Pond Boss Forums INTRO Questions & Observations A couple CNBG questions

Hey everyone I have had CNBG now sense 2010. Initial stocking was in that 4 to 5 inch range. My question or 2 is this.

In 2016 of May it will be 6 years sense my initial stock of CNBG.

1. What should be my average size and weight at the 6 year mark. I don't feed a LOT I go though about 8 bags of AM 600 a year. I seem to catch a lot of 9 to 10 inch BG now, but should I have that occasional 11 to 12 inch or no? Are they that rare? Does that totally depend on genetics no matter how much food I throw at them? Most my bigger BG are about 1 pound at this point. The one 11 inch I caught in the other post was 1.5 pounds but in 2 years that's been the only one.

thanks,
RC

What are your population dynamics like, i.e. how many fish do you catch in each size range?

Well of course it depends on when. Mid summer I can catch everything from 2 inchers to 10 inch. Several of each. Right now I went last weekend and caught about 6 or 7 nine inch, and a few 6 inch.

RC

RC check the RW of those you have. That will tell the story. It may be that you have to many 7-9s competiting for the food needed for a few to get to 11. You are at the right age for them to max out in the south (longer up north for BG).

I would love to hear from members who have successfully produced 2 lb bluegills, of either northern or CNBG strains, in their own pond/s. I'm curious to know how many have reached that goal.

There's a lot more to it than simply pouring the feed to em'.

Yes but you can't get to two lbs without plenty food !! Been there done that. Look at Richmond Mill lots of monster BG but without the food/feeders - no way in that unproductive water.

Agreed ewest. I'm simply very curious as to the numbers of bonafide two pound bluegills the members here have been able to produce. We read a lot about the virtues of CNBG, as well selective breeding programs of both northern and CNBG. And I am a huge fan of the body dynamics displayed by these carefully manipulated fish. However, and I mean no disrespect whatsoever, shouldn't we be seeing some number of two pound bluegills by now?

I've been here on the forum for 8 years, and have watched these programs with intense interest. And while it's true that there have been exceptional fish, I haven't noticed anything that suggests a clear indication of a advanced, ultimate growth potential? Maybe I've missed something, I just don't know.

Certainly we've seen some outstanding bluegills, many that appear to show exceptional promise due to those incredible body dynamics mentioned earlier. I suppose I was just expecting something more dramatic?

RC stocked his CNBG six years ago, and ewest points out that his fish should be at peak. Which to me, hints at a probable decline from this point further, at least for the population as a whole. I still maintain there will always be individuals within a dynamic that will show superior qualities, including populations in the wild. But in a selective breeding program shouldn't those qualities be magnified and expanded upon to yield numbers of superior fish?

And yes, we all have setbacks. I know I certainly have. There will be droughts and O2 crashes that cause us to begin anew. But still, shouldn't those 2 lb bluegills be showing up in members' ponds by now, somewhere, in number?

Is it possible that those incredible body dynamics that we all drool over, are merely a glimpse into a remotely possible, preferable outcome, rather than a true indication of what will come to pass, given optimum conditions? After all, two pound bluegills turn up in public bodies of water occasionally, without benefit of feeding programs and enhanced breeding programs. We all know this. But isn't the goal of stocking a superior strain of fish to have a quantifiable number of larger individuals develop, rather than one here and there?

To me this just illustrates how difficult it really is for a BG to reach two pounds, especially in quantity. Maybe those improved body dynamics achieved early on, come at a tradeoff in the form of shortened lifespans which still won't allow for many fish to hit two pounds? It's generally accepted that northern fish grow slower, but live longer than their southern counterparts. Is that what's missing in the "Giant Bluegill Formula"....longer lifespans?

Sprkplug I think you answered your own debate- shorter lives from being pushed to grow- as we hear all the time " it depends"

I think you're right, Pat. And truth be known, I formulated my opinion on this subject some time ago. I was simply, carefully, cautiously, tiptoeing around my thoughts on the matter while asking what others thought also.

