Pond Boss Magazine
https://www.pondboss.com/images/userfiles/image/20130301193901_6_150by50orangewhyshouldsubscribejpeg.jpg
Advertisment
Newest Members
BamaBass9, Sryously, PapaCarl, Mcarver, araudy
18,505 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums36
Topics40,964
Posts558,005
Members18,506
Most Online3,612
Jan 10th, 2023
Top Posters
esshup 28,541
ewest 21,499
Cecil Baird1 20,043
Bill Cody 15,151
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 779 guests, and 195 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
#64257 01/27/06 05:36 PM
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 150
C
Member
OP Offline
Member
C
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 150
This was taken from the January issue of In-Fisherman. It covers an interesting topic that may apply to some - the first that comes to mind is Bruce culling his "slow growers." I'd like to hear your input and discussion.

 Quote:

IS FAST BASS GROWTH OPTIMAL?

Long Term Bass Research – Much of the support for stocking Florida-strain bass is based on studies suggesting that young Floridas grow faster than northern-strain largemouths. There is evidence that more fast-growing and thus larger fry survive their initial winter. But there has been little evidence, other than the capture of huge pure-Florida and F1 hybrid largemouths from select superior bass habitats, to suggest that fast growth translates into greatly increased production of larger bass.

A Texas Parks ad Wildlife report provides insight into the relative long-term importance of fast and slow growth.* In 1985, Texas biologists bred two pure Florida largemouth, then separated the fastest and slowest young bass into two 400-bass groups. The groups were stocked and maintained with adequate food supplies in separate but equal pond habitats with yearly growth and condition recorded for 17 years. The number of bass in each group was reduced as bass grew, food requirements increased, and natural mortality occurred.

Three years after the experiment was started, bass were given electronic tags so records could be maintained. This allowed stocking a pond with 50 fish from each growth-rate group and 50 from a control group that grew at average rates, so variations in pond habitats would not affect comparisons. The sex of each individual was identified at age 6 (1991) during a spring examination, so growth differences related to sex could be identified.

Slow-growing bass fry lived longer than their fast-growing siblings. Under these experimental conditions, slow growers did not die during the first two winters at rates much different from fast growers. In fact, between age 1 and 2, fast growers had high mortality (31 percent) than slow growers (16 percent).

In 2003, when a cut in funding required the report to be written, 13 slow growers had survived (lived 17 years). Only two fast-growing females remained. Of the slow growers, seven were females and six males. Mortality had varied between 2.5 and 34.0 percent over the initial 4 years, but by age 5, mortality was less than 5 percent for these mature adult bass living in controlled habitats, with ample forage and no angling losses.

By age 9, mortality rates again varied from 5.0 to 34.0 percent yearly, while 16-year old fish had 26 to 31 percent annual mortality. This suggests that aging lunker bass released by anglers may have at least a 60 percent chance of surviving another year.

Mortality was related to sex, with females more abundant than males each year. Male mortality has been attributed by biologists to stresses associated with spawning and guarding fry. At age 6, only 33 percent of 119 surviving fish were males, and from age 7 though age 12, males accounted for 24 to 33 percent of the survivors. But males were 37 percent of the surviving population at age 13 and averaged about 41 percent for ages 14 through 17; so male losses decreased proportionally after age 12. After the initial growth differences that allowed separation into groups, average growth rate of the fast growers was only slightly more than that of slow-growing bass. The rates of the two groups varied with slow growers enlarging faster in some years than the fast-growing group. At ages 13 and 15, the two largest bass were 24-inch-long females from the slow-growing group.

As with the comparisons of length increments, fast growers gained weight fast growers gained weight only slightly faster than the slow-growing group. But after age 6, individual bass from both groups varied widely in weight. Twelve test bass, 5 fast and 7 slow growers, exceeded 8.8 pounds at some point in their lives. In 1998 at age 13, the heaviest bass was a slow-growing female weighing 11.2 pounds. A fast-growing female weighing 10.8 was a runner-up. Some males remained relatively small throughout the study, with one slow grower at age 15 weighing 3.3 pounds.

The author concludes that categorizations such as fast growing or slowing growing (young-of-the-year) failed to predict subsequent growth. Slow growers survived as well and appeared to live longer than fast growers. Although only two parents contributed to the gene pool, there were great variations in the growth, weight gain, mortality, and longevity of individual bass. This research suggests that some assumptions need to be further evaluated over the long term.

