Pond Boss Forums INTRO Questions & Observations Pond Milestone

Just needed to tell someone who could appreciate the good news that I just passed a major milestone for my pond. I caught my first HBG over 1 pound. As a matter of fact I caught two of them. One was 1 lb-3/4 ounce, the other was 1 lb-1 oz. and they were both 10 inches. The 10 largest fish I caught that same day averaged 13.7 oz. My fish are just 4 years old. I know this is probably not a fantastic growth rate for those of you down south but I think it's pretty good for Minnesota. I consider every 1/4 pound to be a milestone with the 1 lb mark being a major one. Now I'm looking forward to 1.25lb yet this year. I wonder if I'll ever see 2 pounds?

Any BG , HBG , GG ,RES or lepomis variety over 1 lb. is a true champ no matter the location. Very few people ever grow or catch a 2 pounder of any lepomis species. If you do so in Minn. it should be a record.

BZ -- with the cooler water temps in MN, you might just get a little longer lifespan. Longer life and fast growth are both components of big fish! Cross your fingers, and keep us udpated.

That sounds like an excellent milestone to me.

Hear, hear! The only thing better than catching a one pound sunfish is having to cull them because they're too small. (I have yet to do either.)

BZ,

Good show! I agree with EWEST, that any BG regardless of genetics, over a pound is a true treasure. Give us details, if you don't mind.

Not sure exactly what details ML is looking for but here's what I know. I don't measure and weigh every fish I catch but I do occasionally bring out the scale and check all the fish I can catch in an outing. Also I do measure and weigh every fish I keep and eat. I have data and graphs on hundreds of fish dating back to when the BG were in the 3 to 4 inch size. I have a graph that compares my fish length and weight to the standard chart provided by the MN DNR. I've noted that my fish are consistently 20% to 30% heavier for their length than the charts depict. The history of my fish growth is that my fish were born spring 2002, stocked in my pond in fall 2002 at an average weight of 1/4 ounce. They reached the first major milestone of 1/2 pound (eating size) during summer of 2004 at 2 years old. In early 2005 I hit the 3/4 pound milestone. Last year I wouldn't let anyone kill one over 10 ounces which was about 20% of those caught. By last fall the largest 20% of the fish were between 12 and 13 ounces. In April and early May of this year the largest I caught was 14 ounces. Now at the end of May I've caught two bonified 17 ouncers and just yesterday I caught several more that I know would be a pound if I had the scale handy. Here's a question I have for someone more knowledgeable than I - is it true that you can figure a conversion ratio of 1/2? That is for each pound of feed you get 1/2 pound of live weight fish? When a BG gets this big and you can actually make sure he gets a half ounce at a time twice per day will the thing really gain 1/2 ounce per day? Of course this assumes that each fish is getting the maximum feed at each feeding which probably rarely happens. I did see something like 3 ounces of growth on the largest fish in the month of May alone. That's 1/10 ounce per day or 1 ounce every 10 days. I'm happy with that. Do you think I can plan on getting six more ounces on these fish yet this year? If so I'd be close to 1.5 pounds! The milestones are falling much faster than I ever thought. I'll try to get some pictures some time to post. Geez this pond stuff is fun!

Oh I forgot, just what is the life span of a HBG anyway? I hope they don't all die of old age before I hit my goals.

Bz,

Great info. Thanks for sharing. Do you happen to know the length of the 17 ounce fish?

Seems like 6 or 7 more ounces this growing season is a very good possibility. The rate of 1/2 ounce per day sounds high to me, but 1/10 ounce per day seems very realistic. You might very well hit 1.5 pounds this year.

Bill Cody sent me some data for BG growth rates for Southern States and I've been using it as a baseline for the GG experiment...I'd bet he has similar data for Northern States as well.

Yeah!

Dave have never understood the longer lifespan up North. Is it the longer winters with little activity?

On feed conversion I found with GG at a pound plus they ate less feed and more live food

Bill,

Interesting comment about the live food. My very brief experience has been that they(GG's) have preferred live food over artificial pellets from day one. Even now, 6 months after stocking, most of the fish feeding on pellets in the small pond are HSB....very little apparent GG activity at the feeder station. I keep expecting that to change, but so far it hasn't??

Sounds like Bz's fish feed on pellets. Interesting.

ML as you know each pond is different but I always had a lots of GG hanging around the feeeder up to a point when they got to one pound plus. Then I only caught them when I was bass fishing. I caught many a GG thinking I had a 2 pound bass on the line

Bill:

I always think of it this way: a fish is born with so many heartbeats. Since the metabolism slows way down in cold water, it doesn't spend it's heartbeats as fast up North.

Not sure if that has anything to do with it, but it does help me remember they get longer lives up North.

ML, the 17 ounce fish was about 10 inches, max 10.25 inches. My fish feed on pellets real well. According to my hatchery they mixed the eggs and spawn and hatched the eggs, then the HBG fry were stocked into a natural pond to live the summer on their own. In September they were netted out of the pond and put into tanks where they were feed trained for several weeks before I picked them up for stocking. I stocked them in Sept. and never saw a fish until ice out the next spring. They immediately began taking fine sinking feed around my docks. The original fish were maybe a little over an inch long. The second summer they grew to 3 to 5 inches. The summer after that they hit half a pound. Several of you above have commented on longer life span up north, but what is that life span? I've heard numbers ranging from 5 years to 15 years. I hope it's closer to 15 years.

