Pond Boss Forums INTRO Questions & Observations Georgia Giant Put to the Test?

Oh yeh, forgot to mention that I updated our board here on the tentative delivery dates. I now have you all down for the week of November 21st. The dye will not change the growth of the fish in my opinion, we just use it to slow excessive weed and algae growth during the spring and summer. It has no nutrients in it, so we can take it or leave it on this pond. Main points are stocking numbers, aeration, and FEED (pellet and live).
Wow this is gonna be neat!!!

Deb

ML- did you check your mail today?

Gator, suggest you follow the 'solar aerator' topic and use a similar compressor, after proven in 8 ft of water. What will the max depth be?

burger,

My max depth will be no greater than 8 feet.

Deb,

- Would you prefer I have my water tested locally or send to you?

- For the GG feed. Can I obtain this froma a local aga store? Any brand...ect?

- I see no reason for the dye (at this point).

Gator

If you don't mind (and if it is not much expense to you) lets test both ways. Send me a sample and have one done locally. I say this mostly for selfish reasons I admit, but I am also wanting to learn through this experiment. I have stated almost like a broken record that the water chemistry thing is not my specialty so I would like to see what the differences (if any) would be, and what their suggestions are.

Our feed is a special formula that we have made and is not sold anywhere else. I could ship some to you by UPS but the shipping alone would run about $16.00 per bag with the feed being $17.95 per bag (50 lbs). We are in the process of adding a tandeum axle to our truck so that we can carry more weight, but I don't think this will be finalized before next year. Our floating feed is 38%protein/22%fish meal, so just get as close to that as possible. Our sinking pellet is 45% protein. Get as close to this as possible.

Don't put the dye in a new pond because you will limit the natural "chain of events" over the next several months. If you do opt to go with it, wait until mid to late spring to prevent excess algae and vegetation growth.

Deb

I will be back tomorrow when I have more time to deal with some misconceptions (myths) in this thread.

There are a couple statements in this topic that I want to discuss.
The surface aeration unit may help reduce the chance of fish kills but it will not directly reduce the amount of ammonia in a pond.

AMMONIA - Background. By far, most of the ammonia is produced in natural ponds by bacterial decomposition of organics. Ammonia produced by higher organisms is a small percentage of the total production. When the ammonia is produced or released it combines / attaches to water molecules. His is then called un-ionized ammonia (NH3). Un-ionized ammonia when present in higher concentrations is the form that is stressful and toxic to aquatic life. Un-ionized ammonia is more toxic at warmer temperatures and in waters with higher pH. Increasing the salt or salinity concentration decreases the toxicity of ammonia.

MYTH - It is often thought that ammonia is released from the water during aeration; bubbling or spraying water into the air (ammonia striping). Stripping ammonia from the water molecules can be done but not in normal pond conditions. If ammonia could be removed from the water by aeration (bubbling or splashing) then fish haulers who use violent aeration for transporting fish would never have problems with ammonia toxicity. Ammonia toxicity is a very big concern for those who haul or hold fish at high densities.

FACTS – First to convert all the ammonia to the gas form (NH3), the pH must be adjusted to above pH 12. Then, high volumes of air are added to the water to cause changes in the partial pressure ratios. Then a long contact time is necessary during the air-water splashing to create a large air-water interface for diffusion of air in and ammonia out. If the water is to be reused for aquatic life the pH of 12 has to be readjusted back to normal levels (pH 6-8). A quote from Water Quality in Ponds for Aquaculture (Boyd) “ Surface aeration (2kW) for 24 hours in 50 cu meters of water at a pH of 8.5 did not remove ammonia.” We know know why.

Ammonia (un-ionized) is removed from natural waters primarily by denitrifying bacteria and absorption by plants, especially phytoplankton.