Robert Manns

*Howells, R.G. 2003. Comparison of initially fast and slow growing sibling largemouth bass through age 17. Management Data Series No. 210, Texas Parks and Wildl. Dept., Austin.



Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,499
Likes: 267
E
Moderator
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
E
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,499
Likes: 267
Chris :

Bill Cody saw that same In-Fish article and ask if any one had or could get the study. I did so and sent it to Bill and Dave W. and others(?) can't recall. They are looking at it as have I. I will let them comment first. I will say that an interesting part is that the study followed LMB for 17 yrs. and that is very unusual. Bruce is aware of this (has a copy) and we have discussed it but BG are not LMB either.
















Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,043
Likes: 1
Hall of Fame
Lunker
Offline
Hall of Fame
Lunker
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,043
Likes: 1
I have very fast growing feed trained largemouths in one of my ponds, so fast in fact, that their fins and heads look to small for their bodies. The jury is still out, but I'm convinced they don't live as long as their wild counterparts, and probably will never exceed 6 or more pounds. However with the feed trained fish there may be another factor other than just fast growth. There is some conjecture that feed trained largemouth bass are missing something in thier diet (no diet out there specifically for largemouth bass yet), and they tend to get fatty livers from the feed vs. wild natural feed.

I know I lose a few every winter for no apparent reason and one study I saw said that may be due to the diet. They also seem more delicate in winter and can't take much handling.

Some believe bass lifespan is related to caloric consumption metabolism. They are in a sense only alotted a fixed number of calories in their lives and more calories they consume the earlier they will burn out. Another analogie is with a candle. There is only so much wax and the faster the candle burns the faster it will run out of wax.


If pigs could fly bacon would be harder to come by and there would be a lot of damaged trees.






Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,499
Likes: 267
E
Moderator
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
E
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,499
Likes: 267
CB1 :

Where did your original feed trained LMB come from (the brood fish source)? Metabolic rate in general, as measured by normal heart rate, is a limiting factor on life span. In general the smaller the animal the higher the heart rate and the shorter the life span. For example mice- 2-3 yrs, dogs- 7-15 yrs. , people- 75 yrs. Not sure about fish but I know smaller fish species seem ,from the data to have shorter life spans ie. minnows vs BG vs LMB vs sturgeon. Within a single population (species) I don't know ; as smaller dogs generally have longer life spans and Florida LMB have longer life spans than Northern LMB in the same intermediate conditions ( Miss, Tex. , Calif. not NY vs Fla. or Fla. vs Ill.) In individual situations like LMB from one brood stock source vs another similar source I don't know . Unlike a candle here genetics and conditions (stress etc) have a big part. to do with the answer. As a general matter though the more you run the engine at high end speed the sooner (in time not out put) the engine wears out. Good questions and many unanswered ones .
















Joined: May 2004
Posts: 13,975
Likes: 277
Moderator
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Lunker
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 13,975
Likes: 277
Cecil, your short-lived footballs seem very analogous to humans - they are healthier and live longer when they're a little hungry and exercising all the time, trying to find food.

Humans have the ability to store temporarily excess food supplies as fat, which was a survival advantage before refrigerators and constantly available food supplies. Add all-you-can-eat food availability (growing more ubiquitous in affluent societies since the invention of agriculture) to the human urge to eat when food is available and you get short-lived fat people.

In addition to the dietary imperfections that feed trained bass live with ("no diet out there specifically for largemouth bass yet")- they're couch potatoes. And just like with us - it's bad for them.


"Live like you'll die tomorrow, but manage your grass like you'll live forever."
-S. M. Stirling
[Linked Image from i.pinimg.com]
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,854
Likes: 1
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,854
Likes: 1
This is a great thread, and I've been looking forward to someone initiating it besides myself.

Good job, Chris.

I'd like to make a few statements as to my "mission" if you will on the bluegill project.

My goal really isn't to create a fast growing bluegill. That really isn't a good summation of my intent, and I've possibly made the mistake of not truly clarifying what I'm doing.

My goal is to, through selective breeding, to end up with a bluegill that has, by percentage, more individuals with trophy potential.

