Ok so I am hearing more and more that the BG down south wont usually last past 6 to 7 years. Well I put all my originals in my pond in 2010 and 2011. So they all must be getting close to going to the great fish heaven in the sky...

So should I be keeping my 10 plus inch BG at this point? Are they gonna just die soon anyway... Ugh that's hard to take...

RC

P.S. So in order to get a gill to 12 inches you really better be putting the food down for them I guess? I've done everything right except a heavy feeding program and still don't have a 12 inch 2 pound BG. Course I know there not a dime a dozen either..

While the 10"+ is likely your original stockers, they could very will be their offspring the that next year, or a good 4 year old.

I will let the old bulls die naturally in my pond, and enjoy getting to catch them every once in a while.

My understanding is that feeding will definitely improve BG growth. However, if BG get fatty liver, this will shorten their life, so ultimate size might not improve as much as you'd think.

That's why I feed Optimal, as people I trust have said that it is formulated to avoid shortening lifespan, despite improving BG growth. Better chance of a 6 or 7 year old BG hitting 12" than a 5 year old, feed or no feed.

Of course, my oldest BG are only 2 years old, so we'll see!

If your goal is to grow a 2 pounder, I would not harvest your big BG. My reasoning....whenever I read about BG life expectancy I seem to always see statements like "average life span" and "typical lifespan." My take away from that is it's not unusual for some to live longer. I remember one article that said they can live to 11.

Just thinking. I'm 74 and my best years are behind me. But, I'm not ready to be filleted and fried.

Best way to avoid that, is don't get caught in another man's pond!

at 10+" they're doing something right, they've got life figured out pretty well - might as well pass that on lol

There are other " returns" on our pond/fish investments, than just dinner. I don't harvest my big, older bluegills. If they die naturally and sink to the bottom, then they still provided me years of enjoyment. I don't feel like I'm owed anything.

Obviously my BOW isn't at that stage yet, but I agree. Giant BG are just as rare as giant LMB and should be treated with equal respect. Besides, their superior genetics should be passed on!

Offering my two cents here...In order to have very many huge bluegill, a heavy feeding program is a must.
I'm hearing lots of good things about Optimal, and those folks have offered to send some food so I can learn about it, but haven't received or used any, yet.
I've been able to raise many, many (several thousand) two-pound plus bluegills in a variety of pond and lake situations, using Purina's AquaMax 500...and some 600. I'm confident in that feed, as well. We've grown our biggest bluegills, in good numbers, by feeding small bursts three times per day, feeding enough that fish clean it up within 3 minutes.
One thing I like about the new AquaMax MVP is that it has 9 particle sizes and the smallest sizes sink, allowing smaller fish the opportunity to feed beneath the most aggressive fish.
Also, to dispel a rumor, AquaMax Sport Fish feeds do not cause fatty livers. Not sure where that rumor came from, but Dr. Mark Griffin did the research and several of the Pond Boss family participated in the program. The fish foods which can cause fat livers in bluegill or feed-trained bass are those designed for salmonids.
Whichever feed you choose, be sure it has more than 40% digestible protein.
Yes, you can grow bluegills beyond two pounds...as long as they are fed well.
Regarding whether to keep the older ones, or not, that's a personal choice. As long as you have good control of reproduction with a thoughtful predator population, you can expect recruitment to add to the population to grow some giants.
Also, plan to come to the Pond Boss VII Conference and Expo. There are experts who have done some amazing things growing big bluegills (and other fish) that don't regularly come onto this forum.

[THREAD HIJACK]

Dave -- I'm sure that your comment brings indigestion and very scary thoughts to any poor cannibal who might see your post ...

[END THREAD HIJACK//]

Mostly gristle and fat. And, according to some, pretty well saturated with BS.

Pond Boss Lusk - take one of your large 3 times a day fed BG and clean it. Take a good picture of its liver. Do the same thing with a fairly large wild BG one that has not eaten pellets or one that has been feed Optimal fish food for the summer. Post all the pictures on the forum or in the magazine of their livers. Then repeat the comments in your above post. Your comment does not hold true for yellow perch. Let's see how true it is for bluegill.

every animal i know of that is larger than normal (including us humans) eats more than the rest of the population. i believe food is the most important part of the big bg equation. my res in the pond are not in the class of the bg and i think it is because they don't take pellets.
also i think fish feeding time is important. right now i am feeding 1 time in the morning and twice evening. i believe feeding them right before dark is helpful. it puts them to bed on a full stomach. kinda like us eating milk and cookies right before we got to bed.
if you are wanting fish to eat, maybe you could eat the 9 inch ones and let the 10 inch ones alone to see what happens.

What about the occasional 3.5 to 4 pound BG that is wild caught every so often? Rare, but it happens. Are these freaks of nature or is it attainable in a typical southern pond with the right feeding program?

Bob, as I know from personal experience, your two cents are worth a lot more than pennies! I'm glad to hear AquaMax grows 2 pound BG. Truth is, I've never caught a BG exceeding a pound in my life.

My comment about fatty liver was not directed at AquaMax. However, I have seen images of fatty liver problems caused by other feeds, and heard testimony about such issues shortening BG life.

