Pond Boss Forums INTRO Questions & Observations What makes exceptional trophy lakes different?

LMB females often lose 25%of their body mass/weight during the spawn.

Don't know how many might consider stocking trout but the image below depicts consumption and growth of LMB and RBT standing weights for a temperature profile near Tulsa where the LMB are assumed to consume 50% above the maintenance ration. The simulation goes from Dec 1 through May 7th (159 days). The size of RBT is avg 6" and the Standing weight of LMB is assumed to be 25 lbs/acre distributed between 6 fish (a little over 4 lbs average weight). So these are the large fish a person would want to feed by stocking trout for forage. At this consumption the standing weight of LMB would grow ~19% and all of the RBT would be consumed. This assumes that the LMB were eating nothing else (which of course would not be the case). So probably would take less RBT than this for similar growth when other things are on the menu. The weight of RBT needed for this is 11.5 lbs of 6" RBT for each 25 lbs of LMB large enough to consume them. The 11.5 stocking provides ~33 lbs of forage because some of the RBT grow before being eaten.



One of conditions of such performance is the consumption. If RBT are by and large too big to be captured fair chase, then of course a greater number will survive to larger sizes and fewer will be eaten. Now I will mention that 6" RBT are a big meal even for 10 lb LMB. 1 is more than 50% above the maintenance ration. For the 6 totaling 25 lbs, consumption starts at around 1 RBT every 3 days but by the end of the forage period the consumption falls to 1 every 8 days or so. I think a similar stocking rate with 4" or 5" RBT would allow more frequent and dependable consumption. This is really important with any forage stocking. The fish have to small enough to be easily consumed or they are not actually food and the standing weight at stocking needs to be high enough that normal consumption doesn't initially keep pace with the initial growth rate of the forage (something which allows the standing weight of consumable prey to increase under cropping). If this condition is met, then the forage standing weight will rise and reach a peak and then begin declining. Each spawn of BG is doing a similar thing where only a minority of YOY BG are able grow past the consumption window. Several fold the maximum standing weight of consumable prey is produced and consumed because they are growing throughout the cropping period.

Out of curiosity. At what point, size of LMB, would they be able to take out a 4-6 RBT?

4-6" RBT could be taken by 12-14" LMB.

Boondoggle,

12-14" LMB could take 4-6" RBT. Even so, we need to take into account other factors in order to understand the impact of predation on the forage stocking. Per realized consumption data, the optimum weight (energetically ... time and effort expended for energy gained) of laterally compressed prey is ~0.86% of the body weight of the LMB. So for a 12" LMB this equates to 2.2" BG. Applying a similar weight proportion to RBT prey we get the ideal length of 2.64". Larger or smaller prey have economy ... that is to say ... they will yield more energy than expended but will not be as favorable for the LMB. A 4" RBT is most favorable for the economy of 18" LMB.

Statistically we find that 68% of the consumption by number of laterally compressed prey lies between 16.7% and 20% of the the length of the LMB. For fusiform prey, the range of the first standard deviation lies between 19.5% and 25% the length of the LMB. So from a probability standpoint we can eliminate 84% of the probability that an RBT will be consumed by 12" LMB by stocking at a minimum length of 3". To be sure, 12" LMB will consume >3" RBT but the frequency will be in line with energetics where the frequency will decline as the proportion of the RBT body length increases. By the time the RBT reaches 6" it is, in a very practical sense, off the menu of 12" LMB unless it is sick, dying, or dead.

If I calculate the consumption of RBT for the season for a 15" LMB consuming 2.2 times its maintenance ration, the gain from this consumption will be 52% of the LMB body weight. Smaller LMB consume at higher rates and grow faster as a % gain. From Dec 1 to May 7 the estimate of individual RBT consumed is 36. Now I will mention that this is probably WAY too rosy for a stocking of 4" RBT. At 4" the initial proportion already exceeds 25% of the LMB length (26.7%) and so we have eliminated 84% of the probability that 4" trout will be consumed by 15" LMB. Applying probability we can then calculate that consumption is probably limited to 6 RBT for the 15" LMB. Furthermore, most of these will occur very close to the stocking date. At the time of stocking the 1.83 lb 15" LMB will consume 4 RBT every 6 days to consume 2.2 times maintenance. By the end, the consumption is estimated at 1 every 5 days. So somewhere in the middle the RBT have grown too much to be food for that LMB.

