Does anyone have a scientific study of caloric densities of bass forage?
For example Trout and insects are really high, yellow perch and threadfin are in the middle and crawfish are low. But want to fill in the gaps with BG, RES, Shinners, GS and tilapia.
Looking for hard data/proof as opposed to a hunch.
There have been a few threads on topics closely related to your question.
Unfortunately, I don't remember what the keywords would be for you to find those threads using the search function.
I believe "jpsdad" is one of the members that provides research data in that area.
You might try sending him a private message and see if he can direct you to any good past threads, or see if he will make a comprehensive comment in your new thread?
(I believe he is plenty busy with family stuff this time of year, so if you message him you should probably give him 1-2 weeks to respond.)
There is no study that I am aware of that focuses on the relative nutritional properties of LMB prey. There are, however, many investigations into the energy density and nutritional profiles of various organisms. Member ewest pointed me to a paper on Arizona NP growth rates where energy density of various species which comprised the diet of NP in the three lakes under study. The density units are in J/g wet instead of calories. This can serve as starting place into your own investigations.
Species................J/g Wet......Author ===========......======......================ Black crappie........4186..........Kitchell et al. 1974 Bluegill..................4186..........Kitchell et al. 1974 Common carp.......7524..........Cummins and Wuycheck 1971 Golden shiner.......4983..........Kelso 1972 Green sunfish.......4186..........Kitchell et al. 1974 Largemouth Bass..4186.........Rice et al. 1983 Northern crayfish...6153.........Stein and Murphy 1976 Northern pike.........3600.........Bevelheimer et al. 1985 Rainbow trout.........6069.........Rand et al. 1993
(I thought images were working? or still no?)
Not all prey are equal at energy density. Also it is possible for a prey of relatively low wet energy density to produce more energy for consumption. The energy density of the water is also important (think energy per unit area available for consumption). IOWs a lower energy dense prey that produces multiple cohorts and maintains a large biomass or large daily production of biomass can be more advantageous for predators. That said ... prey that is abundant and of higher energy density is most advantageous. Let's look the main parameters that affect energy density.
1. Water content. Water is energy inert and the strongest influence on the energy density of prey is the average proportion of the wet weight that is water. I think this is why, for example, Swingle recorded poorer performance from PK shrimp than GAMs. GAM are more than 2 times more energy dense than PK shrimp which have a high proportion of water content. Energy density is correlated to the dry weight percentage of the prey. Even so. the r-squared isn't that great because there are other things that affect energy density which are also important ... which brings us to the next parameter.
2. Mineral content. This is commonly referred to as the ash content but think those molecules like calcium, phosphorous, etc which are inorganic and cannot contribute to energy content. Being energy inert, the percentage of mineral weight also affects wet energy density. It turns out that the ash-free dry weight percentage is very decent predictor of the wet energy content of any organism having an r-squared > .97. These are still essential nutrients however as fish need them for bones, scales, fins, and metabolic processes.
Water and Mineral content explain 97% of the wet energy density of an organism but there still remains variation which is caused by the nutrients remaining. These are comprised of protein, lipids, and generally to a much lesser degree carbohydrates. Carbs tend to be insignificant for fish organisms but I have seen results of analysis where they are not negligible for some invertebrate organisms. But since we are talking prey for LMB we are talking fish where the lions share of the organic dry matter is protein followed by lipids. Proteins, although they are more abundant in the dry matter of fish, are less energy dense. So when a greater proportion of the organic dry matter is lipid, the organic dry matter tends to be more energy dense and this also means that the wet weight energy density also benefits from higher proportions of lipids in the organic dry matter. The energy density of proteins range from 17,200 to 23,900 J/g dry weight while the energy density of lipids range from 34,700 to 39,800 J/g dry weight. So "on average", lipids are 80% more energy dense than proteins. This is why "oily" fish like trout, carp, shad, and minnows are comparatively more energy dense than fish like lepomis and esox.