I wish Optimal had a mixture of sinking feed, like AM MVP. Perhaps due to my infertile water, BG recruitment is an issue and my surviving YOY have been few, unlike the LMB. This despite loads of beds, mostly in the pebble areas you planned.

Thanks for doing a great job with Pond Boss. Looking forward to attending the Forum and learning more!

Bob, I have two questions regarding the research that Dr. Griffin did for Purina, and the food that he developed.

Since Purina has changed where and who produces the Aquamax and Sportfish feed for them, and since Dr. Griffin is no longer with the company, have the fish food formula and ingredients (including vitamins and oils) changed in any way since he developed the food? What year was it when he developed the food?

I agree with Bill Cody, I'd love to see pictures!!!!

Hey everyone thanks for the responses. I don't keep my largest fish to eat I usually keep that 7 to 9 inch range for the skillet, but I was just wondering how true the statement was about a 6 to 7 year lifespan. I just cant seem to keep them big ones and have to let them go in hopes they may reach 12 inches. I only feed twice a day though so I may up that to 3 times but small bursts like Bob says. Course I am not sure I don't have a 12 incher just haven't caught him yet... It all just got me thinking as all my big BG's are now 6 to 7 years old so just a little worried there all gonna start to bite it...

Would love to come to the PBC! But that's opening weekend of Muzzle Loader here and can't miss that. If you can though post some good video would love to watch some of it if possible.

RC

Notice the difference in feeding amounts...Bob sees best growth feeding smaller bursts three times a day, with cleanup times of three minutes. Not the ten minute cleanup that's recommended often.

Wonder how the feeding response is, using Bob's method? At the three minute interval, are the fish still hammering the feed or has response slowed/stopped? What about pond size? I've been thinking lately that I've underestimated that variable in terms of importance.

Yes right now I feed at 8 am for 2 seconds and once at 7pm for 1 second.

The 2 second burst I would say is close to 2 mins worth maybe a little less. I think if I did. 3, 3 second bursts I would be real close to the 3 minute mark for me. I need to actually time it once I guess.


I never was a fan of throwing so much food out there it takes 10 or 15 minutes to clear up not that it wrong but... thats a LOT of food!! IMO. And like I said I am only supplement feeding also. I want my fish to live off the pond as much as they live off the food I am giving them.

RC

I feed in shorter burst. I normally feed 3 times a day three burst pre feeding. I feed 3-9 seconds per spin and food is usually gone in 30-40 seconds.

9 seconds? I guess some of this depends maybe on feeder type. I have a make shift deer feeder which I believe throws more food. I would have food everywhere if I threw food for 9 seconds at a time.... Yikes.. bob said short bursts I wish he would have given a time on it. Short bursts can mean a lot of things to other folks... lol

RC

Another item - Shorter life span may not actually be due to fatty livers but some other unhealthy items in the food that shortens the life span; maybe too many carbohydrates?. How many carbohydrates and excess fats do wild BG have in their diet????? Research by Dr. Griffin is likely dated and maybe not a complete biochemical, physiological workup of the fish was performed. Maybe the study was primarily a growth study comparison. Are the research methods for that study available for reading? I doubt very much the longevity of the fish was considered when Dr.Griffin conducted his study. Plus I doubt other food manufactures consider life span when developing food formulae.

Mine throws 1/2 pound every 6 seconds. I agree, time would be an inaccurate way of comparing how much each different type feeder feeds. Your feeder could throw more in two seconds than mine does in 20 seconds.

Yeah I have never put a bag around it either and tested it as to how much 2 or 3 or 4 seconds puts in the bag. Guess I need to do a little more testing...

RC

If it were simply a matter of pouring the food to em', shouldn't we be seeing numbers of two pounders by now? After all these years? Since I've been on the forum, an entire generation of Bluegills have come and gone. With all the folks feeding premium feed, it just seems like there would be photos galore, if feeding was all it took?

Just goes to show how rare a giant BG really is, me thinks. ESPECIALLY, in a 1/2 to 1 acre, multi species pond, like the majority of pond owners manage.

Can anyone answer the question-How do the occasional, but very rare 3.5 to 4 lb wild caught BG come to be? Why can't we have these in our ponds, given special and controlled conditions?

The state record BG for Indiana weighed in at 3.25 lbs, and was caught from public water in 1972. And I do not expect to ever see that record fall. It's just a one in a million chance, where food, genetics, lifespan, water quality, not being thrown in the deep fryer at a younger age, and probably one or two other unknown variables come into play to create a giant fish.

I've seen quite a few photos of 2lb+ BG from Richmond Mill, but the number of three pounders is far less. Just shows how rare those fish are, and how difficult it is to produce them.

The Arkansas record BG is also 3 lbs 4 oz, caught in Aug 1998 from a pond. I do expect to see that record fall sometime. We have to eventually beat Alabama at something.

What kind of small fry is this

What kind of small fry is this

I would think it is more genetic, numbers, and DNA thing. To me it would be the same as why we aren't all NBA size/quality? It takes a lot of numbers to get a 3# bluegill, but it also takes a lot of numbers to get a 7' guard that can shoot 3 point shots..

Don't mean to boast, but I'm NBA quality. No Basketball Achievements!

