|
Forums36
Topics40,963
Posts557,978
Members18,503
| |
Most Online3,612
Jan 10th, 2023
|
|
|
6 members (Fishingadventure, Boondoggle, anthropic, DrewSh, Augie, Theo Gallus),
1,184
guests, and
413
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,499 Likes: 267
Moderator Hall of Fame 2014  Lunker
|
OP
Moderator Hall of Fame 2014 Lunker
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,499 Likes: 267 |
Ok group I need you input and critical eye. The following is out of a study I am working on analyzing for a Cutting Edge article. Look at this and tell me if you think any of it is wrong (impossible)? What am I missing ? Thanks.
Age-1 (subadult) feed-trained Largemouth Bass averaging
184.7 g (SD, 35.3) and 22.8mm(SD, 1.3) were indiscriminately
stocked into nine, 0.04-ha earthen ponds (volume ≈ 550 m3) at
a density of 10,000 bass/ha.
Floating
pellets were produced (fed to the fish above) with diameters of 5.5 mm (control) and
13.0 mm (large); sinking pellets were 5.5 mm, as manipulated
via pellet expansion during manufacture.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,948 Likes: 9
Moderator Lunker
|
|
Moderator Lunker
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,948 Likes: 9 |
Looks like the length measurement should be in cm and not mm.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,499 Likes: 267
Moderator Hall of Fame 2014 Lunker
|
OP
Moderator Hall of Fame 2014 Lunker
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,499 Likes: 267 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,980 Likes: 14
Ambassador Lunker
|
|
Ambassador Lunker
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,980 Likes: 14 |
Those are curiously proportioned bass if I read that correctly. 6.5 ozs but less than an inch long?
"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"
If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1)
And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1)
Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT?
PB answer: It depends.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 6,080 Likes: 1
|
|
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 6,080 Likes: 1 |
Dun know if it is impossible but 400 LMB .4 lbs each in a little less than a 0.1 acre pond.......That's like 1600 lbs+ per acre. Can water quality, DO, etc be maintained with that amount of biomass?
Edit: Just fixed the math. Thanks Sparkie!
Last edited by Bill D.; 04/30/15 12:51 PM. Reason: Fixin the math
![[Linked Image]](http://forums.pondboss.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=download&Number=11852&filename=I_subscribe_zps2qlyoyn2.gif) Be Brave Enough to Suck at Something New!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,980 Likes: 14
Ambassador Lunker
|
|
Ambassador Lunker
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,980 Likes: 14 |
I was thinking the same thing, Bill. When I get past the size discrepancy, I'm still faced with a stocking ratio of 405 LMB per 0.1 acre pond. At the assumed weight of 6.5 ozs per, that's approx 165 lbs of biomass. Plus feeding....glad I'm not in charge of maintaining water quality.
edit...that's 0.1 surface acre...
Last edited by sprkplug; 04/30/15 12:34 PM.
"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"
If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1)
And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1)
Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT?
PB answer: It depends.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,099 Likes: 23
Ambassador Field Correspondent Hall of Fame Lunker
|
Ambassador Field Correspondent Hall of Fame Lunker
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,099 Likes: 23 |
Either the weight should be mg, or length in cm, even though feed trained LMB are VERY disproportioned as compared to non feed trained LMB.
I am guessing the length is 22.8 CM, or just under 9", due to pellet sizes being used.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 15,148 Likes: 491
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent Lunker
|
|
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent Lunker
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 15,148 Likes: 491 |
Assuming the pellet sizes were correct the fish sizes are incorrect. Pellets of 5.5mm are 0.2" and large were 13mm or 1/2". Others are guessing correctly. A 187gram bass of 6.5 oz has a std wt lgn of 9.3". I suggest that you try to contact one of the authors and preferably the student author.
Last edited by Bill Cody; 04/30/15 01:35 PM.
aka Pond Doctor & Dr. Perca Read Pond Boss Magazine -
America's Journal of Pond Management
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 6,080 Likes: 1
|
|
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 6,080 Likes: 1 |
FWIW if I assume that "SD" stands for standard deviation, with 99.7% confidence (+/-3 standard deviations), the weight varies from 78.8 to 290.6 gms (2.8 to 10.3 ounces). The length varies from 18.9 to 26.7 (assuming cms 7.4 to 10.5 inches). Does that seem likely? I have never seen a Rw chart for LMB this small.
Last edited by Bill D.; 04/30/15 03:00 PM. Reason: Clarification
Be Brave Enough to Suck at Something New!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 340 Likes: 3
|
|
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 340 Likes: 3 |
I take that as a personal challenge. You know that the WR charts I made start LMB at 6", right? But since you are interested in 7.4-10.5", here you go.  
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 6,080 Likes: 1
|
|
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 6,080 Likes: 1 |
Thanks! So looks like the numbers are plausible.
Be Brave Enough to Suck at Something New!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,499 Likes: 267
Moderator Hall of Fame 2014 Lunker
|
OP
Moderator Hall of Fame 2014 Lunker
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,499 Likes: 267 |
Thanks guys. Based on the study it must be that the LMB length should be in CM not mm. The study says sub adult age 1 LMB that are feed trained. Feed training is done at and around 2 inches and at a lot less than 6 ozs. Water quality was and stayed good. The study was for 151 days - way to long for 1 inch fish. A 1 inch LMB could not eat anything near 5 mm and certainly not 13 mm.
The results of the study will be in the next issue.
Last edited by ewest; 05/05/15 03:25 PM.
|
|
|
Moderated by Bill Cody, Bruce Condello, catmandoo, Chris Steelman, Dave Davidson1, esshup, ewest, FireIsHot, Omaha, Sunil, teehjaeh57 |
|
.gif)
