Tracy is having good success catching the FT LMB while others with FT LMB have expressed concerns regarding their own experience with catch rates. I think it may be interesting to understand the extent to which feed rates affect fishing effort for FT LMB.
Where it comes to FT LMB. It seems to me that one should have a goal as to growth and also as to whether one wants to wean them from feed. To be sure, one can grow LMB more cost effectively on feed than he can on BG. It takes a lot of BG to make 1 LB of LMB but $3 of feed can make the same gain on a small LMB. $3 per pound is very cheap for carnivore production. From the stand point of feed rates, though, one should consider the combined need of maintenance and growth. As starting point, I would propose 1.25#feed/#LMB-year as maintenance and 3#feed/#LMB_gained for growth. Take # to mean lbs not number.
#to_Feed = #LMB*1.25 + #LMB_gain_goal * 3
From this formula, it is easy to see that feed loses efficiency as the fish grow in size and for a given feed rate, eventually it takes all of the feed to maintain the biomass, that is unless, there is some mortality of the FT-LMB. A complete plan would then be to recruit FT-LMB annually and harvest when a target weight is a achieved or a time in pond is achieved. Eventually, a harvest is required if RW and growth is to be good for a fixed feed rate. A plan can easily be put together in an spreadsheet and when one does this, the goals should be met and the expectations satisfied.
Now back to fishing effort. The FT_LMB need to be maintained. If only maintained one can still expect growth in the length of FT_LMB. This means under maintenance alone, RW will decline year after year. This further means that growth must be factored in (for a long term plan)and it is this variable that I think to be most relevant to fishing effort. Under maintenance alone, the fish would be HUNGRY all the time. The key then is striking the optimum balance. How much one feeds beyond maintenance will have the greatest impact on how well they bite. Ideally, one wants acceptable growth and acceptable fishing effort but these two properties occupy opposing sides of a balance.
RW may be the most appropriate indicator of optimum feed rates in the recreational setting. To be sure, high RW will achieve large weights sooner and will be more efficient if weight alone is the objective, like when growing them for market. But who wants a feedlot where the fish are difficult to catch? Perhaps a goal of RW of 100 to 110% is a good goal for the recreational setting but real data could allow one to understand a range of what to expect for a given plan.
Where forum members are keeping records and in particular fishing effort we could gain some insights into this dynamic as it applies to the success of a recreational LMB feeding plan. I would suggest that an appropriate measure of fishing effort for FT_LMB would be Num_Fish/(Density * HR) . Density is the Number of FT_LMB per acre. One needs a means of identifying FT fish as Tracy did by fin clipping.
The Num_Fish/(Density * HR)isn't likely the only factor affecting availability of catchable fish. Also the number of hours fished reduces catch rates per hour as once a fish is caught it will not likely be caught again the same day. So the most appropriate data will limit the fishing time of an outing to some function of the number of FT LMB in the BOW.
Last edited by jpsdad; 11/28/18 02:21 PM.