That's a good way of putting it Brain. Just like that 10 pound bass they are hard to come by also. I read an article once from In Fishermen I believe that said it takes a fishermen 100,000 fishing hours on average to catch 1 ten pound bass. That's a LOT of hours fishing!!

RC

From my (going on 3 yrs) experience, it's not Easy or Cheap to try and grow big cnbg or lmb. It has been a learning experience to say the least.

It is not complicated. Not easy either.

The first question to ask is "Is this possible ?". Many times us owners are not realistic. The second question is "is it worth the effort ?". Am I willing to pursue that goal to the exclusion of other things I might want?

To grow large fish you need genetics , food , and water quality. A lot goes into each of those items. To get the super sized fish 3-4 lb BG it requires a perfect storm. Genetics , food , location , low stress , water quality , low competition , and each and every one at the right time.

I have had my new TX Hunter feeder (LM135, 70 lb. capacity) set up and ready to go for more than 2 months waiting for the hatchery to deliver my order. I will be using Aquamax MVP to feed LMB, BG & HSB.

We have had a crazy year of weather so far in our part of the Midwest with lots of rain and flooding and the hatchery (reputable) has been way behind their intended schedule. The delivery will finally be tomorrow morning....I am getting anxious and excited to say the least. Hard to focus here at the office. This will be the first time we have stocked fish into our 3 BOWs since the early 1950s.

Cody at TH HQ told me my feeder will throw 6 ounces of Purina Gamefish Chow every 4 seconds.....he said Aquamax MVP is very similar in shape and size to GF Chow. He said the factory settings on my feeder will not have to be changed to accommodate MVP....I checked the specs on the feeder and on the MVP bag and verified that.

So hopefully, by midday tomorrow, the fish will be in the ponds. Only the 1.6 acre pond will have a feeder for now. This is an experiment for us at this point and we will see how it goes for a year or two before adding supplemental feeding at the 2 other ponds.

Did I mention that I am having trouble focusing at work today? BM61.

Congratulations! There is something truly special about stocking the fish that you'll hopefully be catching in a year or two! I had my grandkids out to watch, they loved it.

Wild Bill,
I don't have access to any fish that are fed Optimal fish food. Those images will need to come from elsewhere.

As we do our electrofishing surveys over the next few weeks, I'll ask my guys to collect a few big bluegills (if they come across any) that haven't been fed any fish food...although we don't see any big bluegills which haven't been fed...and I'll personally dissect them and shoot some photos.

Plus, next time I go to Richmond Mill, I'll collect some of those fish, dissect them and take some photos there.

Don't look for those photos soon. It will take some time.

Oh, I didn't make any commments about yellow perch. Not sure the significance of your comment about that. During Dr. Griffin's research, he focused specifically on largemouth bass and bluegills, and how that feed affected livers, as well as growth rates and metabolism.

Yes, those can be considered freaks of nature. Those rare individuals condition into that specific environment, habitat, and food chain. For a variety of reasons, they thrive.

Scott, Purina's fish food formula has not changed. The process to make it changed for a period. Because the sold an extrusion mill, they had to contract with a private mill to manufacture the product. That mill didn't have the equipment to spray fish oil on the outside of the pellet, so they injected it into the pellet and spray another type of animal fat on the outside of the pellet. The formula was the same...the process to manufacture it changed.
AquaMax Sport Fish products were fine tuned 2006-2007.
See above comments about photos.
I'd challenge anyone on this forum to present some photos, and then we can see a variety of results and livers from fish all over the nation.

The response is based on the population of fish. More fish, better response. Bigger lake, few feeders, better response, because more fish come to the feeder. They hammer the feed to satiation, then stop. My experience suggests that three minutes is plenty of time for the "food hogs" to fill up, and then go home. Those "food hogs" are the ones which seem to grow largest, fastest.

While there must be carbohydrates in fish food, bluegills can't metabolize carbs. Carbs in fish food designed for carnivores are there to help physically hold the pellets together. While some fish do metabolize carbs, as catfish, carp, and tilapia, carnivores don't need them. Dr. Griffin's research had two primary objectives. First, he studied growth rates. Second, to a lesser degree, he studied livers to determine fat amounts. A lesser objective was to figure out the best vitamin and micronutrient package for carnivores. He did this in 2006-07.

One thing to keep in mind, everyone...even with the best fish foods, feeding your fish is supplemental. There's not a bluegill in a recreational pond anywhere that is solely dependent on fish food. The dynamics of what happens in an aquatic environment precludes that assumption. Bill Cody can feed the "best" fish food he wants, and only some percentage of his fish will eat as much as they can consume for those few minutes. Think about it a little more deeply and we can safely conclude those fish get a meal for about three minutes, maybe three times per day. Depending on the temperature, they'll digest that food within 4-6 hours. Since the food is designed to be digestible, it may happen faster than that. Between feedings, bluegill are still what they are, or why would they bite a bit of night crawler on your hook? They continue to feed, at every opportunity.

Dr. Griffin did not do a complete physiological or biochemical workup. Their research lab is designed to create the best feeds, not make fish run on a treadmill. No feed manufacturer does that, to my knowledge. And, no any proprietary research isn't available to the general public. Heck, even the state where I live, the Parks and Wildlife Department won't share their largemouth bass genetic work, and they are publicly funded.

