Pond Boss Magazine
https://www.pondboss.com/images/userfiles/image/20130301193901_6_150by50orangewhyshouldsubscribejpeg.jpg
Advertisment
Newest Members
Shotgun01, Dan H, Stipker, LunkerHunt23, Jeanjules
18,451 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums36
Topics40,899
Posts557,051
Members18,451
Most Online3,612
Jan 10th, 2023
Top Posters
esshup 28,407
ewest 21,474
Cecil Baird1 20,043
Bill Cody 15,110
Who's Online Now
2 members (Rainman, Bobbss), 458 guests, and 152 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,474
Likes: 264
E
Moderator
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
E
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,474
Likes: 264
Nice work. May write an article on that study.
















Joined: May 2013
Posts: 2,892
Likes: 144
C
Offline
C
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 2,892
Likes: 144
ewest, if you do, please let us know. I got lost in some of the graphs and tables in that PDF. They spell out some of their conclusions about what worked and what didn't, but I bet a trained eye looking at the electrofishing information and the other tables could also extract some other very useful conclusions from the sand lake data.

I wish I knew if the DNR are still going out and sampling or have any interest in trying other active management strategies at that location. They have years of data now, and now there is a big new variable, the aeration and the improved water clarity. The predator prey balance is going to shift as the weeds go 'deeper' with better sunlight penetration and the water is clearer.

Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,878
Likes: 278
J
Offline
J
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,878
Likes: 278
Originally Posted By: canyoncreek


The locals say the bluegill fishing has dried up almost completely. Even hard to catch bass bigger than 14". I see from the PDF that they did plant catfish (that was a rumor I had heard before) but the report suggests no natural reproduction in their sampling.


There was data through 2014. One thing about Bluegills that I noticed was that number of BG smaller than 6" began increasing around 2000. Meanwhile the Pumpkinseed fell off the cliff. The increase of BG of that size might have in part been related to the space left by Pumpkin seeds. Notably lacking is any estimate of production (harvest counts and weights).

You have me wondering what happened to the BG between 2014 and 2019 when you were last there. Are they largely gone and if so why? Was the lake a victim of humans overharvesting, winterkill, or perhaps even the flathead. Next time you go, you should try to do some fishing for BG. If its anywhere as good as it was in 2014, then you would be in for a treat. Locals do have an incentive to underplay their good fortune if indeed they enjoy it. Where I am from, nobody tells the truth about where they catch their fish. The most popular reply is "Pinney Hill" and when you hear that you know they aren't saying! Or sometimes they say ... Right Here ... forming their index finger into a hook shape while indicating the fish were caught in the lip.

One thing I can say is that there is a huge difference between a trophy fishery (producing > 10" BG) and a good fishery (many 6" to 8" and few >8")when one talks about how fast the fishing is. Some prefer a lot of 6-8" fish and not a few 8-11" fish and this may be what they meant by "dried up". Sand Lake seemed to have evolved into a trophy lake with time ... at least until 2014.

Quote:
Rarely someone catches a NP so they must not naturally reproduce so well either.



They mentioned poor growth of NP in all the study lakes. Flathead presence did not help them.

Quote:
The graphs show very few pumpkinseed even. I'm wondering if the lake had gone through possibly some bad winterkills since it is so shallow.


The pumpkinseed were plentiful but too small to eat prior to the flathead introduction. The flathead were proceeding to extirpate them from Sand Lake. This tells me that BG are more robust and fecund. What we don't know is how the pumpkinseeds might have fared without competition from BG. It appears also that BH were greatly reduced in number by flathead presence.

Quote:
But the evidence even in this tiny lake with a challenging environment for predator and prey shows that the hungry flatheads were cleaning up on small fish in the desired size range (less than 6" )


Yes and I wouldn't have expected that.


It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so - Will Rogers


Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,474
Likes: 264
E
Moderator
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
E
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,474
Likes: 264
One thing I have learned over years of doing this - expect the unexpected.

Usually PS do not directly compete with BG. PS fill a different niche than BG much like the RES/BG combo. More likely that with lower reproduction and the same predator base (FH eating both and everything else) that #s of PS surviving to adulthood declined. In addition PS because they are smaller and live near the bottom stay both size and location wise in the FH bulls-eye more.