The second point I want to briefly comment on is the quote:
If the surface aerator pulls water from 4-4.5 ft deep, what will the water quality conditons be like in the remaining bottom water in this test pond (bottom layer 3ft to 4 ft thick)? During summer heat and intensive high protein feeding, associated manure production and lots of fish biomass, the deepest water layer will definately become anoxic (without oxygen). During anoxic conditons lots of bad water quality things develop in this deep bottom layer of water. This degrades water quality can possibly jeopardize the overall health of the fishery. I contend that "surface fountains" have much better overall results when used in ponds 3 to 5 ft deep. For aquaculture ponds deeper than 6 ft, the bottom, diffused air methology would produce better results. Bottom air diffusion combined with surface aeration would be the ideal situation to have in a high biomass, aquaculture pond.

Bill thank you for making this point, one of which I was never keenly aware of until earlier today. I took the liberty late this afternoon to read the following:

www.aces.edu/dept/fisheries/ aquaculture/docs/5864154-SRAC4603.pdf

This explained in detail pretty much what you have stated above. As for the pull of 4 foot, would the 1/2 million gallon circulation of water caused by this unit in a pond 1/10 acre (like we are to use in this experiment) serve any advantage in pulling the deeper sediment? If one were to have to choose between the bottom unit and the surface unit, which would be best? I know that we have had more luck with the surface unit in the heavier stocked ponds, but as you stated our depths are on average 3-5 feet. In fact we have had kills in these same ponds with diffusers in the past. In ponds deeper than that we have relied on the surface aerator and monitored the bottom ammonia. If concentrations did rise, we applied microblift (purple sulfur bacteria) to digest the sediment. This is your area of expertise, so I will bow gracefully in your recommendations.

Thank you for any further advice,

Deb

Also could the design of the propellar used in the surface aerator aid in the separation of the particules thus adding some advantage to the release of noxious gases?

I do not consider myself a expert in every part of the auqaculture area but I do know some basic concepts.

The methods that you promote to grow the GG's push the limits for reliably and consistantly growing healthy fish. When at or above natural carrying capacities things can turn "bad" very quickly and some water quality parameters can kill fish very fast. Many times when dealing with all this "fish stuff", it always depends on the variables. This is why there can be so many ways to "get it done" and often it works. Sometimes it fails.

Deb asks I am not sure what you mean by pulling the deeper sediment? Sediment as in pond bottom sediments? Or do you mean deeper water near the sediment (6ft-8ft)?

I will assume you mean will the high volume of water moved in such a small pond cause the whole water column to be mixed. Again, it all depends. It primarily depends on degree of thermal stratification (resistance to mixing) and the amount of wind action which will usually be comparatively small in only a 1/10 ac pond. Very little wave acion will be produced even in a strong wind. Even though one is mechanically moving lots of water, the downward mixing force of the lateral surface currents is quickly dissipated as the lateral currents move outward and down toward the cooler pond bottom. The downward moving water will seek the path of least resistance as in travels down toward the cool water zone on the pond bottom. Whenever the downward moving water looses more energy than it has to push against the cool layer, the down moving water will then travel laterally back toward the strongest water movement source (aerator intake). The laterally moving water travels on top of the cooler water layer beneath it. Water pushing against water quickly (compared to air movement) looses momentum because of the fluid mechanics of water.

This whole concept is why bottom diffused aerators are better at mixing the entire water column (the driving and uplifting force of water entrained in rising bubbles begins at the bottom and usu deepest coldest part of the pond) compared to surface aerators that are sucking water from the well mixed and easily mixable upper, warmer, water layer. But keep in mind that surface aerators are better than bottom aerators at creating a highly oxygenated zone in the vicinity of the aerator. Often, just a high amount of DO in a small area will be enough to get most fish through a short, mildly stressful condition. And providing the fish are smart enough to recognize that the noisy, oxygenated refuge area as beneficial.

Deb asks - Both units have benefits. If I had to choose only one, I my opinion, surface aerators are best for shallow ponds such as hatchery ponds (3'-6')and bottom aerators are better in deeper ponds (7'-20'). (See NOTE below). But again, it all depends and there will be exceptions in many cases. I can quickly think of several. If I stocked at the rates Ken et al recommends I would have both types of aeration or at least have a surface aerator available when deteriorating water quality conditions occur.

