Originally Posted by anthropic
Interesting idea, jpsdad. But if the main effect of feeding is indirect, why has the Kingfisher Society Lake now have so many 2 & 3 lb BG? It has very high water flow & extremely low fertility & pH, which mitigate against secondary & tertiary effects on the lake itself.

Frank, you're questions of late are always better answered with questions.

Why would you conclude that a lake which conditions prevent nutrient retention and uptake into the food chain is evidence that there is no gain from secondary effects in a pond where the conditions are favorable for secondary effects? That a great majority of nutrients pass through BG is provable on the basis of dry weight conversion.

I say they have so many 2 & 3 lb BG because they don't have so many BG for the amount they are feeding.


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