no question that a modern farm produces more.

That said, I think I prefer balance. It's obviously less expensive and more carefree for the casual ponder. The brute force method is obviously more expensive, but the rewards are great. Big, agressive bream that grow fast and bite hard in huge numbers are certainly tempting, but I also like variety.

Ross you got it right hach digitial titrator is the best method I've found for field accuracy since most of the time we are talking about 15 ppm or less. If you are in places where it is 100 ppm or more no reason for extra expense.

Greg,
You make a very valid point, and are out of my field on this. Biology and chemistry are two totally different subjects that work together. Chemistry was never my strong point, so if I tried to further my point right now it would be purely guessing. I have never questioned the methods we use (glad I joined the forum), so if you don't mind I will take a little time to research what you have said against others and our own. I am not admitting defeat , but I currently don't feel comfortable defending this. Is it ok if I pick this up later? Thanks.
As for the price conflict I "get it" as you so eloquently put it. In fact I got it right after I posted and reread.

Thanks for asking these questions and opening me up to a possible change. Get back to you later!

Deb

Greg,
Forgot to ask you a question. Since you are in the pond management field I hope you can help me with this one. I know it is all but impossible to test for dissolved oxygen from a test that is brought into the lab (versus done in the field)due to movement and displacement, but does the same hold true for the hardness and alkalinity. If we are testing in ppm, can that # change if not tested in the field? The reason I ask is because all of our testing is done in our lab from a test that is either brought or mailed in. I wonder if that could be the reason for the difference in techniques? Just pondering!

Deb

Bobad, I put on a disclaimer saying I'm not a Pro.

However, your likeness to brute force is pretty apt and I don't think brute force works in nature. Maybe temporarily but only temporarily. I've tried it and never won.

WARNING! This is going to get wordy. I liken a body of water with fish to a pasture full of cows. The grass is the forage and the cows are the predators. I have always found that the best cattlemen are actually grass farmers. Take care of the forage and the cows will take care of you. You can do rotational grazing of the forage and come out pretty well as long as you don't overstock and thus overgraze. Then the sun bakes the barren ground and no grass grows for years. Not much recovery for quite a while. Or you can plow up the native grasses, plant improved grasses and fertilize. Every year you have to increase the fertilization until you hit the point where nothing grows without heavy fertilization. Let a drought hit and you will be feeding hay. Since droughts hit areas and not individual properties, hay gets pretty expensive and the price of cattle drops. Then your pasture/environment is ruined and you are losing money. I think the original idea of managing resources and not using brute force to improve productivity is the best way to do things.

Like you, I believe in a managed, balanced pond. However, I think the great rewards from brute force are only temporary and may or may not materialize. Mother Nature always balances the scales and corrects our attempts to brute force anything environmental.

But then, I'm not a Pro. Just my opinion; but I have no faith in overstocking of any forms of life. Or maybe I should say that I no longer try to force feed nature. The penalties always seem to out weigh the benefits.

Dave i'm confused are catfish grass or cows

Bill, some might consider them forage for humans but my Grandkids have named mine. Now they are neither.

LOL, little Ava got a Scooby Doo rod and reel for her two month birthday

Dave,

You are so right! I don't claim to be even a good cattleman, let alone best, but recognize the absolute truth in your words and the applicability of the analogy to ponds.

Deb thanks again for responding and get to later no problem. I agree about DO but do not think alkalinity or hardness will change. We are using the same techniuqe but instead of dropper I'm using a digitial titrator so do not need to mutiply by 17. No big difference really just a little more accurate. Not sure we can get this figured out or not.

However maybe answer the comments about ag lime, does the water report say somehting about not using it, if so why? I will be out in south TX until Sunday and will check this if possible.

Hey Duggan, I have been expecting you to post a picture with her and her first fishin pole. HINT!

Alkalinity and total hardness are relatively stable parameters and do not normally fluxuate significantly in a few days when in a sample bottle. Samples with high amounts of algae can cause a shift in the forms of alkalinity from bicarbonate to carbonate and from carbonate to hydroxide. During these changes the total alkalinity remains constant; however the pH can change (source: Chemistry for Sanitary Engineers).