I couldn't find data on the energy/density of GAM for example but could make an estimate from its dry weight and the percentages of proteins and lipids of the organic dry matter. I used middle range values for protein and lipids for the estimation. Proteins are estimated to contribute 2998 J/g wet weight while lipids contribute 2444 J/g wet weight which together comprise 5438 J/g wet weight. However, I think the estimate is lower than actual (probably ~ 5567 J/g wet weight) where the average for protein and lipids understates that from which the GAM is comprised or possibly the Mineral content at 18% of dry matter was excessive in the paper I read. All the same, the estimate is pretty close and within 2.4% by my reckoning. In the end, to get an exact figure, one has do that with experiments.
I will also mention that a particular species doesn't just have a wet value that describes every individual. Condition plays an important role in the variation of prey wet energy density. Prey in good condition (> than standard weight) tend to have lower values of water content. When a fish relies on its own body for metabolism energy it loses weight in the process of consuming itself. This seems to leave space occupied by water until the fish is able to rebuild in times of surplus. So starved fish tend to be nutritionally deficient on a wet weight basis. Also fish in good condition tend to store more of their gains in the form of lipids which serve as good sources energy without depleting muscle mass in lean periods. So prey with good lipid reserves will be of greater energy density. Starved prey are poorer forage because they require more water handling during digestion, more encounters to consume the same weight, and less high energy lipids.
You may want to readthis paper. Google is a good resource but if you want to get back to articles previously found it is best to store pdfs than trying to search for them later. There are lots of resource out there in the public domain. Look also through my forum post for the thread titled "LMB are remarkable converters of fish"
Last edited by jpsdad; 09/12/2306:33 AM.
It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so - Will Rogers
The other thing to take into consideration is the size of the fish compared to the size of the bass. It doesn't matter if the gams are 30% more the j/g of BG, if the LMB have to expend 50% more calories catching gams to equal the weight of the BG then the LMB is at a net loss. Size of forage matters too.
Its all about energetics - food energy in, minus food energy used, equals weight gain or loss. Even when cold there is still energy burned to maintain body functions like respiration, circulation, digestion etc.
The other thing to take into consideration is the size of the fish compared to the size of the bass. It doesn't matter if the gams are 30% more the j/g of BG, if the LMB have to expend 50% more calories catching gams to equal the weight of the BG then the LMB is at a net loss. Size of forage matters too.
One may not assume that LMB expend more energy on small prey than on large prey. This is simply not the case. Small prey have a very high probability of capture where large prey have very low probability of capture. LMB expend more energy to catch a single large prey than a single small one. There are two curves which are thought to combine which result in the prey distributions consumed by a predator. One curve is the probability of capture versus the proportional length. This curve starts at a high value near some minimum required length (minimum required to induce predatory action) and rapidly declines as the proportional length increases until the limit of length that can be consumed is reached. The second curve is the proportional energy content versus the proportional length. This curve starts at a very low value and rapidly increases. In the middle somewhere between the extremes is the most advantageous size for consumption (the size that returns the most energy for the energy invested) and hypothetically ... this size should correspond with the size of prey that the predator most frequently consumes (after all, why would a predator have behavior that fails to maximize economy?). It turns out according to realized consumption for LMB and BG prey that this size corresponds to 18.5% the proportional length of the LMB. Now keep in mind, to hang on to any predispositions that this can't be right one must first assume that in large data sets LMB engage in behavior that is not consistent with optimal foraging theory. IOWs, optimal foraging theory would have to be false and what we may think it really is would have to unsupported by evidence and yet somehow true.
I mentioned GAMs as an example of how one can calculate energy density for an arbitrary forage by knowing the wet percentages of proteins and lipids. But to be sure ... at the extremes of the size distributions of consumed prey ... these sizes are consumed less frequently because they do not return the peak energy for the energy expended according to optimal foraging theory. So size matters. There is a limit to the size of LMB that can benefit from GAM forage due to their small maximum size. OTOH, for BG of equivalent lengths or energy content .... the same applies. There are truly no exceptions which is the beauty of normalizing analysis on the basis of energy consumption.