IMHO. The most optimum forage size to stock is forage that is of the length of the bottom of the first standard deviation. This provides a window through the most energetically favorable lengths of the prey and provides the longest span of time across these most favorable lengths. The consumption will be maximized with such a strategy and so consequently growth will also be maximized. For RBT, this is 19.5% of the length of the minimum target length to feed. Stocking at 4", one will be focusing on growing >20" LMB most optimally.

I'm trying to get this in my brain relating to F1's and Kansas. My understanding is:

1st year
F1's 4-6" would be available basically for fall stocking. So, no RBT 1st winter. Just let them eat on the BG, FHM, bugs or other forage fry in the pond.

2nd year
F1's have grown some over the 1st fall/winter. As they progress through to the next fall, monitor size and my wife will be buying me RBT of ??? size to put in the pond late fall/winter for Christmas.
- Size of the RBT is based on the size of the F1's before we stock with the expectation that we are just stocking enough to be eaten over the winter/following spring?

From what I have read, and watched it seems as though the goal is to try to pack on as much growth to the desired fish early in life (I think Mr. Lusk mentioned in the first 2 years in one of the YouTube videos).

Am I on the right track here?

Not entirely sure but I have always felt that the first 2 years were critical. But, we have to assure that enough groceries , of the proper size, are available in the succeeding years. I’ve always felt that the best bass raiser is a bluegill farmer.

I think 2nd year could be too early to get the benefit of forage growth and maybe not required at this stage. Remember that 4" RBT are going to very vulnerable to >18" but that they will quickly grow out of the high vulnerability window in a month or two. By the time they reach 6" in length, they will be more difficult to consume and so will be much less frequently on the menu. So one way around this, if you were to supplement trout, is to stock smaller numbers of RBT periodically. The downside is that you will not get the full benefit of growth which will cheapen the cost of forage. The amount stocked should be the amount that could reasonably be consumed by the time they grow to 25% the length of your LMB. 4" to 5" RBT fall within the window for 20" LMB and beyond that length the frequency of consumption will fall off rapidly. So by stocking cohorts of smaller fish where they are consumed while at optimum lengths one can keep them growing optimum. IMHO, RBT forage should be reserved for when ponds have fish exceeding 20" that are otherwise not getting enough BG forage because there is not enough BG YOY survival growing into their optimum consumption window. For large LMB, this window may not be achieved for a BG until the year after hatching.

Check out the plan for my dream pond where I would like to grow a few trophy LMB. First, this is where I would like for the pond to be in 10 years. The initial stocking will be 32 female LMB (8 per acre). Each year I will select 1 fish for trophy track and harvest up to 7 LMB and stock 8 Female LMB. Selected fish will be the ones that are most vulnerable to fishing. I would like for the trophy fish to possess behavior that makes them easier to catch. Now, I will mention that the standing weight is somewhat small and this because I do not intend to stock BG. At this point I would like to stock RES and supplement TP YOY with a forage pond. A fair proportion of the forage for the LMB will be supplied by RES where I fill in the holes with supplemental forage or by feeding previously raised TP morts I have frozen. I will also probably try to encourage a base population of crayfish in my pond with just enough cover to provide for overwinter survival of say 20 to 40 lbs of crayfish/acre. The plan depicts per acre data for a 5 acre pond.