Very close Theo. All animal cell tissue including heart muscle has a limit to its ability to work before it wears out (subject to repair of DNA damage). Its activity level is a function of its metabolic rate . In cold blooded creatures (fish) the metabolic rate is higher in warm water than in cold. With a higher metabolic rate in warm water for longer periods of time the limit of muscle/cell ability is reached sooner. The heart only gets so many beats before it wears out. This function also explains why small mammals (rat or dog) have a shorter life span than humans. Their hearts beat faster (higher metabolism) and wear out sooner. Here are some "LONG-HAIRED" points.

Scientists have long known that most biological rates appear to bear a simple mathematical relationship to an animal's size: They are proportional to the animal's mass raised to a power that is a multiple of 1/4. These relationships are known as quarter-power scaling laws. For instance, an animal's metabolic rate appears to be proportional to mass to the 3/4 power, and its heart rate is proportional to mass to the –1/4 power.

Though the original model applied only to mammals and birds, researchers have refined it to encompass plants, crustaceans, fish, and other organisms. The key to analyzing many of these organisms was to add a new parameter: temperature.

Mammals and birds maintain body temperatures between about 36°C and 40°C, regardless of their environment. By contrast, creatures such as fish, which align their body temperatures with those of their environments, are often considerably colder. Temperature has a direct effect on metabolism—the hotter a cell, the faster its chemical reactions run.

When the researchers filter out the effects of body temperature, most species adhere closely to quarter-power laws for a wide range of properties, including not only life span but also population growth rates.

A single equation predicts so much, the researchers contend, because metabolism sets the pace for myriad biological processes. An animal with a high metabolic rate processes energy quickly, so it can pump its heart quickly, grow quickly, and reach maturity quickly.

Here's the equation, I = i0 M3/4e–E/kT. I is an individual's metabolic rate, i0 is a normalization constant, M is mass, E is the activation energy, k is Boltzmann's constant, and T is body temperature in kelvins.


A comparison of the heart mitochondria in rats (4-year maximum life span) and pigeons (35-year maximum life span) showed that pigeon mitochondria leak fewer free-radicals than rat mitochondria, despite the fact that both animals have similar metabolic rate and cardiac output .
For mammals there is a direct relationship between mitochondrial membrane saturation and maximum life span .
Maximum life span correlates negatively with antioxidant enzyme levels and correlates positively with lower rate of free-radicals production and higher rate of DNA repair.
A study of 8 non-primate mammals showed a direct correlation between maximum life span and oxidative damage to mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) in heart & brain .
A study of several species of mammals and a bird (pigeon) indicated a linear relationship between oxidative damage to protein and maximum life span .
There is a direct correlation between DNA repair and maximum life span for mammalian species .

Let me rephrase my question then. How long will it take for a bluegill in Minnesota to reach a state of mitochondrial membrane saturation or the wrong antioxidant enzyme level or too slow a DNA repair level so that it wakes up dead one day? What a wealth of info some of you guys are but I just want to know how long I can expect my bluegills to live.

8-10 years.

Bz,

Thanks for the length data. If it isn't too much trouble, I would like to see the "standard chart provided by the MN DNR".

The HBG (GG) I have in the experimental pond, seem to be gaining in length proportionally faster than they are gaining weight. I'm wondering if at some point, that will reverse or change to more weight gain instead of length gain. By this fall, at current rates, I'll see 10 inch GG but not 1 pound.

You are absolutely right...this is fun stuff!

ML, for the chart provided by MN DNR see this link:
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/rlp/regulations/fishing/fishing2006.pdf
and go to page 64.

By the way, I just caught a 9.5 inch HBG that weighted 15.5 ounces. According to the MN DNR chart a 10 inch BG should weigh 12.8 ounces. I'll have to check my charts to see what my length versus weight numbers looked like to see the change in weight per length as they grew. How big were your GG when stocked. If I remember you just stocked them this spring so it would be great to see 10 inches this year. By the way, any idea what ever happened to the pictures we were waiting for of the big GG's that Deb was going to get?

Thanks so much for that data, Bz. Yes, my GG's were stocked in Dec. of '05 at 4 to 5 inches. Current growth rates would indicate that they will hit 10 inches by the fall. I will be very happy with that. If you find that data on past length vs weight, please post it. Much appreciated.

I have no idea about those pictures, but you are correct they were promised...calling Deb, calling Debra King.

Bz,

Your data (DNR) shows a doubling of weight in going from 8 to 10 inches....that is exactly what I was asking about and wondering when the length vs weight curve was going to shift. Excellent data. Thanks again. I'm really looking forward to fall!

My apologies to EVERYONE on board here. I will not fall back on any excuses at all... I just have not done what I promised to do. Ironically I get ticked off the most when someone promises to do something for me and then forgets (or just does not do it). Thanks for bringing this back to my attention. I will start back to work on it real soon.

Again I apologize to all,

Deb

At least we know the regulars are still lurking.
How about ole' PI, hey, we're talking GG, man.
Earth to PI, earth to PI. :p

Yeh Burger I lurk at least once a day (or at night). Busy season has really kicked in hard here this year, which I guess is good for business but hard on the nerves and spare time. As you know I am not only the biologist here, but I also dispatch ALL of the delivery trucks and have now been "blessed" with the title and duties of office manager. Throw all that on top of my other full time (and most important) job as a single mother and there are not nearly enough hours in the day. I am missing out on my ghost hunts too, LOL.
The season is starting to slow down, so hopefully I can get back to adding my two cents worth to some threads here.
Thanks in advance for forgiving me for my slip mentioned above.

Back with you all soon,

Deb

BTW... good job on the HBG bz. Fish are fun, and you appear to be doing a great job with your pond. Keep up the good work and the posting.