Now, I mentioned above that LMB get the most bang for their energy expenditure buck from BG prey that are 18.5% their own length. So it behooves an 18" LMB to focus on BG that are in the neighborhood of 3.33 inches long. Around 68% (1 std dev) of its consumption will range from 3" to 3.6" long. Less frequently the 18" LMB consumes prey less than 3" or greater than 3.6" but some consumption falls within these outer portions. According the data the remaining 32% is split between larger and smaller prey. So using energetics what can we say of the most frequently consumed proportionate length of prey? First, 18.5% proportionate length BG provide 68% of the daily maintenance energy an LMB needs. If he only eats one every day the LMB will dwindle and die. But if an LMB can average two of them every day for an entire growing season (180 days) and is able to consume only what is required for maintenance for the other 185 days of the year ... it will increase its weight by 79% over the course of that year. So for an 18" LMB at standard weight of 3.33 lbs ... it will grow to 6 lbs and in so doing he will consume 631 BG in order to do that and convert at a gross FCR of 11.1. Generally an 18" LMB can't find that much forage and so typical growth is smaller and the FCR worse than that. Clearly, however, a 3.33" BG is very worthwhile to eat for an 18" LMB and if he can eat 3 every 2 days he will be maintained.
There is general agreement that 10% the proportional length represents a minimum length. At this proportionate length a BG provides 8.25% of the energy needed for maintenance of the LMB. The LMB needs to consume at least 12 to maintain but could grow by 12.9% over the course of a growing season if it consumed 13 daily. To be sure, this is very inefficient use of the BG YOY resource. It behooves an LMB to be disinclined to consume such small prey when more efficient prey is a available. If an LMB can let them grow to say 16.67% proportionate length then there will be a 577% increase in the amount of energy consumed. Now I want to mention that there are cases where small extremely small prey are able of grow large fish. So under special circumstances this happens because large quantities of easily consumed small prey add up to more than the fish needs for maintenance. The extent to which LMB can utilize small prey isn't clear but in periods of otherwise starvation and where small prey is very abundant, I could see 10% prey playing a temporary role for maintenance. This would require consumption of approximately one 10% prey every daylight hour through such a period.
The range from 16.67% to 20% proportionate length represents one standard deviation (68%) of consumption. The next higher standard deviation represents (13% of consumption). This range begins at 20% and ends somewhere in the neighborhood of 23 to 24% proportionate length. Above this length, only around 2% of the consumption resides. Prey this size contain a lot of energy but the success rate of capture is so low that it requires a substantial investment of time which translates to large amounts of energy expended for the energy gained. It is inefficient which is why it is not optimum and why prey that large are infrequently consumed.
It is very common among our ranks to hear people suggest that 25% to 33% of the proportionate length is a BG prey size that LMB need. But lets just consider how reasonable such an proposition is under analysis. Consider BG falling into the middle of that range at 30%. Just one 30% proportionate length BG provides 257% more than what an LMB needs for a day's maintenance. IOWs just one is enough to sustain an LMB for 3.57 days without eating anything else. To me this is definitely a red flag. It just makes sense that LMB would prefer to eat more frequently than that. So maybe an LMB will eat one every day. If the LMB does that for a growing season it will grow 6000%. Imagine a 3.33 lb LMB growing to 203.45 lbs. These size prey must be very infrequently consumed and therefore represent (for the case of the largest LMB) brooding stock for the forage base and are of little consequence as forage in and of themselves.
Still not convinced? Read this paper. The experiment involved giving LMB fixed and equal numbers of PKS prey of various size groups. Prey less 20% the length were most consumed consistent with multistate Data on realized consumption. One could not argue population differences because all were equal in number. The author states:
Quote
Although the upper limit in prey size is constrained by the relationship between piscivore mouth size and prey body depth, piscivores tend to consume prey sizes that are much smaller than the maximum possible.
Last edited by jpsdad; 09/09/2307:16 AM.
It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so - Will Rogers
Since LMB don't have hands, do they strike at lures that invade their space? If so, is that phenomenon heightened during the spawn?
(I have caught more big bass on small lures during the spawning season, but I have caught more big bass overall during the spawning season too, so I can't evaluate my own observations.)
If they will strike at intruders large or small, might they "take a meal" if it was purely for defensive purposes?