Here's my bottom line about this subject. I rarely saw two-pound plus bluegills until Purina developed their AquaMax line of fish foods and improved the formulation in 2006-07. By 2010, I was seeing many, many two pound plus fish. I directly attribute that fish food to boosting the nutrition of fish in the lakes where it's been fed. Not only did bluegills grow because of it, I've also noted an increase in aquatic insects, invertebrates, and other foodstuffs which bluegill eat. I attribute that, to some degree, to nature utilizing fish waste, uneaten feed, and a change in population dynamics of fish.

Lastly, I can't address any change in lifespan due to a fish food. In my opinion, I think many fish's lifespans have been increased due to feeding pelleted fish food. That's partly due to better overall nutrition available, but just as much because those parcel of the population didn't get eaten themselves because of an overall boost in the food chain.

One other comment...there is only some percentage, I think it's less than 20% of bluegill which survive long enough, that CAN grow into giant sizes. I think there's a propensity, if genetics and behavior allow it, for a fraction of fish to be able to grow to those sizes. All the fish food does is give them the opportunity.

Sparky, I think you are right on! It's way more than "just" fish food. It's habitat, it's population dynamics, it's the predator population, not just fish food. I personally believe habitat plays a giant role in producing huge fish of any species...not just bluegills. With that said, I totally believe good fish food gives the boost that those special fish need to be able to top out at huge sizes.

We'll have a speaker at Pond Boss VII who addresses that topic. Some of his successes with growing big fish make me shake my head as I wonder about the commitment to it.

Maybe feeding bluegill to rapidly get them from fry to a pound plus, then releasing into a fairly large lake with the right habitat might result in a few three pounders?

I definitely think that could give an advantage. Our good friend, Bruce Condello, when he had his farm, would hand pick the "best of the best" of his bluegills for a handful of characteristics as body condition, growth rate, and size and would keep those fish for further growth studies. Then, the "best of the best" of that original group would be kept for broodfish. Over years of genetic selection, he named them the "Condello" strain. People for miles wanted young of the year of those fish.

I think of it a little different I guess. Is a 120 pound 1st grader healthy or is he obese and unhealthy. Does the doc call the parents raising that child with concerns? The vet will tell you your obese cat is unhealthy and needs a diet..... Seems in the "fish world" the obese fish brings praise to the pondmeister but are they really healthy or doomed to a short life and thus never reach that 3 to 4 pounds? Seems I never hear someone say "that fish is too fat!"

IMVHO fish that are 95 to 110 % Rw are healthy fish and what I shoot to achieve in my pond. Fish with 130% or higher might be obese. (Caveat here is that the ladies are allowed to be high Rw when gravid...I know my bride was! )

With respect, I don't agree with obese fish, either. Personally, I'm bothered by obese fish. But, when I see a fish that is the equivalent size perspective of a Shaquille O'Neal or similar, I have to smile and think about the good things of it. Just think, if Shaq had lived in an environment where he wasn't fed properly, AND didn't have the opportunity to excel, would he? I'd suggest he wouldn't have.

I agree with that. He is pretty tall. I wonder what his Rw is considering his weight? My concern comes when fish length is disproportionate to their weight. What if Shaq weighed the same he does now and was only 6 feet tall. That's why I think Rw is a valuable tool with respect to fish health, and bigger numbers might not necessarily be better if you are looking for a fish that grows at a more natural rate and will live long enough to be a trophy.

Edit: Hey! BTW I am not saying fish should not be fed pellets! I feed Optimal BG and Skretting 3 mm. I'm saying that maybe the right amount to supplemental feed is what keeps the fish on target for an appropriate Rw, not how much you can get them to eat.

I'm totally down with high Wr numbers. When I hold a BG or HBG with the math hovering around 160%, I get giddy. And yes, those fish are wide across the stomach. And the chest. And the back. And they're tall also. I guess what I'm trying to say is, a high Wr doesn't have to equate to obesity.

If someone were to ask me today what I thought the best, fastest way is to grow big bluegills, my answer wouldn't be the same as it was 3-4, or 5 years ago. It's evolving as I go, and while I still build the foundation using the 4 cornerstones of food, water quality, population control, and limited cover, I think I might expand on them a little.

Nowadays, I think having the liquid geography available to devote an entire ecosystem to just bluegills, the willingness to allocate resources to that single ecosystem, and the knowledge to remediate the eventual issues that will arise in that ecosystem, would be paramount to reaching the goal.

FWIW I think you also need the "Shaquille O'Neal" genetics in the equation to produce a 3 or 4 pound BG.

Bob, you can get some of mine to compare. They are fed Optimal, and probably good comparison since my stocker fish came from you.

>>>Might not work, because mine aren't old enough. BUt they will be in 3-4 more years if this debate is still going on....

Re more frequent feeding of smaller amounts, I see a couple of advantages.

First, if there is competition for the feed, the fish get more of it.

Wouldn't have thought about that until I watched my "feed trained" geese go from feeder to feeder. If 12 seconds of feed thrown (1 lb), they can get there in time to chow down on what the fish haven't gotten yet. If 3 seconds, by the time they get there it is almost all gone to BG.

The other advantage of shorter feed times: Makes it harder for GBH to grab unwary fish. By the time they get there, almost all feed gone and fish less likely to come in shallow chasing stray pellets.

