Pond Boss Forums STOCKING A NEW POND Types of fish to choose 15 acre pond

To answer your question Gambusia,
because walleye will not succesfully spawn in a small lake, they don't spawn that well in medium sized lakes either. Walleyes also don't specialize on BG, they specialize on pelagic bait fish, yellow perch, and situations with low visability, like rivers.

On stocking 1000 BG/acre,
I think that we will probably use 300 BG/acre for two reasons. 1. Because we can afford an extra year or two to allow the BG population to stablize and start producing moderate year classes. 2. also 300/acre will lower the initial Bg/bass ratio, which is what we are shooting for to grow big BG.
I have heard the "one adult pair/acre" number before and it is also a viable option. Although a hatchery with adult BG would be needed to make the whole thing legal.

I plan on managing the pond for big BG, and I won't forget the genetic component. We will most likely have a strict slot limit to ensure that we always have good numbers of filetable fish.

Dave, would you stock the walleye with the BG one year before the bass? Or a year after the BG but before the bass?

Ty -- If it was me, I'd stock all three the first year (I'm assuming that we are talking fingerlings). Yes, there will be some mortality and some will eat each other. However, if we have 50% survival on the fingerlng stockings over the first year, that would be just fine.

I want the LMB to reproduce as soon as possible. It's that first spawn of LMB that will really be the effective predators on the small bluegills. Again, remember that your LMB will not spawn until age 2, while the bluegill very likely will spawn at age 1. So, if you stock fingerling LMB and BLG in 2005, the bluegills will spawn in 2006, but the LMB will not spawn until 2007. Hopefully the walleyes and age-1 LMB combined will control the first spawn of bluegills. Then, the small LMB spawned in 2007 will go to town on that year's bluegill spawn.

Sounds like a great situation! 15 acres is a good amount of water!

Dave

Dave

Bill and Dave, thank you both for all of the information.

Bill, stocking the water column with microorganisms from other lakes makes a lot of sense to me. Does that hold true for bottom mud also?

Ty, is there any reason you think that LMB and SMB are mutually exclusive in a sand pit type of lake like yours?

Are there any risks to stocking zooplankton, such as introduction of new, undesirable algae or plant species?

The walleye will specialize on the bluegill if that's all they have to eat.

LBuck - Anytime natural water is transferred from one water body to another there is risk of introducing unwanted algae or plant species. This chance introduction includes putting fish hatchery water into your pond / lake which I do not approve of esp if the pond is to be used for a domestic water source. "Moving water around" without knowing what is in it is basically like playing roulette; where you often lose. My job is to know what is in water. Your point of unwanted introductions is why I mentioned to TyW that his zooplankton collections should be examined with a microscope for unwanted species before they are added to his pond.

I am still doing homework and literature searches for the bgill harvest topic. It looks like it will be another several days before get something finished

I will probably stock the pond with macroinverts and zooplankton. Macroinverts, like mayflies, will probably be bought from a bait shop, which I think would be fairly safe...

Zooplankton might be bought as a pure culutre from aquatic ecosystems. If I put 50 gravid daphnia in an empty pond they would fill the thing with in a month. In warm weather they can double thier population in 4 days.

Gambusia, walleye don't have the physical adaptations that LMB have to eat BG. And they won't reproduce in a pond wich means they would need to be restocked regularly to control the BG. And we are not up for that.

If we stock them all at the same time will the walleye get a jump on the LMB? If they had an extra year under their belt it would increase thier ability to eat the LMB, which would be good for us. Especialy if we use 300 BG/acre, then the BG could go one year with out any LMB.

Right now I am leaning towards inverts/plankton will go in this summer. WL/BG spring 2006 and LMB spring 2007.

Thanks everyone for your help.

TyW33, you might have missed my question before. Is there any reason you think that you can only stock LMB or SMB and not both? Especially in a large sand pit, I would think that both would do well. SMB are such a great game fish that it seems like it would be a shame to miss out on them.

If it were me, I would be finding suppliers just as fast as possible. In my experience, availability, sizes and prices vary so much through out the year. You might easily find a situation where large fish cost no more than small fish.

I was under the impression that LMB alway out competed SMB. Which is a shame since I love catching SMB. If we are going to go the the effort to stock extra preadators, especialy ones that may eventualy disappear it going to be WL. The rest of my family aren't bass fishermen at all. Thanks for the suggestion, and I will probably mention it to see if I get lucky but I am not counting on them being interested.

I have tried to contact suppliers, me and my father have both e-mailed several hatcherys, and none have responded, which is disappointing.

thanks again for the interest and the advice

Dave Willis: could you clarify some things for us?

It is my impression that in a large, northern sandpit such as TyW33 has, it is likely that SMB will reproduce, even in the presence of LMB. What is your opinion?

In southern lakes, it is common to stock 80% BG and 20% redear sunfish. Might this idea be used by TyW33? I'm thinking of something like 60% LMB, 20% SMB and 20% Walleye. There is a good chance that a stocking like this wouldn't cost much more than just stocking LMB. Is this reasonable?

In a 2-3 years when these fish mature and reproduce, they will form a reasonably stable population of each species. What is your opinion?

Since LMB, SMB and walleye all hunt in slightly different ways, the combination of all three predators will likely control bluegill numbers better than just LMB would. Again, what is your opinion?

Thank you all for this very interesting discussion.

Norm - Here is my two cents on the SMB-LMB cohabitation. The SMB could spawn in the larger sand pit depending primarily on the LMB density and diversity of spawning grounds. The greater the number of LMB males the less likely a successful SMB spawn will occur. Survial of fry to 1 year is also quite important. For this SMB spawn to work the manager should place an emphasis on harvest of LMB and protect SMB.

