Originally Posted By: sprkplug
If it were simply a matter of pouring the food to em', shouldn't we be seeing numbers of two pounders by now? After all these years? Since I've been on the forum, an entire generation of Bluegills have come and gone. With all the folks feeding premium feed, it just seems like there would be photos galore, if feeding was all it took?


I totally agree with this. This may seem counter intuitive but I am inclined to think that the likelihood of a two pound bluegill is diminished by increased pond fertility (to include feeding as a source of fertility). Notwithstanding this diminished trophy potential, the likelyhood of 1 lb fish is much improved. In a BOW where 2lb BG can occur naturally, I have doubts that fertilization or feeding can increase the potential of the largest BG in a sustainable manner. By this I mean that perhaps there may be an initial benefit to the largest BG but that after a year or two the BOW may no longer be capable of producing BG of the size it could previously. Certainly the BOW would would have a greater biomass of BG but this would be distributed among more of them. The fishing would certainly be better, producing more harvest size bluegill, but may no longer support the trophies it produced before.

Originally Posted By: sprkplug
Just goes to show how rare a giant BG really is, me thinks. ESPECIALLY, in a 1/2 to 1 acre, multi species pond, like the majority of pond owners manage.


It is certainly true that 2lb + BG are very special and rare. The consideration of multi-species is an important one I think. A BOW capable of producing 2 lb BG must support the large BG but also annually produce a significant poundage of YOY BG to feed a significant poundage of small bass. The BG that grow to 2lb+ are the rare survivors which live to outgrow the gape of the predators.


It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so - Will Rogers