I think the importance of genetics is directly proportional to the goal at hand. I look at growing big bluegills almost like building a drag car. To go 300 mph, a fuel car needs the appropriate engine, a dialed in clutch/drivetrain, a good set of slicks, and an aerodynamically adjustable frame to hold it all together.

To go above 300 mph, we need all the above, plus some fine tuning and wing adjustments. If I equate this to bluegills, I get:

Engine= feed
Clutch/drivetrain= water quality
Slicks= population control
Frame= reduced cover

If my goal is 300 mph or 2lb bluegills, this is a really good foundation. If my goal is 300 mph plus, or 3lb bluegills, I need something extra....I need to fine tune and adjust, or I need good genetics.

I know this may not be a popular opinion, but I really believe that given what I know now, the advancements in feed, (optimal), and a clean slate to start with, I feel positive that I could grow a notable number of 2lb bluegills with fish sourced right off my local fish truck, no pedigreed genetics needed. The population in the HBG pond is getting up in years, I have actually been pondering trying this very thing with it.

I would agree spark to some degree. I got my BG from a decent fish farm but nothing said they were of any GREAT DNA chain. I have done nothing but put air in my pond, supplement feed, and cover and I have 11 in BG so like you said I think I am missing that one extra "thing" or tweak, if you will to get to 12 inch 2 pound BG. Or maybe I have a few just haven't caught them yet? I don't know for sure. I imagine at the 12 inch 2 pound mark they can get somewhat hook shy and smarter than your average gill....

RC

large enough track to even be able to get to 300 MPH = pond size

Dang it, I was holding that one as my trump card!..want to grow a 2lb bluegill in your half acre pond? Stock a quarter of whatever number is recommended.

You might be able to, but you will have to really push the limits. Just like hitting 300 on an 1/8 mile track. You just can't get out of the throttle at the finish line and still get to 300. By the time you get to 300, there is not enough track left to slow down. It would likely be on one time run.

Bill D. RW is only 1 tool. While a very good tool it does have its deficiencies and only tells part of the story. Regional differences are large in national RW schedules. Also they are almost exclusively from wild fish , not pond fish. There are other condition factors which help in the fact finding. BG (and most pond fish)have an entirely different biochemistry/metabolic structure to land based animals (BG do not metabolize carbs and their lipid structure is completely different). One pond fish that does metabolize carbs and can get obese are HSB.

While you'd think Top Fuel was the fastest, that really belongs to Funny Car at 335 mph in 1,000 feet... Lea Pritchett in Top Fuel is the quickest at 3.65 seconds.. I don't know what his incrementals were, but I'm sure that he was well over 250 mph at the 1/8 mile mark.

Tony, I think you are correct. Give the fish plenty of space to swim, reduce the amount of stress they have (which includes keeping water quality at optimum) and feed them a great food.

I stocked feed trained LMB that were 2 years old in my pond in 2010. I've not seen any this year. They were floy tagged. 2 years ago, (or was it 3?) an 18.5" LMB weighed 5.95 pounds.....

I haven't seen any floating, so did they die and sink or were they removed without me knowing about it? I can't answer that question.

I totally agree with this. This may seem counter intuitive but I am inclined to think that the likelihood of a two pound bluegill is diminished by increased pond fertility (to include feeding as a source of fertility). Notwithstanding this diminished trophy potential, the likelyhood of 1 lb fish is much improved. In a BOW where 2lb BG can occur naturally, I have doubts that fertilization or feeding can increase the potential of the largest BG in a sustainable manner. By this I mean that perhaps there may be an initial benefit to the largest BG but that after a year or two the BOW may no longer be capable of producing BG of the size it could previously. Certainly the BOW would would have a greater biomass of BG but this would be distributed among more of them. The fishing would certainly be better, producing more harvest size bluegill, but may no longer support the trophies it produced before.



It is certainly true that 2lb + BG are very special and rare. The consideration of multi-species is an important one I think. A BOW capable of producing 2 lb BG must support the large BG but also annually produce a significant poundage of YOY BG to feed a significant poundage of small bass. The BG that grow to 2lb+ are the rare survivors which live to outgrow the gape of the predators.

sprkplug, I totally agree with this but perhaps not for reasons you may suspect. I would propose that there is no such thing as very poor bluegill genetics for growth. The reason I propose this is that bluegill survival should favor the faster growers. In any situation where predated, natural selection should weed poor growth genetics. This is not to say that all genetics are equal, only that they are relatively _good or great_ but never poor when the BG brooders were subjected to predation.

In Alabama, the DOW tested whether there was anything special about the genetics of BG in the world record BOW. They concluded that when introduced to other environments they were not measurably different than other BG. I think this is important. I think it is unlikely we will ever develop better BG strains than nature or that genetics will contribute any more than a small difference.

There is "feeding" and then there is "FEEDING".

Put ten fish (with absolutely no other fish) in an acre of water and give them all the feed they will eat and I'm sure there will be different results than supplementing feeding a pond that is full to carrying capacity of a variety of predator and prey fish.

Many of us feed but not specifically for trophy's or even to feed satiation levels.

To get a lot of 2# BG I would think it would take some very specific feeding conditions, not general supplemental feeding of an entire carrying capacity pond.