Greg, I too have found it to be pretty accurate when compared to samples processed by the company lab. In my line of work I deal with huge variance in hardness & alkalinity levels. I just carry 2 different cartridge strengths for testing the variety. Cuts down on the cost and the time when I'm running alot of samples.

Hey Greg! Your question is still in regards to our water testing and the chemical components/recommendations. Give me time to research please. I know we do not recommend the ag lime, but as I stated to you before I do not feel comfortable without further research. I did read over our water test directions last night, and I discovered that we test in gpg (grains per gallon) instead of ppm. So our testing methods are different from yours. I am more than sure your methods are more accurate, but we can't travel to a different state everyday to test straight from the pond. My real concern with someone's water quality (when fish are dying) is ammonia and pH levels. But again let me remind you that I am still in the research part of this so give me some time.

By the way, I asked this question on another thread but would like to hear from you also. Why fertilize a pond? Please don't answer me like you did before with what you learned in school... I am curious about your field experience. No offense about the school thing (been there - done that), but times and teachings change. Remember that for decades people believed the earth was flat because that was what they were taught. Also doctor's go to school for years, then intern, then residency, yet they "practice" medicine until they retire (in other words they continue to learn and adapt). One week they tell you cheese causes cancer, and the next week they will say it is the best thing for preventing heart disease (unfounded analogy). That is because life is in constant change, and we have to change with it. I am not saying anyone here has to change (I'm kinda playing devil's advocate), but let's all entertain the thought. You know what I am saying.

Anyway, tell me about what you do!

Deb

0.058419 grains per US gallon = 1 ppm

Just multiply G/Gal x 0.05419 to get ppm total hardness.

SO...if I have 100 ppm x 0.058419 = 5.84 ppm

Thank you Matt! Now I will attempt to compare testing methods. This forum is a great teaching tool!

Deb

GG Man - Deb, Fertilization of ponds is a method to increase natural productivity and increase or enhance the food chain which provides more natural food for the fish, thus more growth or fish biomass is realized, supported or obtained. Fertilizations by increasing the plankton component of the water column, reduces sunlight penetration which inhibits growth of submerged rooted vegetation on the pond bottom. Fertilization produces somewhat similar results as feeding fish food and using pond dye (Aquashade). Many other brand name dyes are mearly make up and do not adequately suppress rooted vegetation. A search of previous posts will provide much more discussion about these topics.

Thank you Bill! We opt for the feed and dye (not die ) method. In our experience this has aided in growth of the fish without an overabundance in growth of vegetation. But I am speaking of only what I have learned here and experienced with our clients. You all have by far more experience with this than I do. What, is any, are the downsides of fertilizers? Are they considered chemicals, and if so what is their environmental impact? Can you site some chemical compositions for me to research this weekend please?
Thank you for your patience with my questioning. I am learning alot from all of this.

Deb

Deb, Everything you do to a pond has pros and cons (downsides). To be fully aware of them, One has to be knowledgable enough to understand the implications of action and reaction of the aquatic communities (pond ecosystem,) to the "stimulus or stimuli".
Fertilization can be in the form of natural or artificial; organics vs inorganics. Everything natural or manmade when it is added naturally (wind or runoff) or added by humans to a pond filled with "clean" water or if in pristine condition is some form of pollution to that pond. It is a matter of degree.

Everything organic breaks down into the basic chemicals (elements) thus technically most everything added to a pond is / are chemicals in one form or another. Their environmental impact in regards to "fish ponds" basically depends what the goals are for the pond. Here we frequently talk about the importance of goals of the pond owner.

The basic chemical compositon of inorganic fertilizers is various compounds consisting primarily of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potash. Sometimes other additives for the various macro and micro nutrients are present.

If you have time, I suggest that you review many of the posts in the forum heading of - Fertilizer. If you read all of them you will no doubt be dizzy trying to assimilate all of the information.

Since you work at the hatchery, I am sure that "Ken and company" have heavily indoctrinated you, and understandably so, with their philosophies of pond management. This web site will often present both sides of many pond situations, and when viewed and studied with an open mind, they will maybe broaden your outlook and understanding about various types & methods of pond management.