FYI

North American Journal of Fisheries Management
Article: pp. 198–202

Gape:Body Size Relationship of Flathead Catfish
Joe E. Slaughter IVa,,1 and Brad Jacobsonb
a) Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division, 2065 U.S. Highway 278 SE, Social Circle, Georgia 30025, USA
b) Arizona Game and Fish Department, Region IV, 9140 East 28th Street, Yuma, Arizona 85365, USA

Abstract.

The flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris is a highly piscivorous ictalurid native to central North America whose range has been extended throughout much of the United States. With this range expansion, many populations of native fishes have experienced declines in the number of individuals due to direct predation by flathead catfish. Previous evidence suggests that flathead catfish are opportunistic feeders and may be the least gape limited of North American freshwater piscivores. To better understand the size of prey vulnerable to flathead catfish, we measured gape dimensions for individuals of various sizes to determine the maximum size prey a flathead catfish can kill based on its gape limitations. Our results show the relationship of total length to horizontal and vertical gape and the relationship of flathead catfish total length to the total lengths of ingestible-sized prey of different body shapes. Furthermore, comparisons of the body depth of three common fish species to the gape dimensions showed that no size of largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides, bluegill Lepomis macrochirus, or gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum would preclude predation by flathead catfish. Our results support the assumption that the flathead catfish is one of the least gape-limited piscivores.

Received: January 31, 2006; Accepted: May 4, 2007; Published Online: February 11, 2008

DOI: 10.1577/M06-033.1
North American Journal of Fisheries Management 2008;28:198–202

Last edited by ewest; 08/21/19 12:26 PM.















Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,878
Likes: 278
J
Offline
J
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,878
Likes: 278
Quote:
PS fill a different niche than BG much like the RES/BG combo. More likely that with lower reproduction and the same predator base (FH eating both and everything else) that #s of PS surviving to adulthood declined. In addition PS because they are smaller and live near the bottom stay both size and location wise in the FH bulls-eye more.


I totally agree with this. Resources for both PKS and BG were not as limiting as they were before the FH introduction. After the FH introduction there was plenty of food to go around for both PKS and BG. That said they used that food and probably together attained Fall standing weights that were a high proportion (though a ratio of less than 1)of their standing weights prior to the introduction of flatheads.

The point I was making was that the abundance of less than 6" bluegill increased considerably from 2000 to 2014 in electrofishing surveys. Why did the number of BG less than 6" increase in number from 2000 to 2014? It seems plausible that BG were able to use some of the resources that were earlier utilized by Pumpkinseeds. This is debatable, what do you think most influenced the production of less than 6" BG during this period?

As to question how would Pumpkinseeds fared in the absence of BG, it may well be that they would have been on a path of extirpation.

It should be noted that the use of FH as they did it was a REMEDIATION of overpopulation conditions where standard predators utterly failed to control the BG and PKS. Growth rates of younger age classes of predators would have also have been weak as these youngsters were competing with BG, PKS, and crappie for food. These lakes were a lost cause and the FH, no matter how you shake the mustard, made an impossible situation a great panfish fishery. It was able to accomplish tangible benefits by the third year and with no extra management, provided an excellent environment for the production of large panfish for a minimum of 20 years.

There are many lessons to be learned here but one shouldn't think that FH can help every fishery. Those with existing excellent panfish fisheries might and probably would be harmed by their introduction.

Last edited by jpsdad; 08/21/19 04:16 PM.

It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so - Will Rogers


Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,596
Likes: 36
Lunker
Offline
Lunker
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,596
Likes: 36
We have an 1800 acre lake 10 miles from me that has been extensively stocked with FHC and wipers to control an accidental introduction of white perch. Branched Oak lake also has gizzard shad and the FHC are under total catch and release regulations. There are still lots of 5-6" stunted white perch in the lake. Stripers we're stocked several years ago to no avail, it is however a fantastic FHC lake.

http://magazine.outdoornebraska.gov/2013/06/branched-oak-flatheads/



Joined: Jun 2018
Posts: 1,470
Likes: 107
R
Offline
R
Joined: Jun 2018
Posts: 1,470
Likes: 107
That's a pretty cool story. We have them in our rivers here in Kansas. Those are some monster fish.