I have two problems with "pouring the feed to them". First is cost (if it is a significant size BOW) and second is water quality. I dropped back from feeding 5-6# feed per acre to 3 or less specifically because of water quality issues.

John, I don't think I can answer the question precisely, but I think the answer may lie in understanding the waters from which these BG have been caught. The BOW from which the world record BG were harvested would be a great case study. I say "were" because more than one world record size BG has been caught there (one official the other unofficial). It is not known how many, but certainly this BOW has/had produced a fair number of 2 lb+ BG.

The BOW was a limestone quarry. So here are some ideas ...

1. Being a quarry, ground water may have flowed through the BOW keeping the water cool enough to inhibit BG spawning through much of the summer. When I look at a ground water temperature map, Montgomery AL has a average groundwater temp of 67F. This is below the spawning temp of BG and so if a flow of groundwater inhibited spawning this might have had three important effects. Note that LMB recruitment would not be inhibited by this temp.

a. Delaying the first spawn would decrease BG recruitment and limit the size of 0 year BG further diminishing recruitment.

b. A shorter spawning season would increase the time BG could forage without the interference of spawning.

c. A shorter spawning season might significantly reduce spawning stress and extend lifetimes helping BG attain much greater weights.

d. Just thought of this and added as edit. If ground water flowed through the BOW it would also have a warming effect throughout the Winter which could extend the growing season.

2. With little soil, the BOW is of limited fertility. Limited fertility allows for greater light penetration and clarity.

a. Greater light penetration may have benefited water quality by deepening the depth of photosynthetic activity increasing the volume of oxygenated water. Coupled with the higher oxygen carrying capacity of cooler water, the fish in the pond may not have experienced DO depletion stresses. Low fertility would reduce nighttime respiration reducing nighttime oxygen draw downs. Perhaps less DO stress helps to extend lifetime and help fish maintain a path of growth through out the growing season. For sure, the BG in the world record BOW do not experience concurrent DO and spawning stresses in the way that fish in other BOWs often do.

b. Clarity helps BG find food and LMB control BG recruitment. Both are predators and both benefit from clarity when it comes to growth.

3. This is pretty conjectural but it is worth considering. I think the BOW may have produced a significant biomass of YOY crayfish and large insects. There would be a lot of cover for crayfish in this BOW. If this cover was sufficient there may have been significant production of a small crayfish that reduced feeding effort and provided the necessary easy growth food needed to attain the remarkable BG weights the BOW produced

OK. so these are just a few ideas of what may make this BOW favorable for producing world records and perhaps this might provide some ideas that one might employ to mimic the circumstances needed to produce very large BG.

Also one of the main reasons is - the reason is basically why we are not all as big as Labron James and a few other very tall basketball people.

Many quarries in the Fla/Ga area have the 2 most important conditions need for high productivity. The quarries are either limestone and or phosphate. If you put those 2 together , which occurs in this area a lot you get very high productivity. Some studies show 2000 to 3000 lbs of fish per acre capacity. Don't know if this is the case on the described lake.


Also there is no doubt that over time you can select for size and fast growth in BG and get high potential for 2 lb BG. See Bruce Condello's work. BG as a species have alternative reproductive methods (sneeker/cuckhold males) which select for small size. This is an alternative reproductive survival of the specie adaptation.


It is critical to look for answers from all angles and perspectives. How long would Labron survive in the land of the pigmies?

Eric, I just don't know but the same you suggested has occurred to me as a possibility. In what I have read, the water is ultra clear and the BG in the lake easily spooked. I wouldn't think it would harm anything though to be very fertile provided it didn't cause DO issues. If there is groundwater flow, highly fertile water could still remain pretty clear and cool if the volume exchanges every few days or so. This water is certainly very special but the vastly reduced BG reproduction and moderated temperature may be two very important pieces to its puzzle.



Bill, yes but even a 6 foot tall man can weigh 500 lbs. He has to eat a lot and not expend too much energy for it. He'll keep growing as long as there are surplus calories and he lives. Mortality probably isn't an insignificant factor in BG ultimate size. Even so, a 500 lb 6 footer is an outlier not much less rare than a Labron James. Most people just won't eat that much. Probably BG have differing propensities to eating heavily as well.

It seems to me that it is difficult to know how big a typical pond owner's BG might get in the BOW that grew the world records. I question whether the run of the mill BG are terribly impaired genetically. It seems very reasonable that they might attain 2 lbs and 12"+ assuming the predation scenario that existed through the periods when the record fish were caught. Certainly, there are genetic outliers but we really don't know and can't quantify just how they are distributed about some mean value except by a case by case (BOW by BOW) basis.

To be honest, when I hold a 9" BG in my hand I am grinning from ear to ear and in no way disappointed in him. Greater than 10" is real treat. Though I have fished extensively for BG, I've only caught one of 12". I was just blown away by its dimensions and a lot younger at the time. I wish now I had released him. 12" BG are rare but I think they could be more common as we learn more.

To be sure, growing a 12" bluegill is more complicated than just controlled reproduction as you discovered with the male-only BOW. Even when there is little competition it matters how young they are when sexed and they have to continue living after reaching the size they normally die at.