NOTE: Ken et al probably hear success stories with surface aerators in deeper ponds and this is why he promotes them for all ponds shallow and deep. He has seen in many situations or instances the surface aerator can provide marginal and survivable conditions for at least some or most of the fish when things "turn bad" (thermal turnover) in a deeper pond. Bottom aerators tend to minimize the frequency of "things turning bad". There are trade-0ffs.

Survivability of fish in deep water ponds with a surface aerator, during a thermal turnover or during other poor water quality condition or COMBINATION of conditions will be dependant on numerous factors. I will not elaborate on them here. Many factors, biological and chemical, can interact to determine if fish live or die during a stressful period.

Deb asks - In my opinion no. The ammonia is a much tighter bond to the water molecule and the affects of the propeller is so gross in comparison, the propeller design should have no measurable impact to separate the ammonin from the water molecule. Keep in mind that the ammonia is not dissolved in the water but chemically bound to it. The aquaculture industry and sewage treatment industry have special strippers and extractors that are specially designed to remove gasses and dissolved organic solids such as proteins from water. However somtimes to strip certain chemicals from the water (break chemical bonds) the chemistry of the water has to be modified.

Your post above mentions that "you" (the hatchery) monitor various water perameters on a regular basis. Also in this regard, Ken et.al. has quite a bit of experience in knowing what "signs" to look for and WHEN problems are likely to occur. Often it is very subtile clues are signs of upcoming major problems. I think the majority of Ken's customers (novices), who follow his stocking advice closely, do not have his expertise, experience or capabilities and thus they probably obtain less than optimum results. The general or typical customers have a very wide range of background knowledge, fish raising experience and pond management experience. The various pond conditions throughout the eastern US are also widely variable. You probably do not hear a lot about great results from many of these growers. I think the truly successful customers are mostly the lucky ones, and "things" did not get "complicated" for them in their fish raising project.

Thank you Bill! Now back to research for me.

Deb

Oh, on the quote "Survivability of fish in deep water ponds with a surface aerator, during a thermal turnover or during other poor water quality condition or COMBINATION Of conditions will be dependant on numerous factors. I will not elaborate on them here."
I wish you would elaborate on this either here, another thread, or email to me please. I know I am "sponging" from you, but you are teaching me a great deal.

Deb - That sentence of: Survivability of fish in deep water ponds with a surface aerator, during a thermal turnover or during other poor water quality condition, conditions or a COMBINATION of conditions will be dependant on numerous factors. This speaks volumes. One factor leads to another factor, that is dependant on two or three other factors and those factors are dependent on something else happening or not happening; and on and on. With knowledge one could easily write an essay on the topic. It summarizes what one would learn in a limnology class plus some additional practical experiences. The typical limnology class material does not involve examining the impacts of mechanical aeration. Impacts of the various forms of mechanical aeration would be topics of advanced limnologial studies or term papers usually reserved for upper level students. As a graduate student I wrote a limnology term paper about Hypolimnetic Aeration. As I now look back on that paper, it was pretty simplistic. I do not have the time available now to fully explain all the "it all depends" of that sentence. Sorry. A good course in Limnology will start to "shed some light" toward explaining it.

Deb and Bill,

Thanks for the discussion, I am learning a lot here and will wait to hear the agreed to aeration recommendation. I am following the other thread on stocking recommendations and will see what is decided there.

FYI, I consider my pond experience limited/average. I think that IF there is a way to reduce potential management issues, we should, considering my experience. If that means less fish, then so be it. Given a choice of aeration vs. no aeration, I would choose none, but, I understand that it is likely that some type of aeration is required and I am willing to follow the recommendation. I plan to feed as recommended. I am willing test my water regularly and supplement the water with lime (or whatever) to improve/maintain water quality.

Given the above - I think that would put me in the category of the “average” pond owner with a desire to learn and improve my skills.

Deb,

I have a pond water sample, where do I send it?

