Rad, good question. I think the issue is their maximum individual potential. Which could be group potential as Cody and Ewest have eluded to, but my focus above was on individual. I'm not sure they can stretch their size window, just maximize it. The biggest challenge is that we can't see maximum potential not realized, so we underestimate the effect. (this isn't just a biology issue of course)
We people who like fish are a little odd. We're obsessed with 'big fish.' I'd submit that big fish are obese - not just genetically freaky. The proof is in the LMB from CA over the past 20 years. It wasn't the FL genes that have been in FL and TX for a long time, it was that those fish ate better nutrition for longer periods of time and got extra fat. (there is lots of evidence to this) So pick any 20+lb that was caught in California, and move them to Texas when they were 1lb or a little happy fry. They'd never have reached their 20lbs potential because of a host of limiting environmental factors, but mainly food.
Bruce's BG are focused on genetics. Is it working? Yes of course (see bigbluegill.com) :). But to grow the elusive 3+lb it will take more than genetics as he's helped teach us all. Bruce also obsesses over water quality, and food quality. He even obsesses about environmental quality and over-winters some fish since he has a built in problem in that his growing season is not ideal. To get to the big 'special' fish, the math says everything needs to go as close to perfect for many many years. It's systemic, and everything matters.
He and I disagree a little on this point as he stated above it might be over-rated. That's okay. Maybe in a few years we'll add in over long-term life quality or something else to list of variables.
I'd LOVE to see you break the record on 4lb line by the way!
