Originally Posted by jpsdad
Originally Posted by Snipe
It's purely the moment in itself that they (and I) will remember the rest of our lives...

In the end, the legacy that really matters are memories. Making shared memories worth remembering is one of highest pursuits one can undertake.

On another tack. I would like to address feed quality. It's a challenge to produce feed that meets the nutritional needs of fish and every species has differing nutritional requirements. To be sure, fish feed is not gluten and melamine. Snipe is currently conducting a trial that is demonstrating that fish convert feed very efficiently. The results thus far indicate that feed formulated for centrarchid predators converts comparably to dried fish. It's hard to argue that anything is better for fish to eat than other fish ... so I am not trying to say that fish feed is equivalent to 100% dried fish ... rather ... I am saying that these feeds are pretty darn good at providing nutrition to centrarchid predators.

As always there is a balance with me and just like drinking too much water can kill a person ... too much feed can also kill a pond. One of simpler ways to gain a sense of this nutrient addition is just to equivocate the feed with dried fish. If equivalent, the wet weight of dead fish fed to a typical 1 acre pond (at 50 lbs feed over 5 months) is 1250 lbs wet weight fish. This is three times the standing weight a fertile pond carries. One question that comes to mind is whether one year of feeding in combination with liming can transform a pond of low fertility to one of acceptable or high fertility? Another question is how long can one sustain this level of nutrient addition without causing severe problems such as excessive primary production (vegetative growth), fish kills, etc.? The question is not yet answered but it is one that I am deeply interested in understanding. When I have my pond one day, I want it to be one that my great grandkids could enjoy into their later ages. Far too little concern about the nutrient loading effects of feed prevails ... but like RAH ... I respect the rights of everyone who choses a long term path of nutrient addition and control. Even so, I will follow RAHs lead, example, and approach to pond management with only one exception (I will make a focus of population control). Are you concerned about adding too much feed to your ponds nutrient reservoir? If not, then you might possibly make the mistake of drinking too much water as well.

Based on my experience in the infertile, acidic soils of east Texas, you can add a LOT of fertilizer & fish food without even getting an acceptable bloom, much less causing excess nutrient loading. The one and only time I've ever had a really good bloom, good enough to make me worry about cyanobacteria risk, was last year after 95 percent of all my plants were killed via herbicide. (That wasn't the intent, but that was the result.) The pond got really deep green for a couple of months, viz about 14 to 16 inches, and I sweated it out until it gradually cleared up.

Richmond Mill Lake's tremendous success, an even more infertile body of water than mine, shows that feeding can work to build a great fishery without overloading nutrients. Maybe that will change in the future, but it hasn't so far.

Last edited by anthropic; 07/15/21 01:59 PM.

7ac 2015 CNBG RES FHM 2016 TP FLMB 2017 NLMB GSH L 2018 TP & 70 HSB PK 2019 TP RBT 2020 TFS TP 25 HSB 250 F1,L,RBT -206 2021 TFS TP GSH L,-312 2022 GSH TP CR TFS RBT -234, 2023 BG TP TFS NLMB, -160