Pond Boss Forums INTRO Questions & Observations How much of your primary production is unharvested

In another thread I posted a link to a very old paper by Swingle on increasing fish production through biological means. You can find it here.

http://www.nativefishlab.net/library/textpdf/15116.pdf

There is little research in the recreational setting about lost natural productivity. If you read the paper you will notice a fish production strategy which involves combining species where one disappears from the combination. This happens in recreational ponds without us thinking about. For example, initial FHM introductions are based on this strategy. They are poor, however, for future introductions.

This strategy works because the second species reproduces quickly and feeds low on the food chain storing harvested primary production that can later be utilized by the primary species. Swingle's tests involve fertilization with and without the disappearing species. Covered were FHM and Gambusia. What I found interesting, was that the addition of these species lead to remarkable gain. If one were to compare the additional production to what would be required for feed, the value noteworthy. If it takes 300 lbs of feed to grow 100 additional pounds of BG, then you can just figure what its value might be. In the case of Gambusia they added only .80 lbs to the acre to get additional production of 145 lbs/acre or the equivalent of 450 lbs of feed.

Most recreational ponds get crowded with BG and their prey can be severely limited. I recall reading about how fish can extirpate some cladocerans like Daphnia Magna. When prey is reduced to low standing weights I can't help but think that a lot of primary production goes unharvested. A simple fix for trophy LMB, is tilapia which can utilize this resource and also detritus. But this isn't any good for BG or fingerling LMB. If one has a panfish focus, one needs to boost recruitment of small LMB and have more forage for BG.

So for this goal other potential surrogates for tilapias might be beneficial. Let me just say that I think it is very important to stay with indigenous species which are common to your area. In Texas gambusia affinis, PK shrimp, Hyaella Azteca, and various types of locally available crawfish seem to be great candidates. The idea would be to introduce adults timed such that they will reproduce in large numbers before being eaten. The idea would be annual introductions that might harvest primary production which would otherwise just contribute to the bottom muck.

Very interesting and full of useful facts and applicable thoughts. Readers keep in mind that much of the early work like this was done for short term food production. Swingle did lots of outstanding work and many of todays concepts are based on this early work.

To be sure, any efficient food production is short term. For example, Swingle grew harvestable BG in one season in sufficient quantity to exceed what one can grow in a LMB-BG pond in 5-6 seasons when fertilization is the only enhancement to fertility. Yes, the focus was on producing food in a short period of time as there is no long-term food production strategies that are efficient for food production at a farming level.

But the value of his research lies in the controls that were exercised. We are able to discern the relative success of different forage combinations. For example, from his research I am able to discern that tilapia are a negative for 0-year LMB. Many, many other insights and possible directions of research that may be applicable to recreational settings arise despite the aquaculture focus of his research.

If all one wants to grow is larger sizes of LMB, the solutions get simpler but certainly the food growing aspect of owning a recreational BOW diminishes greatly with this goal. There is growing interest in managing BOWs for harvest size BG and interest in growing food with recreation in mind. Where these may be goals, I think Swingle's research may take on deeper relevance.

The best supplemental forages for this purpose seem to be those that protect their eggs in some form or another, reproduce at a young age, and reproduce fractionally throughout the growing season. These particular features make them exceedingly EASY to grow in monoculture even if they are expensive to source commercially. While they can increase production in ponds without additional feed, they could only improve water quality and increase secondary production if feeding is also implemented.

Anyways, I found his findings worth noting and their potential benefit to some worth mentioning.

Yes and I wish more would read his and other of the Founders works. They set out many of the principles that we use every day in pond mgt. Also they have been in many cases further refined by subsequent scientific studies.

My point was that because of Swingle's scientific charge from the Gov/University to do food production research much of his work was on small ponds for a short duration (year or 2). He was not charged/allowed to work in detail on a pond with multiple species for years to document how the species changed/interacted over long periods. Also his tools were much more limited - feed research is vastly changed as has the knowledge of water quality (fertility) See Boyd's works on water - another Founder in my mind. Also at the time knowledge on genetics was almost non existent. Much has changed in the field of knowledge because of the works of the Founders like Swingle , Boyd and many others. What is truly amazing is that the basic principles first developed by Swingle have stood the test of time and are still very much relevant today . One of my favorites is the seine survey - that you can determine the status of a predator population by measuring the status of the prey population.

There is substantial research on fish production for food purposes (not in the recreational fishery realm). See CC and tilapia for example and some early work was done on BG. Others would be trout and salmon. Most of it is monoculture fisheries.

This is only too true. But when you think about it will always be true. There is simply no justification for private recreational fishery research with public funds. There is potential, however, for people who own recreational fisheries to perform quality research, even if only shared amongst each other in a forum like this.

In what sense are tilapia a negative for Y0 LMB? Do they inhibit reproduction, or growth, or LMB forage? Personally, I'd like it if they inhibited LMB reproduction, as (like most pondmeisters) I have too many small bass.

After about 1980 there started to be much more research on recreational fisheries done by Gov and University's with public funds and there still is today. Much of the public fishing is/was done on public fisheries and is directly applicable to ponds. The divergence is between aquaculture and recreational fisheries. Most of Swingle's research was done on small ponds but focused on producing food for the table from small private ponds. This stemmed from the depression era U S Dept of Agg directives to help feed the population during hard times.

But in any event the research helps as it all adds to the pot of knowledge.

They fail to promote growth of LMB fingerlings. See for yourself in the paper where fingerling LMB were forced to depend on tilapia (2-3 species combination) for forage and see what a huge difference FHM make with the same combination. I wouldn't say they inhibit LMB reproduction although they may inhibit survival by keeping them smaller longer. They slow growth because tilapia quickly outgrow LMB fingerling gape and compete for primary production with creatures the fingerling LMB can eat.

Yes, I agree they benefit large LMB, mostly by converting primary production into high quality LMB food, but partly by inhibiting the growth of smaller LMB.

Bump.

I don't know if this is relevant but I would suspect that BG reproduction suffers in the presence of tilapia. Certainly, they provide enough forage to compensate this. Still, BG in sufficient numbers can greatly inhibit LMB reproduction and if you are well below this threshold in terms of BG biomass with lots of successfully spawning large bass this may explain why you have more young bass than you care to have. In which case, its an acceptable consequence of using tilapia.