After reading the excellent article regarding OFT in the latest issue of In-Fisherman, I was wondering how it plays out when supplemental feeding is added into the mix, as I have noticed that in one of my ponds' the bluegills will follow me as I walk the bank and feed.

If I am correct in assuming that the BG have become conditioned, and recognize the pellets as a food item, then would it stand to reason that they also acknowledge that the pellets are not going to try and escape?

I feed in the prescribed manner.....same place, same time, everyday. But, I walk the shore as I throw feed by hand. The BG are always there, waiting for me to arrive, and that first handful of feed that hits the water always provokes a response from the fish. But when I move down the shore, the vast majority move with me, leaving uneaten pellets in their wake.

I have read where supplemental feeding of pellets is the ultimate extension of OFT...with the gain far outweighing the energy expended. But in a scenario where every last detail is exploited to the fullest in an effort to maximize fish growth, am I short-changing myself by not remaining in one spot to feed?

All of the feed I throw gets eaten, as the fish move with me down the length of the dam, then reverse course and clean it up as they return. But, it would seem that even that minor expenditure might be avoided by consuming the pellets that are inches away, rather than swimming several yards just to eat another?

And what about that? Why does a BG ignore a pellet right in front of its "face", only to take one further away? It almost appears to me to be a form of pack behavior....once a few individuals begin to move, they tend to school loosely and move as a group. Perhaps a built in response that directs them to follow the pack, lest they miss out....even when food is plentiful and easily obtainable?

Then again there are always a few fish that don't follow the school, but remain in that first feeding location, plucking pellets off the surface. Might those individuals be predisposed to greater ultimate growth potential, due to less energy expended vs. calories consumed, via OFT?

"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"

If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1)
And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1)
Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT?
PB answer: It depends.