The people who say I can't do it can just sit the @^#% down and watch me. Friends call me Rusto I also subscribe to pond boss mag. http://forums.pondboss.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=504716#Post504716
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 2,892
Likes: 144
C
Offline
C
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 2,892
Likes: 144
ewest, if you need more info or pictures of sand lake for your article I can try to help you.

jpsdad, I can tell you that the fishing for 6" plus panfish MAY have been better at some point in the last couple of years but the locals have not seen any change. For sure in the past 2-3 summers there seems to be zero decent BG or PS of any type. Hard to even catch a stunted one. Nephew and 2 buddies spent a couple hours fishing with worms and had only about 5-6 stunted ones to show for it.

I do not know that they run the aerators in the winter (I can find out but I that was not mentioned to me) Winter kill is a possibility.

The word on the lake is that they don't catch any catfish either so I'm thinking the original stockers are gone or are few and there was no natural reproduction.

The water is very very clear now and much less weeds in the shallows. To me the lack of weeds is surprising with the aeration. To me that means that the aggressive use of weed control chemicals also changed the refuge that the small fish use in the weeds.

Agree that in the last decade the lake probably continues to get shallower and that makes it a less favorable place for NP.

Per Mr. Cody, pickerel are better suited for warmer shallow lakes, I wonder why in the many small, eutrophic puddles around my house that they don't try to use CP for additional predator influence beyond the typical LMB?

I also wonder why the DNR wouldn't try to boost the forage base in many of these lakes using GSH or other shiners such as spotfins?

But the point of this thread is that catfish can really exert an immediate and measurable effect on certain slot size of panfish.

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,474
Likes: 264
E
Moderator
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
E
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,474
Likes: 264
Originally Posted By: jpsdad


ewest in red

The point I was making was that the abundance of less than 6" bluegill increased considerably from 2000 to 2014 in electrofishing surveys. Why did the number of BG less than 6" increase in number from 2000 to 2014? ... what do you think most influenced the production of less than 6" BG during this period?

Improving condition of BG status resulted in many more BG being hatched and those were not the prime FH food source (to small at the beginning). Result many more small BG. Also electro surveys are not always unbiased - they are a tool not an answer.

As to question how would Pumpkinseeds fared in the absence of BG, it may well be that they would have been on a path of extirpation.

Very likely that FH could consume more PS than the PS could reproduce. This has been documented in BG only ponds after the intro of FH. In a few years BG were almost impossible to catch as they had mostly been exterminated.

It should be noted that the use of FH as they did it was a REMEDIATION of overpopulation conditions where standard predators utterly failed to control the BG and PKS. Growth rates of younger age classes of predators would have also have been weak as these youngsters were competing with BG, PKS, and crappie for food. These lakes were a lost cause and the FH, no matter how you shake the mustard, made an impossible situation a great panfish fishery. It was able to accomplish tangible benefits by the third year and with no extra management, provided an excellent environment for the production of large panfish for a minimum of 20 years.

There are many lessons to be learned here but one shouldn't think that FH can help every fishery. Those with existing excellent panfish fisheries might and probably would be harmed by their introduction.
Agree on last para.



Last edited by ewest; 08/22/19 12:19 PM.















Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,878
Likes: 278
J
Offline
J
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,878
Likes: 278
Quote:

Very likely that FH could consume more PS than the PS could reproduce. This has been documented in BG only ponds after the intro of FH. In a few years BG were almost impossible to catch as they had mostly been exterminated.


By the time a flathead reaches 5lbs, it is a creature that wants to grow 3 to 4 lbs per year. At the lower growth we are talking a 30 pounds of forage for growth and 25 pounds for maintenance and so roughly 55 pounds for the 5# spring flathead. With a 20 lb flathead we are talking 130 lbs of forage. This tells me that more than 25 lbs of flathead/acre will stress the production limits of many BOWs. Sand Lake was considered borderline eutrophic and it isn't clear what weight of forage it was capable of producing. Even so, it seems plausible to me that the flatheads' needs ultimately reached the prey production limit at Sand Lake.

