Think I'll be little more direct. When I started this forum 20 years ago, it was to offer solid information and true-world experience. I love the science as much as anyone. The science of pond management is evolving. It truly is. No one can debate H.S. Swingle. That guy started it all with his work to help people grow protein during hard economic years. All the scientists did their individual work that is still becoming a body of work. The guys who make a living at it, like me, take that complete body, use it as we work with landowners in the real world to make it happen for them. I used to think pond management was about 10% science and 90% "art". I've changed my mind. We have more tools today, so it's more like 20% science and 80% art. Anyone here can debate that...just don't do it unless you've been out there for decades implicating many of those theories, only to figure out nature has two huge rules where she pushes back. Nature detests a void and a bounty. You can take all the theories and papers and science and throw that stuff in the mix, but when you are paid to produce results in nature, you have to learn that all the science in the world is nice, but most of the time, it's a piece of a much bigger puzzle.

If someone wants to raise some fish in a small pond, go for it! I'm in. I just probably won't have a ton of sympathy when I get that call that there was a fish kill from some random summer storm, or the otters ate the biggest fish just before they were harvested, or a comment comes across the transom that, "I spent way more money on raising fish for my family than if I'd bought them from a producer."

If anyone on this forum wants to speak from any authoritative position, I expect qualification. There's no way I can convince anyone I'm an "expert" unless I properly credit the science sources so as not to take credit myself, and get out there and do it. In my opinion, as a professional pond management guy, I have the most respect for those who have done it. Sure, I have respect for science that others do, but I'm not ever going to use that as my sole opinion. The variables of each situation keep me from that.

Phil, this next statement is directed to you. I love the science you look up. From reading several different threads, I see some push back toward what you are posting. Rather than speak as an expert, I think it would be better to give your advice, but do a better job of quoting the source. I can tell by reading what you write that you have a passion. I can also tell by reading what you write that you've not spent a lot of time actually doing what you write about. I think it would do your intelligence a better service if you answer these questions with proper credit to the source...just like you are writing a scientific paper, which you are.

I have a younger brother who used to say, "I learn from your mistakes." Glad he did, but like all of us, we still make our own...and there's no way anyone can learn from other's mistakes. All they can do is pull the first layer off that onion. Heck, I'm still learning from my mistakes, but now it just a lot more fun. One thing I've tried to teach my kids is, "You can't live with something until you live without it." They saw that way back, early in my entrepreneurial career, when I couldn't pay the electric bill for a few days. They had a greater respect for electricity after five days without it.

Here's the bottom line...advice from a book or scientific papers is good. I dare anyone to say otherwise. Those papers are typically narrow in scope and usually lead to other questions. I see scientific writings as one tool in my tool box. When I see someone write about something as a definitive expert because of something a researcher did under controlled situations, I respect it just for that....a controlled experiment in controlled, replicated circumstances to make sure the science is correct. I admire that, respect it and rarely use it. Grasping the theory is part of the deal, putting it to use where there are some controls is nice, but the reality is we have very little control over what nature wants to do in a pond in Pawhuska, Oklahoma compared to one in those rocky soils outside Nashville, Tennessee, compared to the acid water of Laurinburg, North Carolina. This stuff is a mix of a little bit of science and a whole lot of art, which comes with experience, luck, and a good fundamental understanding how nature works.

I hope my message comes across as intended, without arrogance or malice.

Teach a man to grow fish...
He can teach to catch fish...