So, if we assume optimum conditions for BOTH species, does one have the potential for greater growth (ultimate size) than the other? I have a hard time buying into that. If we strip away environmental benefits, quicker initial growth, and the potential of both strains to produce exceptional individuals (shooters), can we not arrive at an average, ultimate potential?

Is there a benefit of incorporating CNBG genetics into northern strain fish? We hear a lot about the benefits of CNBG, and I'm pretty confident that I've read everything here in the archives, as well as accumulated info from several different sources, but thus far most studies appear to be under pretty tightly controlled conditions. What about real-life ponds, in real life scenarios?

Are coppernose really the BG equivalent of the Golden Child, or is it more along the lines of what I believe, which is simply a case of geographic optimization?

And what about genetic enhancements? Overton CNBG, or Condello strain BG?

Last edited by sprkplug; 12/23/15 12:06 PM.
"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.