Richmond Mill's water is so acidic there is no viable BG recruitment, and it has more 2#+ BG than any other BOW I've ever been on. Do regular rules apply when talking about anomaly's? If the water conditions were more favorable to BG as a whole, would Richmond Mills still be the BOW it is? They obviously feed heavily, but I'm with John (snrub). If you're feeding all the BG in a healthy pond, I wouldn't think the odds are as good for a 2# BG. Believe me, that last quarter pound is tough to get even on 10.5"+ BG.

I am feeding all the BG, but only shooting for BG over one pound. First CNBG are now about three years old, and about 7 to 8 inches, but very thick. I think they might get there in the three years or so of their remaining lifespans.

Maybe a food for BG will come out with synthetic growth hormone, which will allow them to reach unheard of sizes. Might not want to eat those though?

Richmond Mill's also has an unnatural quantity of LMB. They, like the BG are pellet fed. I presume because they are pellet fed they must be sourced to a hatchery and not naturally recruited. It is really difficult to make a plausible case that Richmond Mill's is an example of what one can expect from a feeding regimen. This is only a theory, I can't back it up, but I suspect that feeding does more than just grow existing BG. I wonder if it helps more BG achieve the gape limit making the need for feed all the greater if one has trophy BG goals. Richmond Mill's is an exception to this theory it would seem. I wasn't aware its poor recruitment was assisted by acidic water. However, couple this with an unnatural quantity of LMB and it might be trophy water whether one feeds or not? Whatever the case, feeding doesn't prevent 2 LB BG there for sure.

John, I hope you get your 2#. I sure would like to see a few of them on the forum.

jps, my reference to Richmond Mills was used to show a BOW that had a limiting factor that actually helped the trophy BG production. Something different the the standard favorable water conditions we all want, and the dual role of BG as both prey and predator that almost all of us with LMB have.

The point is well made. To be sure there is something special about any water that can produce 2lb BG. Low recruitment is one the special requirements. In the case of Richmond Mills, it might need feed in order to produce them. It would be interesting to know the ultimate weights BG achieved prior to feeding. It wouldn't be definitive because recruitment would have probably been more successful without the large LMB numbers but at least it might serve to demonstrate an example of the dependence of feed to produce a larger _ultimate_ sized BG. If they did achieve larger ultimate size without feed, it seems likely that they were rarely caught as compared with the relative ease that 2 lb BG are caught there now.

With regard to Richmond Mill's. Does it classify as a true trophy LMB lake? Or is more of a very large numbers of decent sized bass lake?

I have been struggling with the feeding mysteries.

If I feed more, am I growing bigger CNBG, or just more CNBG??? Year one I fed about 800# per acre for the year. year two about 1000#. year three I'm thinking of backing back down to the 800# range.

Is feeding 800 pounds in 6 months, different than feeding 800# over 10 months by feeding longer in cooler months when water is in the 50s?

If I know I'm going to feed X amount, wouldn't it be better to feed that amount when fish are at max growth rate based on water temp?

Is brand A feed better than brand B??? How much better????

Where is the sweet spot in #s feed/acre???

Am I putting too much effort into trying to recruit anything resembling a Shaquille O'Neal or even a Dennis Rodman out of my 1A pond size??? What are the odds???

Very good questions - as Dave Willis often said "we just really don't know" !

Brian, its probably not one or the other but both.



Feed is but one part of the equation and it is easy to be seduced by the illusion that feed may make up for shortcomings elsewhere. A trophy CNBG pond will by necessity have many, many starving LMB. Unless recruitment is limited by some other means, if your pond doesn't meet this criteria it probably will not produce 2lb BG no matter how much feed you give them. Only maybe 200 BG/Acre/Year can achieve 8" + status if your heart is set on 2lb+ BG. These fish should achieve this length by the end of their second year. Considering every year millions of fry hatch per acre, a major thinning of 0 year BG is an absolute must. The next major thinning are the 1 year olds greater than 6". To have 2lb bluegill requires intense mortality of 0 and 1 year olds. If its not happening, there will never be enough food to go round to make it 2lbs.

I think that feed can help grow 2lb+ BG but it simply cannot on its own. If the predator population structure and fisherman harvest doesn't ensure low numbers of 8"+ 2nd year fish, the feed requirements to grow 2lb+ BG would be unhealthy and unsustainable for your pond.

With regard to feeding, unless big LMB are your goal, I would never feed pellets small enough for a 0 year fish to consume. This is not by experience and it isn't advice. It's just what I would not do if I were paying the bill at my trophy BG pond. O year BG are a trophy BG BOW's worst enemy. You need only a minute portion of them to survive to the gape limit. Every mouth to feed beyond the necessary works against the goal of Monster BG.

A forage pond is recommended for LMB goals. For trophy BG, one may need a "predator pond". Perhaps a pond with LMB and shiners to help maintain the small bass population of the trophy BG pond. If recruitment is limited as suggested and one doesn't feed the 0 year fish directly, it may be possible to grow a few 2 lb BG in a 1 acre pond. The key would be limiting recruitment.

(Edit) You know what? 2lb fish must be extremely difficult to achieve and just may be pipe dream. 200 8+ BG/acre/year might be too much recruitment to prevent overcrowding of big BG. Below is tabulated a 5 year grow out from the 2nd birthday. The assumptions are 20% annual mortality with 2nd year BG numbering 60 per acre at the beginning of the 2nd year. 100 % mortality at the end of 6 years is assumed. .4 lbs gain/fish/year is assumed.