Notice the length increments that I anticipate will be attained where the LMB are growing maximally for my location. I came up with the numbers by estimating length at 110 RW and 1 lb/year growth. This is as much as I expect them to grow in length. After locking in those lengths, I adjusted the weight gain annually until the RW for later years approaches RW 135. This is as fat as I expect they can get. The forage requirements in LBs/year are what are required to attain the next years growth increment. You may notice that after 4 years the harvest is restricted to >20" LMB. By the time LMB reach 20", they are beginning to require forage > 1 year of age. Its more difficult to produce this forage in sufficient quantity and so I plan to have fewer LMB >20" than <20" where I would like to (if possible) to grow a few examples of Northern LMB >10 lbs in a Northern OK pond. This is a modest standing weight and plan that requires the production of forage energy equivalent of 180 lbs of RES per acre year. Fish <20" require 131 lbs forage per acre-year while fish >20" require 48 lbs of forage per acre year.



So the plan is to supplement with TP grown in a 1/20 acre forage pond grown to 2" to 2.5" in length or to stock adult TP. If the forage is grown in a forage pond, then I will need at least 3 lbs of females. If growing in the pond with RES and LMB, I am not sure just how much weight of females I would need (probably >15 lbs). It would depend on survival of the hatches to 2" to 2.5" sizes. It is unclear what survival to the 2.25" lengths would be in the fishing pond. Below is an example of a TP cohort of 1100 TP/acre (2.25" avg length totaling 15 lbs/acre) stocked on June 1st with an LMB standing weight of 27.5 lbs/acre. The cohort is stocked at 40 days post fertilization and attains a maximum standing weight of 22 lbs/acre and achieves a length average of 4.33 by the 45th day after stocking. The cohort will produce ~41 lbs of consumed forage and gain the LMB standing weight by as much as 27% in weight over the 45 day period. Cohorts are optimized on a 45 day stocking schedule. The weight 45 days after stocking is ~ 11 lbs and these match the best growth I expect of RES in their 0-year. IOWs TP can provide the larger prey that >20 LMB need in their 0-year only 85 days after they were fertilized. I think I can get in 2 to 3 cohorts annually. OR I just might stock adults each year and take what they are able to produce in the pond what ever that may be (which is a much easier path to follow).

Santa's gonna have to give someone a new keyboard for Christmas.

I think the growth plan for some female LMB(8/ac) sounds like a very good way to grow some really big and maybe trophy sized LMB. The plan sounds like a practical and decent way to grow primarily big bass because of the recent PBoss Jul-Aug article by Dr Wes Neal titled "Why Is It So Hard To Recover A Bass-Crowded Pond. He explains why ponds with crowded LMB that had been density corrected always tend to fairly quickly return to a bass crowded state (2 research studies cited) . Using just female bass eliminates two big problems for growing really big LMB. 1. LMB based ponds have a strong tendency to ANNUALLY have too many small bass recruited into the population. This leads to major food shortages to keep target bass growing. 2. All females reduces your time spent properly harvesting unwanted bass. Then your time can then be focused on making sure there are plenty of the correct sizes and amounts of prey foods to keep the limited number of all female bass growing at the best possible rate each year.

Now the big biggest problem of this whole plan is, where does one reliably obtain all female bass?? At this point in time, it is a very difficult and elusive goal to find the all female bass, especially ones of known age.

Very interesting project and dream! So, for your project you wouldn't be adding in RBT until year 3 or 4?

Boondoggle,

In year 3 and 4 is where one would begin to get some return on them. But to get most bang for your buck you will need examples of LMB throughout the spectrum of lengths > 20". By this I mean that if the lengths of fish are not concentrated in a small range, you can benefit from growing RBT in situ to the sizes optimum for the lunkers in the pond. We are able goose a pond for fast initial growth. We do this by giving forage fish a head start and by stocking lower numbers of LMB after the forage is established. But that is all that is. It is a goose that will exceed expectations in the early going but it will become increasingly difficult to maintain over time. You correctly intuited the first thing I wanted to convey. Its takes time for LMB to grow long.

There were a few of other things I hoped you would also gain from my post which admittedly requires a lot of reading between the many (so sorry Theo ) lines.

1. RBT aren't the only way to grow big fish. Most of the metabolic demand is in the warm months and forage production is critical during this period. I mention planning to use TP but one could use BG instead. Stocking forage is one of the better ways to keep big fish growing. This is why a small forage pond can help so much. The survival of BG to 2" is relatively low in a pond that has a large standing weight of BG and LMB predators. This and competition from LMB recruits is what stunts fish to lengths below 20". If you cannot get enough 2" BG recruited in years 3 and later then growing the longer lengths of LMB may be very difficult.