In reference to your question regarding the impacts of adding inorganic fertilizer and for example; the "feed and dye method" and associated stocking rates recommended by "Kens" puts tremendous impacts upon an enclosed or contained aquatic system. In just one aspect alone, consider the amount of high nutrient manure that all those fish daily produce in a pond with no flusher. Something has to happen to all that continual manure accumulation while the artificial dye is inhibiting natural photosynthetic, heterotrophic, and bacterial processes; something has to be dramatically impacted in the whole process.

"The diversity on this forum, just as diversity in nature, is healthy and beneficial. Open mindedness leads to learning." (Quote by Bill Cody)

Above quote duly noted, as is the last post (in great comparison). True I work for Ken, but I have stated more than once of my eagerness to learn from this forum. This is a new subject for me (and I admit I am jumping in with both feet). So if everyone would be so kind as to teach and not lecture (there is a difference), I would be much obliged.
Bill you have opened my eyes a wee bit more, but my innate ablity for stubbornness still keeps me leary of but one's theory. This might yet again be a thread with no ending due to opinions (which are healthy), but I still welcome the knowledge that you and others in your field have gained through your decades of experience. Consider me your sponge!

Deb

Deb, I have been out of town, trying to catch up. I combine learned knowledge from school lectures, seminar, etc and seem to learn more OTJ. SO preaching to the choir on that one. I will give quick answer on fertilizer b.c others have already said most of what I would have said.

You did admit you do not suggest ag lime. Is anyone else reading this?

YOu can look into diff in testing, etc. but the core of diff is you recommendation on the products vs. ag lime. Ag lime will do the same thing in the long run raise the hardness and alkalinity, it is slow but last much longer. Based on cost is 10 x's or more less $.

I'm not trying to slam you, really. Just this is not scientifically based at all to not use this source. It seems to me to be money driven and this is what I get upset about. I make recommendation and yep make a living doing it but sell based on sciene not what aids my pocket book. Proof me and all others that use ag lime wrong that it is not the way to go.

Ross, yep I use the .16 sulfric acid catridges unless I know it is high then use the 1.6 to save reagent, good to see not the only one who does that.

Greg you might be right but I have always wondered in Ag lime is cheaper. BTW I use Ag lime. Lets use my pond as an example 3.5 acres in middle Georgia. On average wouldn't a new pond of that size and location take 10-12 tons of Ag lime. What would some one charge to bring that out and spread it with a boat? On average how long would it last until you would have to reapply. I guess in seven or less years.
With hydrated lime if it took 10 50 lbs a year(yes I'm guessing)at $10.00 a bag(I checked) over seven years you have spent $700.00 liming vs the upfront cost which I am guessing is much higher.

Educate me where is my thinking wrong

BD, great example.

3.5 acres in GA usualy recommend 4 tons with low alk so 14 tons, last about 6 years (depends of course on flow and this will effect hydrated also so let's use 6 years). It will cost to have it spread about $50/ton for labor and lime so $700 total in 6 years.

Ok with hydrated lime to raise to good alk levels takes about 100 lbs/acre so 7 bags x $10 equals $70. So how often? At least three times/year. So $210 x 6 years equals $1260

So $1260 vs. $700 not too bad. But wait. This does not figure your time in there for 18 times having to put out the stuff. Another point ever put it out? Very caustic where long shelves and mask.

Also hydrated lime can cause fish kill, the pond guides will warn you about this. Ken has a good formula with the buffer to prevent this. So based on Ken's prices if I may add $13.50 (discount rate) for buffer to help prevent fish kill from hydrated lime (is this right, Deb?). THis would make it another $1701 in example or $2961 for same period of time as ag lime that cost $700.

Again I just would rather do it "right" even it cost more one time in 5-6 years than every few months. Make sense Bill, others?

Yes, I was off two ways, first I thought buying and spreading Ag lime was more than $50.00 per ton(what are other seeing) and it did not take the amount of hydrated lime you quoted.