Provided prey is large enough to be retained by gill rakers and small enough to fit in a predators mouth and be passed into the gullet ....it constitutes potential food. If an LMB takes food in its mouth, it makes sense to swallow it if it can be swallowed in order to get the energy return of an energy investment. I would think that LMB which are guarding nests typically do not get a full daily ration and that such LMB may be declining. There is incentive to feed from that stand point if it does not risk the nest. IOWs it makes sense that it isn't purely for defense but a blend of defense and some needed energy for the task of nest tending.
I will mention that on most days that I fly fish I will hook up with a >16" LMB or >22" CC. The CC are much more rare however and it seems I only hook up when the light is very low near dusk. I have caught several >16" LMB this year on a size 14 copper john. That's ultra tiny. On Saturday, I shouldn't have went out because I was coming down with Covid and it was dang hot ... but I netted some GAM and fished for small LMB to stock a pond and for >16" LMB to remove. I am trying to shift the population structure in favor of BG growth. Anyways the gams ranged in size from 3/4 in to 1 1/2 inches. I caught 8 LMB ranging from 3" to 8" ... but guess what? I also caught a 12" LMB and an LMB > 16". I deliberately fished for both casting to them and both spotted the GAM and moved in to investigate. Stopping just short. Then each opened its mouth moving forward a little with a small flick of its tail engulfing their respective GAM. The GAM that caught the 16" LMB was less than 1 inch long and was a negligible proportion of its daily maintenance need. I don't know why fish that large take size 14 copper johns and little GAM ... but ... if we return to optimum forage theory we might come to the conclusion that the LMB taking these baits anticipated a net gain in energy.
My efforts to remove 16" LMB from the little pond didn't go as well. There is a huge bloom of BG in that pond from 1/2 in to 1.5in in length and it is very difficult catch BG that small for fishing but I did manage two but was broke off by two that were the size I wanted to catch. The roughly 1.5" BG I was using were near the lower limit of what is considered consumable (10% proportionate length). I was unable to catch BG at the optimum length. That segment of the population is not very numerous right now.
It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so - Will Rogers
There is a huge bloom of BG in that pond from 1/2 in to 1.5in in length and it is very difficult catch BG that small for fishing but I did manage two but was broke off by two that were the size I wanted to catch. The roughly 1.5" BG I was using were near the lower limit of what is considered consumable (10% proportionate length). I was unable to catch BG at the optimum length. That segment of the population is not very numerous right now.
Do you have a throw net?
I am not very good with mine because I use it so rarely. However, it is fun to watch people bring in the fish when they are good with it. A few throws might get you a big haul of BG, including some in the size range you want.
Species................J/g Wet......Author ===========......======......================ Black crappie........4186..........Kitchell et al. 1974 Bluegill..................4186..........Kitchell et al. 1974 Common carp.......7524..........Cummins and Wuycheck 1971 Golden shiner.......4983..........Kelso 1972 Green sunfish.......4186..........Kitchell et al. 1974 Largemouth Bass..4186.........Rice et al. 1983 Northern crayfish...6153.........Stein and Murphy 1976 Northern pike.........3600.........Bevelheimer et al. 1985 Rainbow trout.........6069.........Rand et al. 1993
Salex,
Don't count out crayfish just yet. Notice their energy density. In that NP study the lake that recorded the most growth contained carp and crayfish as the primary sources of prey for NP. The NP growth in that lake blew away the other lakes which recorded growth right along the path that was then thought to be the maximum possible. So carp and crays pushed the envelope that redefined what the maximum path could be and what high energy prey can do. NP have exceptionally low energy density themselves and are consequently more sensitive to variation of prey energy density than predators of higher energy density.
I'm trying to get at is conversion rates for LMB when eating a pound of forage of a given species. Which species of forage (Tilapia, threadfin shad, crawfish or bluegill) is likely to give you the biggest pound of gain? I understand lots of variables going into this analysis and we can say it "all depends" . But can anyone boil it down to which of the 4 listed species of forage will (Likely-educated guess) hhave the best conversion rate, without getting into expendable energy to catch it or how much more babies a tilapia makes, or how big the forage is. Its a ROI question.