2. The production of 3.5" to 6" prey fish are going to be the determining factor for supporting fish larger than 20". It takes time to grow to that length and their numbers will be much smaller than 2" prey fish. So it is important that the population of LMB reflects the diminishing number of prey fish as they grow in length. IMHO, one of the mistakes we make is trying to preserve members of the original stocking too long. By removing most of the fish as they approach 20", one puts the odds in favor of growing fish to 24" or greater. This is in essence enforcing the trophic pyramid on the biomass of the LMB population. If I were to try to maintain a large population of >20" LMB then I would be essentially turning the trophic pyramid upside down. This is unbalanced, unsustainable, and costly to maintain in this condition. So in my example I am trying to establish a population of >20" fish at the density of 1 LMB acre. The density of fish 12"-20" ~ 6.4 per acre. On a biomass metric the goal is ~27 lbs/acre of LMB <20" and ~ 9 lbs per acre of LMB >20" and so the biomass of the two populations is pyramid shaped where 25% of the biomass is > 20".

3. In a pond that has reproducing LMB, this plan reflects a subset of the total population. All the figures for forage consumed to support this segment of the total population are valid for a Tulsa location. So in a pond where there are more members of the population, this plan reflects the condition we are trying to get the pond into while understanding that the forage production required will exceed this number. You will notice that this scenario only allows for annual recruitment of 1.6 LMB per acre into the >12" class. These recruits should only be female fish that you have caught before or stocked yearly of line descended from selection of high vulnerability to angling. If you would tag or fin clip these recruits, then what remains is the relentless harvest of fish > 12" that are unmarked ... all of them ... as many as you can harvest regardless of size or condition. Each LMB harvested frees 500 or so BG to feed one of your recruits. Supplement forage to feed the recruits which will require stocking them at sizes that reduce their consumption by <12" LMB. Stocking at lengths of 2.4" will eliminate 85% of the probability that they will be consumed by 12" LMB. 2.4" BG grow fast enough that they are not in the consumption window of 12" LMB for very long. If you have 7.4 LMB per acre selected, and other LMB > 12" have been removed, then 4,352 of the 2.4" BG per acre-year would be sufficient to support the selected LMB recruits. Some would be produced by the pond and you could supplement the rest. Note the need for supplemental BG or other equivalent forage stocking. How fast your fish are growing and RW will tell you whether they would benefit from additional forage or not.

Bill, the absence of attention by hatchery sources does make the acquisition of certified positively identified female LMB in adult sizes (12") a non starter. I don't think any of them are interested in doing that. I also don't think most pond owners are interested in paying the value of such a source either. For my particular situation, I could definitely benefit from and be willing to pay 100 bucks for such fish. A big number but otherwise I would have to do all that myself in different water than my fishing hole. I don't think I can do it cheaper than that. Ways I could justify the expense would be that I would spend less time removing unwanted fish, and reduced expense on feed and supplemental forage. Another justification for the expense would be skewing the management for success of goals. I am not sure just how much that is worth but I do know it is very easy to spend much more than that on other things and not achieve the desired goals. How much is success of the goals worth?

With regard to the age of the LMB. I would be satisfied with 12" LMB that are 2 years of age. This is normal growth of LMB in many impoundments that produce trophy LMB. What will limit success for my plan is less about how big they are at two years of age and more about how much forage they have to eat when they achieve 20" in length. It's the back end that stunts fish, not the front end. The reason we become focused on this early growth is because typical plans are unsustainable and "growth of the biggest fish" will hit a wall where growth stops altogether. If we don't get the growth early (eg a 21" LMB that exceeds 9 lbs) we may not grow any fish to 9 lbs ever. One of my goals is to produce sustainable results over time.