Bill,

As a reference point, this summer I bought 26 tons of ag. lime for about $35 per ton spread on pastures, hay fields and ponds. I agree with Greg that it lasts at least 5 years in ponds. If spread in your drainage into the pond, even more effective...helps the pasture and the ponds at the same time.

Greg,
Quick question (and no I still do not have all your answers, but I have been moved by this entire forum to do some lengthy research so sit tight and be patient).

In regards to all of this liming, how would you treat a 1 acre pond with a pH of 8.5 to 9.0 with a poor total hardness reading? Would you still throw in 1000-2000 lbs ag lime?

BTW if you did not get a chance to read a prior post, I did discover we measure in gpg and not ppm. Some nice gentleman put a conversion chart in that thread for comparing the two. That will explain why you were so outraged at our numbers of 120 plus. Like I said before, I think we are on the same page (although you seem to have read further down).
Anyway, I am still reading posts, catalogs, and web pages trying to learn all I can. Appreciate all the brain stimulation!

Deb

Deb, if ph was that high maybe not, what time of day was that reading taken. I base it more on total alkalinity readings becasue that is what controls diurnal pH fluctations. If low (<15 ppm)I would recommend more than the amount stated. More like 8,000 lbs/acre like in above example.

I did see the GpG but still does not change recommendations, right? Who came up with reporting this way? If one of your clients wants a second opinion they could not get one if it is gpg, why not convert to ppm so it is jives with everyone else out there checking pond water quality? I think I know why you report it this way it goes right along with why you recommend the products that only raise alkalinity for a short time. Are you consulting Ken on these talks here? I would Love to hear his comments on the subject of CalPlus vs. ag lime. I do appreciate you responding.

Greg our test comes straight from Hach Labs.

Let me simplify the question, if you add 1000-2000 lbs of ag lime (attempting to raise total alkalinity) into a pond with a pH reading (midday) of 8.5 to 9.0, wouldn't you run a high risk of killing the fish. How many points does 1000 lbs ag lime raise pH?

As for Ken and the difference of questions, I have been taught here at the hatchery and am furthering my education through this forum, so no I have not asked him. That would defeat my purpose of comparative analysis.

Deb

OK what gpg

Deb, ok I understand it is Hach but they allow you to convert o ppm and everyone does that to compare apples to apples. So if you want to look into this tell me in ppm what you desire so we can compare with other known recommndations on lime applicatiosn, etc.

Ok if you are honestly learning here, no 2,000 lbs will not change pH really at all. Deb When you lime a pond you really are not liming the pond but the pond bottom. THis is why most everyone recommends ag lime vs. hydrated. It will slowly over months rasie the pH slightly but more importantly rasie the alkalinity. I can explain more but loading up to head to lake in SC at 5:00 am.

Grains per gallon. 1 mg/l or 1 ppm = 17 grains per gallon.

Deb - pH should not be normally used to determine the amount of adjustment needed for carbonate additions (alkalinity /hardness) because pH can fluxuate quite a bit during a 24 hour period, depending on several water quality parameters or influencing factors. For one, the amount of pH fluxuation will depend on alkalinity of the water (buffering) and the amount or density of plant life present, usu phytoplankton. This is especally true in waters with low alkalinity and abundant phytoplankton. Noticable swings of pH can occur in these waters. During daylight (esp more so w/ sunshine) plants absorb CO2 from the water, Hydrogen ions are bound or lost and water pH goes up (losing hydrogen ions). Obviously the density of the phytoplankton at time of measurement can have a big affect with this. It is important to note here that the water turbidity due to non-phytoplankton items is an important factor also in this AND a secchi disk reading may not be measuring total phytoplankton density but it could be easily indicating other suspended solids in the water column. At night or on cloudy days plants can have a net release of CO2 (produce more than they absorb) and this forms carbonic acid; in this reaction H ions are released and pH goes down.

Another cause for pH swings is decompostional processes i.e. denitrification of nitrate to molecular nitrogen and reducion of sulfate to sulfide, both result in a net loss of hydrogen ions and pH goes up. This may be an important role in ponds with heavy feeding and manure production where lots of decompostion needs to occur.

