Comment has been: "2) There is no significant advantage in size or growth rate between CNBG and Northern BG. ""Not so - all species grow faster/do better under optimum conditions for that species - so CNBG do better /grow faster in the south and BG do better/grow faster up north.- ewest""
Is there research that shows the true Northern BG growth lags behind that of the CNBG if both are raised in the south with the same long growing season and optimum food? I would like to see that data. If there are studies on this topic they likely did not follow the growth of the study fish for more than 1-2 yrs or to a size of 8"-10".
IMO one of the main features that slows growth of good quality genetics of northern BG is the comparatively short growing season they have where growth is minimal during late Oct, Nov, Dec, Jan, Feb, Mar and most of April (less than 60F) which equates to about 6 months of little or no growth where ave daily water temps is 50F or below. (See more discussion of this in my post below). As I recall Lusk says the pure strain southern BG is not the same strain of BG as the pure strain Northern BG. Does anyone else remember reading this?? Cecil Baird and others that raise northern BG indoors in warm temperatures, in optimum conditions achieve excellent growth for these fish. This initial or rearly growth rate would, could, should rival growth of CNBG of the southern part of the US.
Why wouldn't a close to the same specie of fish grow faster (larger) if it was able (60F) to grow about twice as long during a year assuming food was not limiting? Has anyone actually done this using something close to scientific method? Test fish should should be an enhanced northern BG such as Condello strain and a proven quality CNBG. Arn't the largest individuals of pure strain BG and CNBG in Richmond Mill similar sized??? I have never personally seen them so I am just asking the question. Those that have fished Richmond Mill should be able to comment.
Last edited by Bill Cody; 12/24/15 03:26 PM.