I'm trying to get at is conversion rates for LMB when eating a pound of forage of a given species. Which species of forage (Tilapia, threadfin shad, crawfish or bluegill) is likely to give you the biggest pound of gain? I understand lots of variables going into this analysis and we can say it "all depends" . But can anyone boil it down to which of the 4 listed species of forage will (Likely-educated guess) hhave the best conversion rate, without getting into expendable energy to catch it or how much more babies a tilapia makes, or how big the forage is. Its a ROI question.
"IF EATEN" Crawfish provides the highest return of the 4 you mention. BUT...the highest density of available forage could very possibly be another species. Most abundant of the right size at the right time-which can change in any pond setting at any time through a season-will be most utilized. Forage diversity provides best growth for LMB for never having to miss a meal at any given time of year. Every single pond will have a unique forage to forage relationship and to have a high density of many types of forage requires thought into the diversity of the habitat and structure required to have abundant populations of all forage types. Availability will vary for many reasons.
I'm trying to get at is conversion rates for LMB when eating a pound of forage of a given species. Which species of forage (Tilapia, threadfin shad, crawfish or bluegill) is likely to give you the biggest pound of gain? I understand lots of variables going into this analysis and we can say it "all depends" . But can anyone boil it down to which of the 4 listed species of forage will (Likely-educated guess) hhave the best conversion rate, without getting into expendable energy to catch it or how much more babies a tilapia makes, or how big the forage is. Its a ROI question.
If anyone were to give conversion numbers, they would not work for you. The problem is that conversion is a function of consumption that exceeds the maintenance ration. You can work with the maintenance and this provides very useful info. It takes ~6 lbs of BG to maintain 1 lb of LMB for a year. If BG are some percentage less energy dense than some other arbitrary forage ... then reduce 6 lbs by the same percentage to make a good estimate of the annual maintenance ration for that forage. I am fat fingering on my phone so the is as detailed as I can get. If you add 120 lbs annually of forage that is consumed and this could support 1 lbs of LMB for each 6 lbs of forage consumed the the gain will be 20 lbs give or take a pound or two. The conversion is in the neighborhood of 6 to 1 for the addition of the forage. Next year there will be no gain on the same supplement because the 20 lbs of LMB gained this year will need 120 lbs of maintenance. If you don't add the 120 lbs next year, they will lose the 20 lbs they gained this year for lack of maintenance. The only exception would be if you would harvest 20 lbs of LMB. They they could gain the same 20 lbs on the same supplement next year.
It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so - Will Rogers
Also what we pond managers are finding out is that the bigger the bass, the more weight of fish it has to eat to gain a pound.
I suppose you could equate that to the caloric requirement of a 6 year old to walk 100 yds vs. the caloric requirement of a 300 pound man to walk that same distance.
Caloric requirements would be needed to swim and when the fish try to catch a prey fish, they aren't successful every time. So, there are lots of calories expended without them being replaced.
Depending on location there might be some seasonality mixed in here as well that I hadn't seen mentioned. For us in the Mid-west....finding crawfish, tilapia, or threadfin in the dead of winter is likely a failed proposition. Likewise, without out cool water or higher DO trout in the summer probably won't pass muster either. - Supplemental stocking I would think would add some benefits though in not only taking some of the pressure off the existing forage as well as potentially providing a higher quality meal that is only available at the right time of the year.
Esshup, the conversion of 6 to 1 is a decent estimate for all LMB in north Texas so long as one understands the conversion is for the excess over maintenance. In the example above the pond provides the maintenance. They won't grow without an excess of consumption above maintenance. Without the supplement the consumption is 6 times the weight of the LMB and the gain is zero. Because the gain is zero the FCR is infinite and is in fact meaningless. With consumption above maintenance, there can be conversion and a finite FCR. Here is an example.
An 8 lb is being supported by pond foods. If BG prey, that LMB consumes 48 lbs of BG each year to tread water Lets grow the 8 lb bass by 1 lb. It will need to consume an additional 6 lbs of BG. The FCR is (48 + 6)/1= 54. To gain 2 lbs requires additional 12 lbs. The FCR is ( 48 + 12)/2 = 30. To gain 3 lbs ? The FCR is ( 48 + 18)/3 = 22. Gross FCR varies depending on the consumption above the maintenance ration. The same thing also applies to formulated feeds.