In eutrophic conditions more CO2 is produced due to all the extra biological activity and thus pH can have more rapid changes compared to a pond that is not as nutrient rich or organically loaded.

Tendency and causes for pH to fluxuate can be caused by numerous conditions and using pH allows more room for errors or improper conclusions. Alkalinity is a more stable parameter and it typically fluxuates very little over a 24 hr period, when considering varying weather, time of day or "pond" conditions, thus alkalinity is typically used as the standard to determine amount of carbonate or hydroxide materials needed to adjust the water hardness / alkalinity /buffering capacity.

I've been rethinking my previous post on fertilizer and believe I ought to modify it. It's not for me because I don't need it and if I take care of my land, I don't have to fertilize it. Some land that I recently purchased had been heavily fertilized and now will only grow weeds. It will take a while to correct. My ponds don't need it and in my arid climate, it would be disastrous.

However, there are places with beautiful grass that have virtually no protien. Cows can eat all day and lose weight. There are also places in pine tree country that need additives to produce fish. They also get the adequate rainfall that I don't.

OK, I feel better now.

One important point totally missed in this thread...you aren't comparing 'apples to apples.' Aglime is naturally mined calcium carbonate, in ground form from stone. Its pH is something less than 8.2. So, that product cannot raise the pH of any body of water higher than what it is. Hydrated lime is Calcium hydroxide. Its pH is way too high, somewhere around 13. It is volatile, and artificially raises the pH. That's not the problem in ponds. Alkalinity is the problem. Hydrated lime cannot raise the alkalinity. Alkalinity is a measure of carbonates. So, to properly improve acidic ponds, aglime is the tool of choice.

And this proves why you all do pond management, and I dissect fish for a living. Wow! Please keep the information coming because I am most certainly taking it in.

Thanks a bunch,

Deb

Bob if you are still online please check your mail!

Deb

I want to clarify and elaborate on Bob's previous commment. The part of his post I am emphasizing is below:

For this information I had to go "to the book" and I used my textbook for a graduate school water chemistry course - Chemistry For Sanitary Engineers by Sawyer & McCarty - McGraw-Hill Series.


I propose that hydroxides do contribute to alkalinity of a pond. My reasoning follows:
The book states -"Although many materials may contribute to the alkalinity of a water, the major portion of the alkalinity in natural waters is caused by three major classes of materials which may be ranked in order of their association with high pH values as follows: 1) hydroxide, 2) carbonates, and 3) bicarbonates. For most paractical purposes, alkalinity due to other materials in natural waters is insignificant and may be ignored." "Under certain conditions natural waters may contain appreciable amounts of carbonate and hydroxide alkalinity. This condition is particularly true in surface waters where algae are flourishing." "The algae remove carbon dioxide, free and combined, from the water to such an extent that pH values of 9 to 10 are often obtained."

"...... alkalinity is thus a measure of the buffer capacity.... . Alkalinity is measured volumetrically by titration ..... . The amount of acid required to react with the hydroxide, carbonate and bicarbonate represents the total alkalinity." If necessary the hydroxide, carbonate and bicarbonate alkalinities can be calculated.

As an interesting side note, the removal of carbon dioxide by algae tends to cause a shift in the forms of alkalinity present from bicarbonate to carbonate and from carbonate to hydroxide. During these changes the total alkalinity will REMAIN CONSTANT.

This is interesting stuff if you are concerned with the details of alkalinity.

Cool beans, Cody. As I understand it, phytoplankton depends on carbonates..that's been my primary focus. Thanks for the clarification. Now, I'm compelled to learn more about alkalinity.
As usual, you are the man.

Here is some info on the topic ( first link ) and water quality matters ( second link) for "forum members" -- no implication here that you Bob or Bill don't know this material already.

http://srac.tamu.edu/tmppdfs/7107322-464fs.pdf

http://srac.tamu.edu/index.cfm?catid=25

ewest

Bob, thanks for post I though I explained that but once again you did a beter job. Have you ever used hydrated lime. We try not too but have on occasion where near impossible to get ag lime in. I understand the chemistry mentioned by BC (good stuff) but can tell you in one case... when applied at a rate of 75 lbs/acre it rasied hardness from 12 to 36 and alkalinity from 10 to 28 ppm, 5 days after application.