YEAR_LENGTH__NUMBER/ACRE__WEIGHT/FISH_GROSS WEIGHT_Mortality%
2_____7.9________60___________0.4________24.00_______20.00
3_____9.7________48___________0.8________38.40_______20.00
4____10.3________38___________1.2________46.08_______20.00
5____11.2________31___________1.6________49.15_______20.00
6____12.0________25___________2.0________49.15_______100.00

______________________________________GR WGT TOTAL
_________________________________________206.78

This distribution of sizes would be a significant portion of the typical fertile pond's BG carrying capacity. The O year offspring of these fish would need to support the predators. This may be a very rosy outlook Perhaps a more realistic picture would be greater yearly mortality or fewer 2nd year fish. I just don't know. It must be exceptionally difficult to restrict reproduction to these levels. Perhaps the only easy way to restrict reproduction to this level is to annually stock 60 7-8" males/acre. In that case the carrying capacity need only be 210 lbs/acre. So even a poor pond with a little feed might be able to do it under a male only scenario provided they live 6 years and grow an average of .4 lbs a year.

Brian I have a theory. It is based on absolutely nothing but the turning gears in my head so don't put any faith in it but here it is anyway.

I have always fed around the entire circumference of my pond (except on extra windy days when I do not feed on the side the wind will blow the feed to the bank). I throw it out hand full at a time while driving around the 3 acre pond in my UTV. I feed only once a day. I do not think that is a good way to feed if the goal is to raise some trophy or large BG. (But I do it any way - what is that definition of insanity again......).

My theory is that by dispersing the feed in a wide geographical area with all feed in a single feeding a greater number of fish get fed a small amount. So from an efficiency standpoint of raising the overall poundage of fish in the pond (carrying capacity) I think my method converts the feed pounds to fish pounds well. The problem is I have lots of small and mid size fish with few large BG.

Contrast this to a program where I would feed with 1, 2 or 3 feeders in specific locations around the pond feeding multiple times a day (but with total poundage of fish feed being identical). With the feed being fed in specific locations and fed multiple times a day, the more aggressive "pigs" could more likely dominate the feeding area and get a disproportionate amount of the feed compared to the smaller or more timid fish.

So to my way of thinking to raise big fish it would be an advantage to feed in such a way that a relatively small number of the aggressive fast growing fish get more access to the feed multiple times a day.

I have told myself more than once I just need to stop and feed in three specific locations rather than dispersing the feed so widely and I would grow some bigger BG. But I have formed this habit and feeding the fish the way I am used to is just too enjoyable for me to quit.

Many pet owners think they train their pets. I think sometimes the opposite happens.

Good thoughts, John. If catching is the goal, feeding from just a few places has the great advantage of concentrating the fish. The best four spots on my BOW are located around the four feeders.

I do feed from one spot and have a feeder. I got a good start with my CNBG, so I can see how feed really helps that initial jumpstart when stocking, but now I wonder how it is affecting things now. What you are saying makes good sense about feeder hogs, but when throwing one piece at a time into the group, it isn't normally the bigger CNBG that gets the feed. Normally the 5-7" is fastest and gets the food.

They do line up and stare at me between feeder spins going off, just begging for a little extra feed. They eat well.

I feed in one spot on the pier, 5 ac pond and catch BG at the other end of pond and it throws up pellets..... I’m thinking that the fish that feed around pier stay there..... what y’all think?

Pat I know hundreds come running out from under my pontoon boat dock each time the feeder goes off so I believe they live there but...I also know I have several lmb that live under that dock also. Right before dark I see lots of cnbg feeding activity all over the pond. Thinking they may cruise around for a snack before bedtime. Don't think they feed much at night if any.Are your shad still schooling around on the surface?

Bluegill in my experience are inactive at night. I have netted them out of a lake at night (for catfish bait) using a light, and they just sit still and get netted.

I don't think they will feed at night.

BG feed heavily at dusk and dawn in summer though.

Herons are not active in low light, so dusk is a good time to feed, if you can keep resetting your timer as the time of dusk gets earlier as summer goes on after June 21.

James, I think an additional advantage of the dock in summer is that it offers cooler water underneath. In False River they found that many docks had 20F lower water temps than the surrounding lake.

James I have not seen the shad (or whatever) for a while now

BG will travel a good ways to come to the feeder. Easily can cover a 5 acre lake to come eat. LMB have been shown to move miles over a day.

BG do not feed much in very low/no light conditions when LMB are in the mix. LMB have better low light vision and lateral line perception than do BG so the BG are in danger when moving at night.

I can see my BG making waves as they come from all over the pond when I walk up to the pier to feed. It was the same with the CC last year.

The quarry in Alabama that produced the world record is called Ketona Lake. There is pretty cool story at this site :

http://www.worldfishingnetwork.com/stories/post/the-fascinating-story-of-two-world-record-bluegills

Somehow deep inside my memory from viewing this a couple of years ago I must have remembered the cool waters. But only recently considered how this might affect spawns. This quarry filled very fast after a dynamite blast connected it with a spring.

Neat story