LMB do that to, all the time when you think about. The answer to that problem is a fish harvest and from a management perspective, the same applies where FH are used to control BG overpopulations. A regular stocking FH of a starter size (say 5 lbs) and harvest of minimum length FH would prevent the FH from attaining to large a mass.

Quote:
Improving condition of BG status resulted in many more BG being hatched and those were not the prime FH food source (to small at the beginning).


There are theories that predators prefer the biggest prey they can stuff in their mouth but these theories have never been supported by evidence. We know they are limited by gape but this limit has never been shown to be what they prefer nor what they tend to eat. With increasing gape there is a tendency to eat larger prey and that ... when you think about it ... is just because they can. There is a preponderance of evidence that suggests that piscivorous predators tend to eat prey at about 1% their body weight. A flathead is going to take any opportunity it gets, however, if it is close enough to suck in a 3" fish it is going to do it without worrying about whether it expended too much energy opening its mouth.

IMO the larger BG are most at risk when the production of 0 through 2 year BG are no longer capable of sustaining and growing FH Biomass

Last edited by jpsdad; 08/22/19 04:22 PM.

It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so - Will Rogers


Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,878
Likes: 278
J
Offline
J
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,878
Likes: 278
Originally Posted By: Shorty
We have an 1800 acre lake 10 miles from me that has been extensively stocked with FHC and wipers to control an accidental introduction of white perch. Branched Oak lake also has gizzard shad and the FHC are under total catch and release regulations. There are still lots of 5-6" stunted white perch in the lake. Stripers we're stocked several years ago to no avail, it is however a fantastic FHC lake.

http://magazine.outdoornebraska.gov/2013/06/branched-oak-flatheads/


Shorty, I've spent quite a lot of time last night reading up on Branched Oak. The FH reproduce there and are not harvested so I guess they are just unable to reach the biomass that might control the white perch. There are a lot of other predators in the lake as well. It must produce a huge weight of white perch annually small though they are.

I could find no reference to how they got there. Every state has its conspiracy theories about wildlife biologist gone mad ... does one exist about white perch?

Last edited by jpsdad; 08/22/19 05:39 PM.

It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so - Will Rogers


Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,596
Likes: 36
Lunker
Offline
Lunker
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,596
Likes: 36
White perch were accidentally introduced by one of our State fish hatcheries. The presence of shad compound the white perch problem as predators prefer eating shad over spiny white perch.

https://www.fws.gov/fisheries/ans/erss/highrisk/Morone-americana-WEB-7-30-2014.pdf

Quote:
“White perch was brought from New Jersey to Nebraska in 1964, and fry produced that year in a hatchery were accidentally introduced into a reservoir that provided access to the Missouri River (Hergenrader and Bliss 1971).


Quote:
Walleye or White Bass eggs can make up 100% of White Perch diet depending on which fish is spawning. During a three-year study, this diet was found to be unique in that: 1) eggs were eaten for a comparatively long time, 2) they were the only significant food item eaten by adults during two of the three years, 3) large volumes were eaten per individual, and 4) most fish were feeding. White Perch also feeds heavily on minnows Notropis spp


Quote:
“Within three years after being introduced into a Nebraska reservoir, White Perch had completely replaced the previously dominant Black Bullhead Ameiurus melas. Species composition changed from 74 percent Black Bullhead to 70 percent White Perch in that
time frame (Hergenrader and Bliss 1971).”



Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,596
Likes: 36
Lunker
Offline
Lunker
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,596
Likes: 36
Big FHC can be territorial, guess what made these marks?



An old link.

http://forums.pondboss.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=71588


Attached Images
MikesFHJuneOFbitemark.jpg
Last edited by Shorty; 08/22/19 06:47 PM.


Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,878
Likes: 278
J
Offline
J
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,878
Likes: 278
Thank you for the info Shorty. That's a mighty fine FH and there is no mistake where that bite mark came from!


It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so - Will Rogers


Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,878
Likes: 278
J
Offline
J
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,878
Likes: 278
Saint, so you might be able to have cake and eat it to.