....
Which is more likely to achieve a long life and the elusive 2 pounds...A one pound BG caught in the wild with Rw of 100% or a one pound pellet trained BG fed all he will eat with a Rw of 140%?

A candle lit at both ends is brighter but burns out faster

Correct....so in that light, what are some of the reasons folks chose a particular "strain" of bluegills over another? And has the extra effort and/or expense proved worthwhile? Are those members happy with the ultimate size of their bluegills, or were they expecting, hoping, for something different?

Many of you know I moderate for Bruce over at BigBluegill.com. The numbers of spectacular fish coming out of SoCal resi's is incredible. 11-12" fish are becoming commonplace, and this from public water with no feeding or management, and no special breeding or manipulated genetics. I'm thinking it's right back to the basics...water quality, forage, population density, predator/prey relationships, harvest strategies, etc. I've always felt that having good genetics is the final push needed to achieve true, trophy bluegills, but it is certainly not a guarantee of success in and of itself.

I suppose it depends upon one's goals, and their particular definition of trophy status along with the number of individual fish able to achieve that state.

Wow ! Where to start . Maybe in parts with a few facts. Nice post Sprk . Good questions!!

The data on age is on BG not CNBG. It comes from Carlanders text and many other studies mostly on public waters. It is basic biology and nothing to do with supp feeding ( feeders/pellets etc). The principle on age is not restricted to fish. Science has shown that as a general matter muscle tissue has by design a limited number of times to stretch and contract . That is how muscles work by chemical contracton and expansion. The heart is a muscle and when it stops it's over - there are a limited number of heart beats. Same for other organs. In cold blooded animals heart rate and muscle metabolasm slows when cold. In short over a population ( not one fish) cold water northern BG hearts beat less over a year due to cold winter temps than warm water southern BG thus they live longer. It's that simple and is born out in the extensive data reported in Carlanders ( thousands of reports) and a multiplicity of other scientific reports .

There is some reported info on problems with fed fish vs non-fed fish but not with age (fatty livers for example).

More to follow .

Handbook of Freshwater Fishery Biology, Volume 1

Front Cover
Kenneth D. Carlander
Iowa State University Press, 1969 - Nature - 752 pages
0 Reviews

These volumes have, for over 30 years, been the most readily available source listing the scattered articles, theses, bulletins, and research on freshwater fish in the United States and Canada. The Handbook of Freshwater Fishery Biology summarizes the available data on age, growth, length weight, fecundity, reproductive behavior feeding habits, and necessary environment for each freshwater species. The comparison of species is presented in a manner easily used by fishery mangers and biologists.

Thanks ewest. Does the data suggest that heart failure itself is a leading cause of death for mature bluegills? Is there actual data that supports this, or is it merely a generalization in biology?

Is supplemental feed formulated for rapid growth within a given lifespan, or does it also work to extend the fishes lifespan in order to try and take advantage of indeterminate growth?

Afterthought... if supplemental feeding has an effect on internal organs, (fatty livers), how much of a stretch is it to assume that the heart also works harder on fish that exhibit extreme Wr's? Shortened lifespans?

The cause of mortality is different from lifespan over populations. Assuming all other stress factors are similar over large populations from diverse locations then the remaining mortality possibility is natural death ( worn out muscles). Muscles in fish wear out slower in northern areas due to reduced use and slower metabolasms in winter.

Those stats have nothing to due with supp feeding and likely due not include data from private ponds ( or extremely limited).

The issues wrt feeding are a different from these.

Most of the BG age data are based otolith readings by fishery scientists. That is about as good of data as exists. When you have a large % of readings of 10 to 11 years up north and almost none above 7 to 8 from the south the only logical conclusion is BG up north as a species live longer. Biological basis is what I provided .

I think most of the fatty liver data is from aquaculture fish (almost all food from pellets) not from Supp feeding situations. CB1 may know some about this.

The biggest problem encountered in fish mgt is lack of enough food for the fish. Supp feeding is a method of,addressing that as is fertilization. By nature Supp feeding is Supp and not all or even most of the food. No doubt in my mind that natural food is better if it exists and is a proper mix.