However and this is my point with Deb 2 big rains and one month later back down to 18 hardnes and 16 alkalinity. So in 95% of cases ag lime is way to go. This is my "beef" with the Recommendations provided by Ken they do not last and over time cost much more money and energy. Your thoughts here, Bob?

Deb what is the chemical compostion of your "calicum" and why is bufferin necessary? You claimed under GG thread the products last as long as ag lime explain please.

On another note I like the way the GG thread is headed back to science. However when put in a defense measure by comments made I have to make remarks back. This is not good business and know one cares to read it so I will really try to just let it go. I want to say somehting else but will not. Deb I will not bring up past clients claims if you will simply answer questions without hidden agendas to get more mgmt. thanks

Greg that last sentence to me reads that you will take the high road after you get to take one last cheap shot. Did I miss something.
BTW used the last of your fertilizer yesterday good stuff

Bill,
Please no offense intended but, WHY is Greg the "bad" guy here? Why is it a "cheap shot" to request someone answer straight forward questions? I too would like to hear the answers!
Alot of answers have been given but not the specific ones.
It is not unreasonable to ask why one recommends one product over another.
It IS however intresting why these questions go unanswered.
The only response I have heard is "some people are close minded".
Well, evasive tactics are common in politics & certainly fool alot of people, but I would still like to have straight forward answers to Gregs questions.
To date I have heard nil. Why is that?????????

I agree with Ric Swaim. One should be able to defend their statements with good answers that are reproducable. Hopefully the answers have some scientific background, or merit or are the result of some testing or actual field experiences where hopefully some data or photographic records have been collected. Opinions are that just opinions.

Ric no offense taken, Ded has stated that some questions she does not know the answer to and will have to research them and try to get an answer. I think thats fair. If Greg had finished his sentence "if you simply will answer questions" I would not have posted. It was the "without hidden agendas to get more mgmt." that I thought was inappropriate and uncalled for.

Greg's a friend and we know we have a difference of opinion on Ken.

Bill Cody :

Thank you very much !!! Very well said and needed. This is doubly so when the opinions are comming from a scientist/hatchery who sells the product or gives out plans of advice. Please give me the science to back up the advice so I will understand. If the science/facts/ background are given and the fisheries scientists on this forum have a problem with it then double caveat emptor (let the buyer beware).
ewest

Guys please just stop the roll of this thread for a moment. I have been a biologist since 1994, but have only been dealing in this industry for 2 years. In the beginning I was asked our procedures, and I answered this question. Then a barrage of questioning came that I could not answer, and I stated that (on several posts). Are our methods right or wrong? I do not know. Our ways are what I was taught, and until joining this forum only three weeks ago I never had a reason to question these procedures. Now with all the information I have read here and elsewhere I agree it is a subject that we might need to change. But I still am not comfortable enough with the subject to speak accurately on it. Do not misconstrue any of my words as an evasive tactic with a hidden agenda. See it for what it honestly is as a person with a scientific background who is taking an intellectual approach towards researching a subject that she is not familiar with. Give me straight biology, and I am comfortable defending what I have learned through the years. This thread however is all new to me, and the least you can do is give me the time to research that I have asked for. Again this is not evasiveness, but an admitted lack of knowledge in a particular area.

Thank you,

Deb

Deb, may I make a suggestion to you?

In my opinion, it may be a good idea to re-register yourself on this forum as yourself without any reference to GG/Holyoak.

I say this because as a biologist, you have not really participated in the root biology phases of what Holyoak is doing or has done. Therefore, your defense of said topic, or attempts to enlighten the forum have to be viewed as "pro-company" party line statements. I believe that you have made it clear that you do not really know the answers to a lot of questions that are being asked of you.

If I have to make a guess, I don't think those answers are going to be provided (easily, anyway) to you and then to the forum.

If anything, Holyoak has to now realize that providing information to this forum is equal to providing technical information to some of the top professionals in the industry. Holyoak has not done this in the past, and I don't see them doing it now.