A work around to the lack of supply issues of female LMB, I have considered is this. Purchase 12" LMB at 15 - 20 $ per pound in the fall and use the straw (catheter tube method) to determine sex; see more about these methods in a below post by jpsdad. I could eliminate 94% males this way. Then stock them into the forage pond with existing forage. Feeding of previously frozen forage sufficient to reach a minimum goal over winter gain could be done also if the forage pond had no existing forage. In the spring, I could positively identify females and use vulnerability to angling as part of the selection process.

Finally, it is also possible to use the plan as subset of selected LMB that are allowed to survive. If all other >12" LMB are removed then the plan and its forage requirements are valid not only for this segment of the population but also for the pond's total population of >12" LMB. Not withstanding the forage needs of LMB <12" in length, provided the population of > 12" LMB is known ... forage can be supplemented at sizes that will support selectively the population of >12" LMB.

There are females available @ 30$/lb for Northern strain. I am picking up 125 of these in March. I will, of course determine 100% that they are female. These are 2yr olds and are (will be) ave 16".
The problem is it's takes some time to learn to tube these and it's still not 100% accurate on every fish, so in other words, you have to buy enough fish that you can be 100% on the number you actually need.

This is really great news Snipe! At least for Kansas and Nearby States we have source nearby where the expertise of positively identified female LMB will be accessible.

I guess what I was meaning to say is they are available to anyone that wants them. I'm not carrying them, only confirming sex for orders from my customers that ask for it.
The supplier is in the PB resource guide.

That's how I understood it, Snipe. But for anyone interested where you are convenient, I would encourage them to reach out to you about it.

Great thread. I am placing it in the Archives for growing largemouth bass.

Looks like you guys have been busy in here today. The novice in me is curious about stocking ratios with an all female population. Half or more of the battle as I understand it is removing the males and underperforming fish. From my youtube experiences watching, listening and taking notes on all of the sources with a special shout out to Mr. Lusk for all of his work and help he provides to the community stocking 100 LMB basically is a 50 fish cull due to males that won't reach the size of the females.

Would an all female population skew stocking rates and by how much?

I would like to point to the difference between the "straw method" and the positive identification method using a catheter that extracts gametes. The latter is the method one would use to know for certain the sex of an LMB. To do this safely requires sedation of the LMB so it isn't injured by the glass tube which is inserted into the oviduct to retrieve eggs for positive identification. If the fish flops around it can break the tube while inserted and even if the tube doesn't break the oviduct could be damaged, be a point of infection, that could later kill the fish. One could consider such a procedure a minor veterinary operation that uses mild anesthesia as part of the procedure. I hope from this description that people can understand the value of what Snipe is doing for his clients. The procedure is involved and requires expertise.

The straw method to which I referred is different. This method instead uses a plastic broom straw for probing the oviduct. The plastic broom straw is polished on the end, is flexible, and is less likely to injure fish. It doesn't require anesthesia and was developed as quick and dirty field technique by wildlife biologists to identify the sex of field samples with higher degree of accuracy than earlier methods of field sexing. The technique yields a high degree of accuracy (> 94%). It can fail in one of two ways. It can fail to identify a female when the straw is not easily inserted into oviduct and it can fail to identify a male when the straw can be inserted into sperm duct to a sufficient depth. There are probably ways to improve the technique with different sized straw for different lengths of LMB. But it is what it is, a simple field technique that isn't 100% perfect but provides highly practical information.

So practical ways to employ the method are:

1. Identifying females in the field in less than a minute for selection of Trophy Path recruits in a mixed sex pond. For example, consider the plan above where the selected recruits are subset of a mixed sex culture of fish. Each year 8 female recruits are selected in the neighborhood of 12" length. If using the straw method to identify sex, then there is only around a 40% chance that 1 of the selection is male. After 2 years there is an 80% chance that 1 of the 16 selected over past 2 years is male. Although not perfect, this is sufficient skewing to get good results.

2. Culling males from a population of mixed sex fish. This includes fish purchased for later selection or positive identification. Above I talk about using the method so as to not have to overwinter fall purchased males in the forage pond. In the practical sense this will lessen the cost of forage over winter and reduce competition allowing for more growth of the females than if all fish overwintered.