Also,

I took some measurements yesterday. First understand we have had close to zero rain the entire spring and summer, so pond levels are far below normal.

The Test Pond is currently 60' x 30'.

At normal levels it is up to 75' x 50' or a little less than 1/10 acre.

My estimation is that a normal levels the pond will be about 8' feet deep. At full (flood) capacity the pond would be about 10 feet deep. I don’t expect the dirt work to affect the depth.

To-do list:

1. Pray for rain.

2. Re-Measure after my contractor actually shows up (supposedly this week). Depending on where and how much dirt he needs, it may affect the overall dimensions.

3. Decide if the pond needs cover, it is basically bare. Should I add cover or let the HSB have a field day?

4. Remove the big LMB. No problem. Do I need to whack the HBG? They are a few in there...think the LMB is taking care all but the big ones.

5. Send water sample to Deb.

Gator

I think we are both learning alot here. Given the post you made above, we will need to adjust numbers previously given. We will most likely stock based on the 1/20 acre number you gave because the rain might not be as willing to help us here. What is the average rainfall in your neck of the woods? Of course I don't think anything is average anymore, especially the weather. Can you add water if needed? You might have mentioned this previously, but it would be lost in the threads right now.

Your to-do list:

1. Pray for rain. (I'm with you on that one)

2. Re-Measure after my contractor actually shows up (supposedly this week). Depending on where and how much dirt he needs, it may affect the overall dimensions. - This also might just slightly adjust water quality depending on the age of the pond and the amount of work you will have him do. Probably will not make a difference. Also make sure you have a decent slope, or shallow area, for the minnows.

3. Decide if the pond needs cover, it is basically bare. Should I add cover or let the HSB have a field day? - I see no need in cover. Stock the small HSB with the giants as their growth rate in the first year should be about the same. It's the size of the mouth not the size of the fish that we need to be focused on. HSB are also pellet trained, so they will eat the supplemental pellets and minnows until spring when they can go at baby GG's. If you do wish to add some cover then do it for the minnows.

4. Remove the big LMB. No problem. Do I need to whack the HBG? They are a few in there...think the LMB is taking care all but the big ones. - Whack everything!!! The biggest mistake people make is putting a hybrid bream in with another bluegill. They will cross and the test will not be accurate if any of those babies live. Once the contractor is finished, rotenone the pond and then apply potassium permangeanate a few days later to sterilze. If you have local access to the gambusia, you can add these about a week after the PP, which should fall in line about a week before I deliver.

5. Send water sample to Deb. - Call me at the office Monday 1-877-536-3474. I will be at the Expo Tuesday thru Thursday, but I want my name written all over the package so that nobody else does the test. Stephanie handles most of the water testing, so I will let her know that it is coming in for me to test on Friday. Also have it tested locally if it does not cost you much so we can compare.

* Please aerate the pond. Since you live away from the site (2 hours right?) and you will be following a intense feeding program, aeration will save your rump if DO levels crash or ammonia levels go up. I am still favoring the surface unit with microlift if needed, but we will see what Cody says also. I fear that if you do not get rain, your water levels will drop more, and a diffuser will not cause the proper circulation needed. Besides, if you do get to the 10 foot level, the fish will go to the site of the surface unit if they start to stress.

Depending on finances, you might now opt to start with a slightly larger GG since we will be reducing the quantity. Call me!

Deb

I feel that Meadowlark will have issues with heavy stocking due to only being able to use solar aeration. He can only aerate 5-6 hrs. at night without the cost of materials going thru the roof. I will suggest to him to stock 300-400 in less than 1/4 acre, or else the 2nd summer will surely cause water quality problems.

Deb,

I will work with contractor on dig areas and leave shallow zones and clear out all existing fish.

For aeration – I will follow the current thread and work to use whatever we settle on for aeration and stocking plan. I like the idea of the larger GG’s!

Based on my experience and all of the work needed - we may be looking to stock later in the year. For some reason these thing always seem to take longer than planned!

Deb the average annual rainfall is 45 inches.

