With regard to anecdotes, I urge everyone to maintain a skeptical stance. To be sure, if you do one thing, (e.g. change feed), you might observe coinciding things, (e.g. less FA). In as much as this is true, the observation is coincidental. This isn't science. There are other things happening that were not noted that has an impact on FA. None of the ponds I frequent have feed inputs, yet many of them have issues with FA or Bushy Pondweed. The cause is the nutrient load and/or insufficient competition for those nutrients.

It has been long established that the assimilation of nutrients when a animal consumes prey is very inefficient. Generally no more than 10% can be assimilated. So how much of dry weight of feed can be assimilated into the dry weight of a fish or used in metabolic processes? That's it, no more than 10%. The rest passes through along with wastes of the metabolic processes. There is no way feed can be the cause of a 50% reduction of FA. It just can't be the cause even though we have a coinciding observation.

The nutrients in your ponds are going to support vegetative growth. Its up to you to control those nutrients and to direct those nutrients by whatever means you have available and find desirable. But this I guarantee. There will never be a reduction of vegetative growth arising from the deliberate introduction of nutrients to your water ... UNLESS ... you do something to mitigate them (e.g. bind the nutrient, smother the sunlight from the vegetation, harvest vegetation or fish, stock TP or GC, etc)

Last edited by jpsdad; 12/08/20 08:13 AM.

It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so - Will Rogers