Theo is far more knowledgable than I on selective breeding, but my understanding is that cattle, and other terrestrial domesticants, allow for much more control over pursuit of desirable genetics. Individuals can be evaluated, and chosen based on certain traits for future breeding. Fish obviously aren't like this. Each generation has hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of individuals, none of which can be closely evaluated. The only way that the selector, in this case me, can influence the mix of genes is by size, and even that is a little iffy. When I sample my fish in September or October, I select the top ten or twenty percent based purely on size at sampling. To the best of my knowledge, what I'm really sampling is as follows:

1. Selection for speed of growth

2. Selection for agressiveness

3. Selection for fish that prefer artificial feed.

4. Selection for feed conversion ratio

5. Selection for early reproduction

6. Selection for fitness, as it relates to the specific environment in which the fish were raised.

The fish that I choose probably exhibit any of the previous characteristics, or combination of previous characteristic. Traits 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 all could be considered consistent with my intent, but do not include, nor do they preclude length of life. I will not live long enough to create a selective breeding program in which I go back and pick fish that were the progeny of fish that lived a certain amount of time.

My knowledge of genetics, which could be considered good, but not great, leads me to believe that what I'll get is a group of fish that after eight, ten or more generations will have a higher percentage of individuals that exhibit any or all of the previous traits. A crude example would be that I could go from an original group of fish that had 5% of the individuals capable of trophy size, to a group with a 40% chance of achieving this goal. If I ever get there I will consider the whole thing to be a complete success. If I'm 70 years old and still ticking someday, and can stock a small pond with my bluegill and have 9.5 inchers after 2-3 years, I'm gonna be dang happy.

For what it's worth, the data already suggests that I'm doing pretty well. My class of 2003 fish are well over 9 inches right now. These age fish will probably get to 10 inches this summer. Now, of course I hope they don't all die after three or four years, but their overall appearance of fitness is encouraging. Hopefully 125 or so will come out of the holding pond in a couple of weeks and look pretty good.

Regardless of outcome, this whole deal makes my brain churn all the time and beats the heck out of trying to figure out if Pittsburgh is going to cover the spread in the Super Bowl.

To each his own, eh.

Thanks for letting me indulge.


Holding a redear sunfish is like running with scissors.
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,587
D
Lunker
Offline
Lunker
D
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,587
Ah, the age-old question. Is "fat" good or bad in fish? Too fat = too fast of growth = shorter life span. Where's the balance? Where's the midpoint? \:D


Subscribe to Pond Boss Magazine

From Bob Lusk: Dr. Dave Willis passed away January 13, 2014. He continues to be a key part of our Pond Boss family...and always will be.
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,499
Likes: 267
E
Moderator
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
E
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,499
Likes: 267
Bruce :

You are being modest and I think you can compare your project with the Texas Share- a- Lunker project in concept. I assume you know about their attempts at selective breeding of large LMB. They are now in a phase of tracking the results of tagged offspring with known genetics so that they can id the offspring of those offspring when caught years later to see if genetics for large size are heritable when compared in a natural envior.

















Link Copied to Clipboard
Today's Birthdays
HookedUp, nhnewbee, orgeranyc
Recent Posts
GSH - Spawning Habitat
by Snipe - 04/28/24 11:22 PM
What did you do at your pond today?
by Boondoggle - 04/28/24 10:44 PM
Concrete pond construction
by Theo Gallus - 04/28/24 03:15 PM
Caught a couple nice bass lately...
by nvcdl - 04/27/24 03:56 PM
Inland Silver sided shiner
by Fishingadventure - 04/27/24 01:11 PM
1/2 Acre Pond Build
by teehjaeh57 - 04/27/24 10:51 AM
YP Growth: Height vs. Length
by Snipe - 04/26/24 10:32 PM
Non Iodized Stock Salt
by jmartin - 04/26/24 08:26 PM
What’s the easiest way to get rid of leaves
by Bill Cody - 04/26/24 07:24 PM
Happy Birthday Sparkplug!
by sprkplug - 04/26/24 11:43 AM
New pond leaking to new house 60 ft away
by gehajake - 04/26/24 11:39 AM
Compaction Question
by FishinRod - 04/26/24 10:05 AM
Newly Uploaded Images
Eagles Over The Pond Yesterday
Eagles Over The Pond Yesterday
by Tbar, December 10
Deer at Theo's 2023
Deer at Theo's 2023
by Theo Gallus, November 13
Minnow identification
Minnow identification
by Mike Troyer, October 6
Sharing the Food
Sharing the Food
by FishinRod, September 9
Nice BGxRES
Nice BGxRES
by Theo Gallus, July 28
Snake Identification
Snake Identification
by Rangersedge, July 12

� 2014 POND BOSS INC. all rights reserved USA and Worldwide

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5