Again, this is just my observation, but as long as you post under "Georgia Giant Man," you will always be viewed as a proponent of Holyoak. Of course, there is nothing wrong with being a proponent of Holyoak (or an employee), however, you have not participated in what their trade secret really is, and therefore have your hands tied as to discussing it in the depth that certain forum members want.

Thanks.

I agree with Bill Duggan that Greg's last comments of his 11:06 AM post were not needed, as were several posts before Geaorgia Giant Man was a living entity on this forum. I dont know how any of you can keep defending his public bashing regardless of what you think of his targets' products, or methods.

Take the high road after one more shot; that's how I saw it. Let the bashing begin-on another thread so it won't get buried.

burgermiester,
I would agree with you had it been the first time Greg asked. But it wasn't.
Those of us that are curious about the GG & WANT the claims to be true need these questions answered!

I think most people will rephrase their questions to be more pointed when the answers don't come.

For those of us that have known Greg on this forum for a good while also know he has a real concern for pond owners. He is an asset that I don't want to see run off. Many have benefited from his knowledge & advise here.
Greg has given a couple of testimonials of customers that turned to him after following Ken's advice, to restore their pond to something they could enjoy.
I think deference to a known peer of Pond Boss members is called for.
Who knows, maybe Greg will hang himself here & at least 2 PB members I know will be thrilled!

I well understand that research takes time. I can be patient. Most of us should understand that collecting scientific data can take time while a study runs its course. I think at least some of the previous discussions were for asking the questions and for "setting the stage" of what type of data we are expecting when ever the answers were provided.

Deb has endured a blitz of questioning which she probably never expected. So far she has held up quite well considering that she is new to "Ken's team". She may want to do as Sunil suggests; sign in under a different name.

that was typo.. supposed to read "Deb I will not bring up past clients claims if you will simply answer questions without saying I have hidden agendas to get more mgmt. thanks." She stated GG info but said somehting like it benefits those who manage lakes to stock a certain way. I felt I needed to defend myself there. I simply meant with typo for her to not make these type comments.

Bill hope that makes it diff. I swaer other than defending myself I have been fairly straight forward with questions and not made the claims I made prior to Deb speaking up.

Deb, I understand you have alot of questions I appreciate you trying to answer them. I tried in my last post to ask simplier questions. 1. Please can you simply tell me chemical composition of what reads in the catalog as "calcium"? THis would be a start if I:m to understand your recommendations.

Who knows, maybe Greg will hang himself here & at least 2 PB members I know will be thrilled!

Ric, that is typical of 'one last shot'. I dont know Greg, Deb, Ken or you, but do recognize when questions are being skewed due to regional competition. I don't give a damn who hangs who.

Thanks greg did not seem like you to make that statement, hope you understand me taking it that way

Bill

Burger, did you read my last post? how are my questions skewed? I'm trying to get straight forward answers by asking straight forward questions, see that as you will. BTW I have made one sell in that area of their hatchery so sorry bud no competetion there we are about 4 hours apart.

Greg, why are you so hung up on "what's in the bag?" People on this forum have posted that hydrated lime has been their product of choice for years, due to limited access to pond, ease of use, or whatever; and they have a good bloom all summer. I have a bloom with no fertilizer and neutral pond.

I would have told you long ago; you want to know, order a bag. Yes, hydrated lime washes out after a big rain. It's pretty obvious that when all or nearly oll the water is exchanged, the chemical makeup won't be the same. Yes, I understand that ag lime blended into the bottom will slowly replenish the alkaline components.
There is more than one way to 'skin a cat'.

Deb, you're losing way too much sleep tending to this forum. Check back when you have all Greg's questions answered(stocking rates & 'what's in the bag".

bruger, man talking about screwing up a potential learning experience. Get your facts straight, have you read the post? I just explained I have used hydrated lime and agree with what you said it does not last, does Deb understand this? Bob described ag lime perfectly. Deb said in a post they recommend "calcium" not hydrated lime. BTW hydrated lime is calcium hydroxide, CaoH, duh not the info needed. I'm tyring to find out what they mean by calcium.