Gains can be negative. Just take away some of their maintenance. They will decline to match what the consumption can maintain. Examples of taking away some maintenance? Stop fertilizing, stop feeding, use pond dye, fail to maintain alkalinity are a few examples. Even an exceptionally cloudy summer can adversely affect the production of food.
Last edited by jpsdad; 02/22/2409:02 PM.
It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so - Will Rogers
Esshup, the conversion of 6 to 1 is a decent estimate for all LMB in north Texas so long as one understands the conversion is for the excess over maintenance. In the example above the pond provides the maintenance. They won't grow without an excess of consumption above maintenance. Without the supplement the consumption is 6 times the weight of the LMB and the gain is zero. Because the gain is zero the FCR is infinite and is in fact meaningless. With consumption above maintenance, there can be conversion and a finite FCR. Here is an example.
An 8 lb is being supported by pond foods. If BG prey, that LMB consumes 48 lbs of BG each year to tread water Lets grow the 8 lb bass by 1 lb. It will need to consume an additional 6 lbs of BG. The FCR is (48 + 6)/1= 54. To gain 2 lbs requires additional 12 lbs. The FCR is ( 48 + 12)/2 = 30. To gain 3 lbs ? The FCR is ( 48 + 18)/3 = 22. Gross FCR varies depending on the consumption above the maintenance ration. The same thing also applies to formulated feeds.
Gains can be negative. Just take away some of their maintenance. They will decline to match what the consumption can maintain. Examples of taking away some maintenance? Stop fertilizing, stop feeding, use pond dye, fail to maintain alkalinity are a few examples. Even an exceptionally cloudy summer can adversely affect the production of food.
So, you are saying a 1# LMB there needs 6# of forage to maintain, and a 10# LMB needs 60# of forage to maintain? (per year)
I think jpsdad is correct in his weight maintenance and gain estimates. This generl guideline probably applies for probably every fish consumer. For weight gain the fish has to be at an adequate weight (maintenance wt.) that allows for the increased gain above the maintenance level to occur. Weight gain to a certain extent I think does depend on QUALITY of food consumed i.e. food conversion ratio (FCR). If one disagrees then show us the proof from research or the literature to refute those estimates that were determined from the literature.
Last edited by Bill Cody; 02/23/2410:12 AM.
aka Pond Doctor & Dr. Perca Read Pond Boss Magazine - America's Journal of Pond Management
One thing I haven't noticed mentioned in here is birds as a dietary source. Most of the my bass that I gut contain swallows in their gut. I have always wondered why in spite of having many of them each spring that they all disappear by mid summer. I am used to dealing with all the mud nests everywhere on all the farms and ranches I grew up but no such issue here.
Then we started catching our bass and nearly every bass we have ever caught in the 15 to 20 inch range contains this when I gut them..
One might consider some bird houses to bring in birds to the pond. Not only a good source of food but it is amazingly cool to watch a big bass track a bird flying low over the water and jump out of the water and take the bird right out of the air. It is crazy how capable they are of tracking the bird and knowing where they will be. Also cool to watch is the bald eagles diving down and picking a large bass from our pond.
Our bass subsist off of basically insects and birds, we put catfish in the pond years ago and they thrived the first two years and there were a great many of them but then the bass ate them all and by year 4 there were no more catfish. So we keep the catfish in the other 4 ponds. I would love to have some Koi in the bass pond but there is no way they would survive the bass.
Dang .... this is just awesome. You know swallow skim the surface for water and will also kind bathe on the fly. Your LMB are just going to town on them. LOL. Awesome stuff. I was watching a nature show about animal migrations. There are several episodes and one featured European barn swallow as one the migrations followed. Swallow in Britain go all the way to South Africa and return to Britain to breed. Anyways they show footage of tiger fish jumping to catch them at the water surface. Was awesome footage. I frequently see LMB jumping to catch dragonflies in flight but haven't yet had the thrill to see an LMB take a barn swallow.