Gator

I am begining to feel like "Jason the slasher" in what seems like my persitent attacks against Deb.

Firstly, Deb (aka Georgia Giant Man), I hope you are keeping track of (listing on paper) all the unanswered questions that you have been given as an assignment. I understand that answers to some of the questions will take quite some time to answer, but most of the questions should be able to be answered without a lot of actual testing and research. Granted you may need to do some paper shuffling for some of the answers. I trust that you do not "conveniently" forget to work on some of the questions.

Secondly, it seems to me that after creating this post that I am picking on you due to my relentless questioning, written confrontations and what may seem like badgering. That is not my intent; it is my way of teaching you and showing you and others that there are valid alternatives that are scientifically based.

Keep in mind that here, we are mainly discussing the stocking and subsequent management of Alligator’s small GG test pond which is the topic of this thread. And also remember our goal is to have as few offspring survive as possible and no offspring survival is best.

1. LMB (8”-12”) as controllers of GG. Deb’s quote said - “This would be possible, in my opinion, if one had the ability to "pick and choose" the LMB that stayed in the pond. But as we all know, the large mouth once aged have the ability to eat whatever they choose. If even a handful got past that 8-12 inch mark, you could be dealing with a substantial decrease in the population of the original stock. Now take the LMB out of the equation, throw in the HSB, maintain aeration and feed, give or take the dye (according to density of plankton), and I believe a reduction in numbers should not be a problem.”

My experience with LMB does not totally agree with your answer. I have experience with several ponds that contained LMB as a predator in combination with limited forage conditions such as hyb BG, or red ear sunfish as the sole forage fish besides young LMB. In another 0.2 ac pond that I renovated last year, it contained an aged (over 10 yrs) LMB population and a "handful" of pure bgill. In primarily all these ponds the maximum size of LMB has been 14” and sometimes the maximum size was smaller. Maximum size of LMB often seemed to be related to the density of the LMB in each pond. My point is that if crowded LMB do not have enough to eat, their growth will be very slow and their top end size will be relatively small (abt one pound +or – a few ounces). The more crowded the bass are, the slower their growth will be especially with limited forage conditions such as those produced by GG’s or hyb bgill as forage fish. Crowded LMB around the maximum size of 12”-14” long require a decent number of larger sized forage items (3”-4”) to efficiently continue growth. If these crowded bass are forced to eat a limited supply of fingerling hyb Bgill (GG) one can not expect them to grow very much, if at all. Plus if the LMB are overly crowded, their top end size will LIKELY be less than 13”; maybe sizes of 10”-11" will prevail. It is also very doubtful that in a pond of 75'x75' the LMB will be able to get very large. LMB less than 13” will not, as Deb suggests, eat “whatever they chose”.

2. Deb also says – “If even a handful got past that 8-12 inch mark, you could be dealing with a substantial decrease in the population of the original stock”.

I doubt very much this would happen for Alligator’s test GG situation esp in a small pond only 75'x75'. Even if several bass happen to grow (probably very slowly) beyond the 12” mark, these larger bass would never be able to eat any of the original stock of Test Growth Ggiants (due to GG’s hopefully large size). As I see it if the larger bass developed they would do nothing to the overall study except bias it toward causing the overall average size of the GG to be GREATER or larger. This would happen because the larger bass could possibly eat some of the slower growing and smaller Ggiants. Almost every population has runts and I assume that a small percentage of each batch of GG are comparatively “runts”. THIS GOES BACK TO ONE OF MY EARLIER QUESTIONS IN MY HOMEWORK QUESTIONS FOR DEB, - What is the variability of growth rate in each population or batch of GG?. For example: Let’s optimally grow 1000GG. After 3 or 4 years what is largest and smallest and how are the sizes biomodally distributed? This could be easily checked in one of Ken’s YOY or grow-out ponds that has been drained.

3. Deb says- Too often I have seen customers who stocked low on the GG, followed 6 months or so later with LMB, fished out the original stock of GG, and needed to either cage raise small GG or stock larger and more expensive ones to prevent the established LMB from having an expensive dinner thus wasting the customer's money.
This is a valid point for most, but I do not think it really applies for Alligator and his test GG growth situation and esp in a 75’x75’ pond where it can be easily drained or renovated at any time.