For any interested in the broom straw method for field sex identification you can find a paper describing the method here.

I think if I was stocking all females and my experiences with all female yellow perch I would stock them as two or threes sessions. About 1/2 to 1/3 at each stocking. There are definitely positives and negatives to the timing of adding the female bass. Pros - This gives the all female population different year classes and different size groups. 1. Each group would be consuming different sizes of reproducing prey fish that I think makes more efficient use of the mixture of the size classes or groups that will comprise the forage community. 2. As the stockers age it provides some diversity in the catch sizes. 3. As the first females age "out",,, the pond still has a good number of younger still growing and healthy LMB. 4. It lowers the initial $$ payout for buying the more expensive all female LMB. 5. Different size groups I think would provide better angler catch rate success because younger fish have seen fewer lures and are more likely to bite a lure. Plus as explained in the above jpsdad post, the younger LMB size class/es are eating more prey biomass per pound of predator that should cause the younger bass to eat more often and hopefully be more likely to attack a lure for RW sampling events.

Someone else can present the negative aspects of the stocking process.

An all female LMB population IMO would periodically or annually need to have a few to several added female replacements due to angler hooking and handling damages with will occur if angling is used. Thus as the need arises more stocker females can be added to the initial stock female basis. The bigger the fish the less it tolerates handling by anglers, especially uneducated and anglers that do not how to properly handle a large LMB as catch and release fish. Expect to see fewer bass as the amount of angling increases.

I think there are a number of ways one could approach the initial stocking for all female. In the approach I have currently resolved I went to the plan I would like to have working by year 9. Most of the 37 fish in the plan are less than 20" and I see this 32 core population >12" and <20" as the population segment upon which I will depend for good fishing. The trophy fish >20" are more occasionally caught where I expect I will catch 1 fish > 20" for every 6 or 7 fish I catch under 20". So I thought that it would be good to start with a full contingent of 32 fish. These would be stocked at a weight of 1 to 2 lbs. Each year for the next 3 years I would harvest up to 8 fish and stock 8 fish. Afterwards, I would stock 8 fish and harvest no more than seven beginning year 4. Actually, it would work like this. I would select one of the initial stockers in the 4th year for final grow out and then any fish up to but no more than 7 that are >19" would be harvested. In every year thereafter, the same rules apply. A fish > 19" is selected for final grow out and up to but no more than 7 LMB > 19" and not marked for final grow out would be harvested. It takes faith to harvest >19" LMB ... but I think that if I do not do this ... I will not grow any fish to 24" or any exceeding 7-8 lbs. The plan also allows for the harvest of up to 1 trophy per year. Tentatively that trophy length would be ~ 24" in length (perhaps lesser if I am failing to grow any 24" fish) No trophy fish would be harvested, I expect, for at least 8 years.

What is the point or the reason or goal of harvesting any of the trophies or >24" bass? If one spends all this time and effort producing a true trophy LMB or any trophy class fish specie what is the purpose of harvesting it if you were the one who was able to work long and hard to actually grow it?

For sampling them long term, IMO you will have to be hand feeding them to reliably harvest / catch them when needed.

Bill, from the perspective of management I wanted to keep the number of the fish > 20" limited to 5. To be sure, I don't know what to expect for those selected for the final grow out. If they would gracefully pass on at 10 years, then I wouldn't have any thing to worry about I guess and wouldn't have do anything. I just don't want them to spend their last years declining or to prevent new recruits in final growout from achieving their potential (a kind of everyone can't win scenario). To be sure, it isn't for the meat. It would be great if I could find homes for some with Cabelas or Bass Pro where they could live in comfort for their days remaining. It's a long time away, I may not find it so easy to part with them when the decisions have to be made.

Depending on location - keep in mind that LMB food consumption is low in winter (they are cold and slow - slow metabolism) while the RT are much more cold tolerant (active and feeding). In cold climates LMB are not going to eat a lot of RT over winter because they are not hungry and can't catch the much more active RT. Fall and spring and in cooler water (55-70 F at any location) is the time LMB eat RT.