Anyways, welcome to the forum. It's been fun to follow your resourceful projects.
Also wanted to mention. Your LMB only pond is something that interests me. I am interested in understanding best practices of harvest management under LMB only. I would like to understand how you are managing and the production your are getting of harvested fish. If you would like to start a thread, that would be great.
Last edited by jpsdad; 02/24/2411:45 AM.
It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so - Will Rogers
Well we don't really do any "management", we catch and eat maybe 20 bass in the 15 to 19 inch range a year or so out of the bass pond. With many thousands of fish that doesn't really even effect the population any. I eat mostly the catfish they are smaller but ohh so good tasting. The kids are all grown and it is just the wife and I now, once in a while the kids will come by with their families and fish but most of them are like the wife, they don't much like fish. If they catch anything decent they usually give it to me to eat.. Works well for me.. lol
We should actually probably catch more fish than we do as we are probably a bit over populated but my wife is paraplegic and I am her care giver and that takes up a lot of my time. I also have muscular dystrophy and at this age it is getting a bit tougher to get everything done so not as much time left for pursuits like fishing. We do have some natural predation from eagles, muskrats, kytes and our cats but I don't think that adds up to much either really. The cats generally hunt more for the catfish than the bass, the catfish are easy for them to catch they simply touch their paw to the surface of the water lightly and the cats come to investigate it and bam the cats grab them and haul them up onto the bank and eat them.
While we do have a pretty awesome bass pond and catfish ponds we honestly have done nothing to care for either of them, they just have a good natural ecosystem going on.
I wouldn't say the ponds are unmanaged. I say this because there is human influence in the form of harvest. In your pics I did notice LMB throughout the ranges you mentioned harvested. Anyways, I always like to see and encourage harvest and use of farm ponds like yours.
So understanding that you are giving care to your bride and have a lot on your plate, I will suggest a couple of things to you that you can have your kids and grandkids do that can influence your ponds in ways you might like very much.
1. Actually first I would like to point out a great way to clean bullheads if you don't know about it already. My grandad did it this way. It's called shucking. There is a YouTube video here : .
2. Consider adding around 40 8" bullies to your LMB pond each year. Harvest them when they exceed 12". Should take no more 2 years for the bullhead to reach that size. They will take some insects away from the LMB but will provide more energy than that in YOY. Don't expect successful recruitment of the YOY. They probably will not reach sizes exceeding 4". So consider it a ladder that is done yearly. The stock rate could be lower or 10 to 20 higher. Just whatever the kids and grandkids can manage. This gives the LMB more fish to eat and will grow some dandy BH.
3. You complained about the BH in your small ponds being small. If you would like for them to be larger ... consider doing this. In the largest of your small ponds, add one (and only one) LMB. It should be large enough to consume the most abundant size of BH. Go with at least 3 times that length. You should see outstanding growth of the LMB. If not, it wasn't large enough. This arrangement should noticeably improve the condition and sizes of BH in that pond. You might even grow a 6 or 7 lb LMB. Use live bait to remove the LMB after around 4 or 5 years and replace. I have a friend who manages a pond with YP in this way. He introduced me to this concept of a single LMB in a small pond.
Last edited by jpsdad; 02/24/2411:47 AM.
It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so - Will Rogers
The skin probably wouldn't come off like it does with catfish. I have used the method with BH & CC. Have never tried it with BG or crappie.
When I clean BG and crappie in the round for pan frying, I do employ a variation of the concept. After scaling, I will cut on the dorsal side through the backbone. Then just pull the head off. The guts come off with the head. No cutting through the guts that way.
With trout, I don't scale. I will open the gut from the anus to about halfway to the gills. Then cut from the dorsal side through the back bone and then just pull off the head. Like BG and crappie, the guts stay with the head.
I will mention that I return the heads and guts to the pond either by fishing with them or just throwing them back. When I fish with them, I will catch 2 or 3 LMB for every CC I catch.
It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so - Will Rogers
.gif)
![[Linked Image from i.pinimg.com]](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/ed/b5/e7/edb5e7f935843b996cf52be593c9ebd2--smoothie-smooth-collie.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/Nme2xyX.jpg)