4. Deb says- “ Remember please that a large number of our customers do not do aquaculture or pond management as a full time job, or even has an addictive habit. They are not interested in culling out the correct sizes at the correct times.”

I contend that occasional trapping and or fishing and selectively removing subsequent GG offspring to supplement those that the predators may have missed is not that big of a job or that time consuming. I do not want to be condescending here but, If one is not able to do these SIMPLE, pond management tasks, then they have no business managing a pond, especially one that is stocked to over capacity with the entire GG program or “philosophy”. To do that successfully, is in my opinion, not a job for the casual pond owner. Alligator especially since he as some pond experience, should have no problem with these simple tasks of occasionally monitoring or culling for the GG offspring escapees in a 75’x75’ pond. In 1 to 6 acres, now that is a different story.

5. Deb says- “Together in a pond these two fish (GG&HSB) have the most potential for individual growth without contributing to the "extinction" in the pond of the other.”
Everyone keep in mind here we are discussing Alligator’s testing of GG growth rates and not the general customer of Ken et.al.. I doubt that the combination of GG & LMB would contribute to extinction of either fish in our test pond. IMPT NOTE - Either predator will probably work in Alligator’s test pond.

However, I think the LMB would be a better predator than the HSB in Alligator’s test pond. Why?

A. LMB will be able to eat more of the larger sized offspring that may escape the predation of HSB “storm troupers”.

B. HSB have been proven in many fishery studies to not be efficient predators of sunfishes for several reasons previously discussed on this forum.

C. Alligator’s test pond could likely develop a weed problem either submerged or the filamentous algae type. In my opinion LMB would be a better suited predator in this case compared to HSB which has limited predatory efficiency in “weedy” or non-open water situations.

D. LMB after 2 or 3 yrs are likely to spawn in the test pond and these small bass (YOY –4”) would be more efficient predators of the 0.5”-1” GG than the larger 12”-14” HSB. Original stock of LMB will in my experience eliminate the majority of the YOY bass after the first full year. I have dealt with numerous LMB only ponds.

E. LMB are a lot less likely to eat pellets than HSB. I suspect that predators who readily eat pellets are not going to be very effective as predators of small fish. At least it works that way with yellow perch.

F. LMB have larger mouths (gape) than the gape of an identical sized HSB. When considering mouth size alone, I contend that a 12" LMB will be able to eat a wider size range of hyb sunfish compared to even a 14" long HSB. For example a 14" HSB may ingore a 3.2" GG but a 12" LMB would ambush it.

Deb, and those interested in this topic, I have a question. Let’s step back and re-examine the goal of Alligator’s Study. I assume the goal of the Alligator test pond is to determine the GG growth rate and since Alligator has a very small pond, could he or someone else stock just GG in the pond, feed ample amounts of food, and each year DRAIN or otherwise completely survey the pond, do a check of growth, eliminate all offspring and restock just the GG adults? (Maybe Ken has used this same techinque)?. Do this repetitively (annually) until one is satisfied. A University may well do it this way since their work force is student study and cheap labor. I don’t think the ACTUAL goal is to check GG growth with using only Ken’s management / stocking philosophy. Do we have to check optimum GG growth using the only way that you know how to do it or have been taught to do it? Sometimes there are other ways to do something or achieve an end based on the actual goal that has been set for the project. What is Alligator’s goal for testing GG growth? We should re-examine this goal and the methods to be used. Maybe Greg G, Lusk, Bruce, Cecil, Theo, Dave W. or another will have an idea on this. Are any of them following this topic? I know Theo is!.

PS Deb says - ….”was your term "mischievous females" an indirect comment (or compliment) toward me?” Wishful thinking? Feeling guilty? I consider the female GG as pests and responsible for complicating one’s goal of raising huge hybrid sunfish. Eliminate the female GG from the equation and growing large GG will be much easier.