To be successful you want to harvest the flathead so that the requirements for growth and maintenance do not breach the BOWs potential production. Actually, it should be below this in order to allow you to harvest some crappie. Ideally the weight at which they are harvested will correspond to multiple of 100 times the weight of crappie you want the FH to crop. For example, if you want FH to do the cropping up to 8" length for the crappie (.25 lbs) then you should crop the Flathead before or around 25 lbs in weight (38 inches). For a 6" length of crappie it would be FH of 10 lbs(28 inches).

If FH are unable to reproduce in the BOW then you can make fairly reliable estimates of how much the FH weigh and will gain. If you fish for them and fin clip so that you may identify individuals ... then you can gain keen insight by tracking their progress. Combined with your crappie creel you can establish understanding of your BOW's production capabilities and be able to fine tune your management of predators. There should be an additional prey species that is not inclined to eat crappie or compete with the crappie without providing substantial crappie forage. Its presence will feed crappie and take some predation off the crappie, GSH might be a good choice or perhaps TP if they are legal in your state.

If the FH reproduce then your only recourse is to monitor the crappie. Harvest any FH that exceeds 100 times the weight of the largest crappie you want to be cropped by flat head. If you don't get good crappie recruitment above this weight of crappie, then you might need to reduce some FH below that target weight. To be a good crappie BOW, they need to pull off some good spawns and hopefully this occurs on a yearly basis.

It still seems quite a challenge to source the Flathead if they don't reproduce. On the other hand, if they do reproduce they might very quickly attain too high a biomass. The best situation would be where you can ladder stock flathead ideally from a reputable aquaculturist and the flathead fail to recruit. Under this scenario you would have a great handle of the FH biomass and size structure.

Last edited by jpsdad; 08/23/19 04:17 PM.

It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so - Will Rogers


Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 62
S
OP Offline
S
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 62
Originally Posted By: jpsdad
There should be an additional prey species that is not inclined to eat crappie or compete with the crappie without providing substantial crappie forage. Its presence will feed crappie and take some predation off the crappie, GSH might be a good choice or perhaps TP if they are legal in your state.

What about YP instead of tilapia?

Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,878
Likes: 278
J
Offline
J
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,878
Likes: 278
I don't see why you couldn't approach it from this angle. I would just say that GSH and TP are able to convert primary algae production DIRECTLY which is particularly why I recommended them. In other words, they will certainly produce more forage than YP because they won't depend entirely on secondary trophic organisms for food. The YP in the sense that they will feed on similar food of the crappie will compete to some degree with them. Even so, I consider crappie the stronger species and I think FH will predominately prey on the YP. Having YP instead of the other choices may mean that you need to be more sparing on the FH biomass. This said, with the right balance it could perform very well I think. With regard to TP as a tertiary harvested fish, particularly mossambica is most catchable and they could be also be harvested by rod and reel.

Last edited by jpsdad; 08/25/19 06:06 PM.

It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so - Will Rogers


Joined: Oct 2018
Posts: 1,125
Likes: 273
A
Offline
A
Joined: Oct 2018
Posts: 1,125
Likes: 273
FWIW, it's not at all unusual to catch 5lb size flathead catfish on 6" bluegill while fishing the Missouri River.

Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,878
Likes: 278
J
Offline
J
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,878
Likes: 278
Augie, I know that to be the case. Question then is what do flathead of that size most commonly eat. There is a lot of data that supports that predators most commonly eat prey at about 18.8% their own length. Across a broad range of predators, albeit I haven't seen data on flat head, this holds true and across many different age classes. Where there is exception it goes the way of smaller prey, for example, Muskellenge which tend to eat prey that is a smaller percentage of their length as they grow bigger. Now they eat larger prey for sure, but the relative size does tend to decrease as they get larger.

The way to look at this is that there is a distribution of prey size and when you look at a frequency plot, the curve is consistent with a probability function. 70% of the prey will fall within .75% and 1.33% the weight of the predator. Some do fall outside this range and when they are attached to a hook, there is little the prey can do to avoid being eaten.

I admit that I can not fully explain this but if I had to venture a hypothesis it would be this. Fish growth tends to be allometric. This means that they tend to grow proportionately in 3 dimensions. What this means is that fish's mouth volume and the volume of water it can engulf when launching an attack is proportionate to its weight. The 1% prey size might represent the optimum prey where the failure of capture and energy gained strike the optimum balance. The lower limit is around .1% or around 10% the length of the predator the upper limit seems to be the limit determined by gape.