I have another comment on the stocking density topic regarding Alligator's GG test study.

I propose that before Gator does the final stocking, the active and interested board members arrive at a consensis of how Gator should conduct this study. However, we can easily leave it up to Gator and Deb to see what transpires. My ramblings will do nothing but probably thoroughly confuse Gator who probably is not well versed in topics of fishery management as an art and science.

Regarding stocking density of Georgia Giant hybrids. Deb agrees that growth potential is probably similar in GG stocked at a low or high density providing certain conditions are met in each case.

On one extreme, we put one fish in Gator's pond whereas at the other extreme we stock at Deb's high density of 400 GG in abt 5600 sqft (75'x75')and abt 8 ft deep, +/- 2'.

Deb's stocking idea is recommending relatively high dollars and maintence considering that Gator does not live on site and an electric aerator may be somewhat of a problem for him.

I think that somewhere in between one fish and 400 fish in the small pond there is a density of GG that will grow optimally WITHOUT aeration. I contend that aeration, at least in aquaculture settings, is primarily for minimizing fish stress and or kills in high carrying capacities combined with heavy feeding regimes. Reduce the carrying capacity (density) and adequately feed fewer fish and the need for aeration is deminished, yet optimum growth is hopefuly achieved. This fish management theory or method has worked previously with other species of fish, in many instances including natural and artificial settings, where some had deep, thermally, stratified water.

I do not understand why Gator cannot do this study, achieve the GG growth goals and not have to aerate his pond. What am I missing about this project?.

Nice chainsaw and hockey mask, Bill.

Reality check: You're being reasonable.

Thanks Theo. As a reward I included your name in the "group" mentioned in the above post.

PS - I do not know how Deb is ever going to pay me back for all the "free" teaching that I have been giving her and she has been asking for! Have you seen the cost of college credit hours lately? Is this considered a private college or state college; prices are different you know. I couldn't decide which smiley face was appropriate here.

BTW everyone, this is the "PB GG Test Pond". this was normal levels back in March 2005.



It is down by about 3 feet now. I keep thinking it would be awesome to have a camera mounted to a pole over looking the pond during our test - that way we could see live pictures.

Gator

Hey Gator I have another bright idea. Let's kick everybody out of the "cement pond" and use it to grow some whopper GG.

Gator, you and you alone should decide what you want to accomplish and the resulting plan for accomplishing it. Getting everyone's input is fine, but I respectively disagree with Bill's idea of requiring a consensus from a designated set of board members. As a professional engineer, I've seen the results of "consensus" decision making...it isn't usually pretty.

If your objective is to evaluate Deb's program, then it would seem a fair evaluation of that program would have to include key components/metrics from the program. Deb, it seems to me, should be able to define those key components/metrics and your decision is then to either do that or not.

Maybe that's an oversimplification, on my part, but if the test is of GG's and the associated program, then why is a consensus required or even desirable?

If the test has a different objective, e.g. stocking according to Pond Boss board consensus, then my comments should be ignored.

Bill :

Thank you for your efforts on this matter. I think your suggestions are exactly what is needed and are what I was hoping Gator would pick up on by my post on this topic dated 10-12.

I do not think you are being harsh at all. This is the only way we will know the science behind the GG and that is the only duty owed to the forum -- the scientific truth.

Every study I have seen says that LMB when stocked properly with HBG will control (eat) 95% + of the original HBG's offspring. Of course the HBG offspring are 95 % male. I assume the GG will have a lower % of males and thus have a potentialy higher reproductive output over time. If this is so then it is more important to have a very good predator like LMB rather than HSB. Further when BG and LMB are stocked together from the start ( 2in. BG in fall and 2in. LMB in the following summer) the LMB do not prey on the stocker BG for several years. The LMB growth rate is not fast enough to catch up with the BGs faster growth rate until year 3. By that time the stocker BG are to big for all but the exceptional LMB to eat. In our ponds a 3rd year BG is 7-10 in. and that would take a 16in. + LMB to eat it. It is rare for us to grow a 16in. + LMB in 3 yrs. remembering that the LMB is a year behind. That is the entire reason for the standard stocking program -- the BG create a sustained forage base because the LMB can't eat the original BG until after they have created a viable population usualy after year 3.

Please help us keep this topic science based and our focus on just that the science. Thanks . ewest

ps : This test should be about testing the reported growth rate of GG as Gator stated.

ML brings up a very good point about the goals of the study. Gator should decide on the goal for the study. However if the goal is to only determine what is the growth rate and maybe the life span of GG then additional advice about the methods to use may be advisable.

After re-reading the first few pages of this topic, maybe the goal of Gator has changed somwhat after he found out or realized what all was involved with Ken et.al.'s complete stocking philosophy.

PS - At least some people are completely reading my posts.

Ok, here's my thoughts:

I think GG should be evaluated in multiple ways. To be fair AND INCLUSIVE, one of these should be iaw the traditional Ken Holyoak recommendations which I assume is what Deb is working toward for Gator's 75'x75' pond. I think someone already issued the skeptic's warning "If we don't do it by the book, they would cite this as the reason for any failure."

(Before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes. Then, if you like the shoes, keep them. What's he gonna do about it, a mile back and barefoot? :p )

How have we proved anything about the "classic" GG stocking strategy unless we see it from a source we consider reliable? Where else are we going to get the complete skinny on it? If Gator is willing to do this (and ML is right, it's Gator's choice), I want to know the results. Maybe it'll work better than we expect. Heck, maybe it'll work as advertised. If not, Gator will have earned the Pond Boss Medal of Honor (you're not allowed to do that posthumously, Gator, except for dead fish) by having thrown himself on a live huckster to save his comrades. What greater sacrifice can a Pondmeister make?

I also want to see GG evaluated in a manner like we would treat hybrid sunfish in general (I think ML is leaning towards this), because that's where I really want to see it's potential. That's what we really know about it - it's a hybrid sunfish. I can accept a proprietary blend of genes. What will it really do if stocked in more conventional numbers (without other bream; most of the time I think it's a mistake to mix hybrid and non-hybrid BG) in a small pond with sufficient predators to eliminate the F2 and subsequent offspring? Yes, GG are for put-and-take - so are HSB, CC, trout, Smallmouths, etc. in most or all situations. Put-and-take species are tools that we can use if we understand them and want what they can do for us.

Deb has not (unless I missed it) claimed a tenth of what she has been blamed for. The only possibly crazy claim she has really made (and to be completely honest, it's one BIG claim and I think it's a bunch of hooey) is that GG will perform as advertised if stocked as advertised. I hope Gator (or someone with a good reputation here) will find out for us.

Bill:

I don't know either how Deb can pay you back for the education you are providing her. When I manage to pay you back for everything you've taught me, we'll let her know what method of reimbursement to use.

North American Journal of Fisheries Managemen
6t: 156-167, 1986
¸ Copyright by the American Fisheries Society 1986

Evaluation of Male Bluegill X Female Green Sunfish Hybrids for
Stocking Mississippi Farm Ponds 1

MARTIN W. BRUNSON
Rice Research Station, Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station
Louisiana State University Agricultural Center
Post Office Box 1429, Crowley, Louisiana 70527, USA
H. RANDALL ROBINETTE
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station
Mississippi State University
Mississippi State, Mississippi 39762, USA

quote below :

Largemouth bass effectiveness in controlling F2 hybrid recruitment was evidenced by the following: in the three drained ponds
containing largemouth bass (two bass/feed, one
bass/no-feed), the mean number of F2 hybrids per
hectare was 35; in the three drained ponds without largemouth bass (two no-bass/feed, one no-bass/no-feed), the mean number of F2 hybrids per hectare was 2,142. Other studies (Childers and Bennett 1967; Ellison and Heidinger 1978; Schaffer 1979)also have shown largemouth bass to be effectivein the control of F2 individuals in largemouth bass hybrid sunfish populations.