From a management perspective, one should plan for the most probable outcomes. If one desires the diet to be primarily 6" prey, then one wants to be sure the predator is large enough to predominately prey on prey that large.

Last edited by jpsdad; 08/26/19 04:07 PM.

It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so - Will Rogers


Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,474
Likes: 264
E
Moderator
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
E
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,474
Likes: 264
Originally Posted By: jpsdad
OK, Here is a study on 3 Michigan lakes where flathe... in Sand Lake).

Swingle determined that Flatheads heavily target 4" to 6" panfish. I guess this tends to persist even as they grow very large. The fish in the study above were much larger than I recommended. It would be better to match their stocking rates and fish sizes as it clearly worked. Flatheads live a long time, so they wouldn't need to reproduce if allowed to grow large


OK guys - this study will be the topic of the next PB mag Cutting Edge Article. Appropriate credit given.
















Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,714
Likes: 281
R
RAH Offline
Lunker
Offline
Lunker
R
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,714
Likes: 281
Do you think blue catfish would work as well? I suppose that I will eventually find out, but my pond destined for this has been slow to establish plants, so only FHM and LCS in it now. Need some cover before adding crappie followed by the blue catfish.

Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 884
Likes: 201
G
Offline
G
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 884
Likes: 201
Originally Posted By: Augie
FWIW, it's not at all unusual to catch 5lb size flathead catfish on 6" bluegill while fishing the Missouri River.


I have caught a 20lb FH on a 1lb plus Bullhead and a 55lb FH on a 4" goldfish, on the MO River, point being, I dont think they are selective in what size they chomp on.


All the really good ideas I've ever had came to me while I was milking a cow.
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,878
Likes: 278
J
Offline
J
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,878
Likes: 278
Wanted to update with a couple of links. One is an old publication that covers the culture of FH fingerlings. If you read this you will discover why its rare to find a supplier of flathead fingerlings ... especially advanced fingerlings. They are formidable predators indeed. The reference describes advanced fingerling production of only 20 to 50 fish/acre. The reason for the low number is mostly cannabilism, but they also beat up on each other. They are very successful at raising fingerlings to 2.5 inches. Beyond that they'll just feed on each other. Swingle reported that FH fingerling survival ranges between 0 and 2 percent when introduced into existing LMB and BG populations. When you think about it, they don't need to do a lot of recruiting to replace themselves ... rare as they tend to be among catfish. About 1 large FH/acre is the limit for most BOWs. The hatcheries even have to be careful with the broodfish. They feed the brood ponds at 1000 lbs forage per 100 lbs brooder standing weight annually. These holdings ponds must be stocked with forage prior to introducing brooders. This ensures the brooders don't eat each other. shocked

These fish grow fast and here is a link about FH growth. in some Oklahoma impoundments ranging from 11 acres to Lake Texoma. I think to use these fish for the threads purpose one needs a good handle on what is in the BOW and should be prepared to remove FH when they get too large.

Last edited by jpsdad; 11/08/19 09:47 PM.

It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so - Will Rogers


Page 2 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Today's Birthdays
Bob Lusk, GaryK, GrizzFan, PhotographerDave
Recent Posts
Happy Birthday Bob Lusk!!
by Rainman - 03/28/24 02:53 AM
Relative weight charts in Excel ? Calculations?
by Mark Dyer - 03/27/24 10:18 PM
Reducing fish biomass
by esshup - 03/27/24 06:17 PM
New 2 acre pond stocking plan
by esshup - 03/27/24 06:05 PM
1 year after stocking question
by esshup - 03/27/24 06:02 PM
Questions and Feedback on SMB
by Donatello - 03/27/24 03:10 PM
Paper-shell crayfish and Japanese snails
by Bill Cody - 03/27/24 10:18 AM
Brooder Shiners and Fry, What to do??
by esshup - 03/27/24 08:47 AM
2024 North Texas Optimal BG food Group Buy
by Dave Davidson1 - 03/27/24 08:15 AM
Dewatering bags seeded to form berms?
by esshup - 03/26/24 10:00 PM
Freeze Danger? - Electric Diaphragm Pump
by esshup - 03/26/24 09:47 PM
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