My essay on bgill harvest (about finished) for TyW also notes that research has observed the importance of a presence of larger yellow perch with bill populations to help small bass consume YOY bgill and enhance remaining bgill numbers.

Hi Norm. Just got back from a meeting in Pierre.

As for your question about SMB persistence when LMB enter the picture: I actually just finished a short article for Pond Boss magazine. The pond in question is one you have seen -- the middle pond at Jim's place north of Brookings. As you mentioned, it is a sand/gravel pit.

Anyway, we sampled the pond every other fall. Once LMB gained entrance, the SMB abundance quickly declined, but they did not disappear through four samples (8 years). However, this year we did not get a single SMB of any size during our night electrofishing. All bass were now LMB. I guess there are two primary points: first, the LMB did take over, but second, it took longer than I had expected.

Dave

This thread facinates me because it is somewhat parallel to my situation. Sorry for the long post but I'm inclined to post the whole story based on the similarities to Ty's situation.

My pond in West Michigan is a 2.2-acre sand/gravel pit groundwater pond with no inlet or outlet. The edges are very irregular with several islands that appear similar to Norm's pond on a somewhat smaller scale. Secchi disk depths are approximately 6-feet. Chara has already colonized the upper 4-feet of the pond. The pond was constructed as an enlargement of a pre-existing 20'x 60' shallow (4-foot deep) pond located in the middle of the woods for at least 30-years (probably an old stock pond). We introduced lotus to the organic sediments contained in the area occupied by the old pond and so far, it has not been able to extend its range. We have added several large trees, a Christmas tree patch just like Dave's article, and concrete reefs in 4 to 6 feet of water.

Being impatient, I began stocking the pond before its completion and did not follow the best advise on this board, which would have been to kill everything and start over. That was before I was familiar with Pond Boss and rationalized that the biota in the existing pond would give me a jump start as the pond was enlarged. I later found that the small pond contained green sunfish, central mud minnnows and possibly a few bull heads as evidenced by a cloud of fry that was only witnessed one time (not the jump start we needed). The first thing I did was to stock a few LMB to control the former inhabitants.

The stocking record is as follows:

2002 mid-summer stock 70 3-5" LMB
2003 early spring, transplant 35 6-8" BG
2004 Spring, stock 12 4-6" channel cats

The BG were transferred from a nearby pond because we were unable to find any hatchery that will sell us native BG. The transplants have attempted two spawns with little to no recruitment that I can verify (think the male to female ratio is too high). Several of the BG have been found with holes in their spine or snapping turtle bites removed, so I'll be looking to add more and try again. There remain fair numbers of green sunfish, however, they become hard to find by late summer. I believe that this has become a LMB dominated pond with three year classes visible cruising the shallows by late summer. We have added several gallons of fatheads and emerald shiners each year with small numbers of shiners surviving to the following year before disappearing. The forage base appears to consist of green sunfish, limited BG recruitment and LMB fry plus whatever insects, etc, are available. There are also a few crayfish available.

The blue herons have reduced the original LMB plants to around 25 based on my feeding observations. They are now aprroximately 13" and appear fat and healthy. We hand feed Melick Aquafeed LMB formula twice daily (thanks Cecil). Last spring, in an attempt to add a broader forage base and limit snails, we obtained 250 1-2" redears, which were allowed to grow out in a separate shallow pond that only contained large numbers of fatheads. As a bonus, we also received 25 1-2" SMB, which were raised in the same pond. This fall, we managed to transplant 50 of the redears to the larger pond at a size of 5-6". Three SMB were added to the large pond, which had grown to 10". There are still about a half dozen SMB in the shallow pond but my bass wrangling parties have been no match for them and my friends have grown weary of the cold water.

In 2001, we also added relatively small numbers of hexagenia. This summer, we had quite a mayfly hatch and I found large numbers of wigglers burrowing amongst the chara while deepening an area of the pond. When an excavator bucket was removed I was surprised to find that the chara was literally crawling with large wigglers.

So this is a smaller scale experiment that is similar to a few of Ty's goals with about a year head start. Too early to tell how it will turn out but I'm willing to do the extra management for a little more diversity. If I can't tinker with it constantly it wouldn't be as much fun. Would appreciate any comments.

I'll rephrase this as a question for the experts. Do you think that we can build the forage base in this young pond by adding adult BG without thinning LMB? I'm pretty sure that my estimate of 25 or less 11-13" LMB is accurate. Thanks

TyW � I spent several study sessions putting this together. I suggest you copy it as a reference. It should also be useful to others in the northern and north-central states who what to learn about and how to manage their pond with an emphasis on large bgill (Panfish Option; abundant bass & few greater than 15�). It discusses as much or more about the concepts of producing or managing for large, northern bgill than it does about my ideas about proper harvest.

�Managing for big bluegill is more difficult than say creating a trophy bass fishery � Pete Jacobson MN DNR� (InFisherman MayJun1994).

Not a lot of detailed information on the proper harvest of bluegills exists in the common �easy to get� literature. General guidelines for proper harvest are in several pond management booklets & books. Some of them recommend no harvest restrictions on bgill which is designed to keep panfish numbers in control (Kansas Ponds 1987, Missouri Ponds Handbook), and they conclude fishing emphasis should be on bgill harvest and not bass harvest. Some of the information on bgill harvest in these books assumes that the typical, relatively fertile pond contains a fishery of 250 to 400 total pounds of bgill per acre where water visibility would be 18�-24� for producing a productive fishery. These high standing crops of bgill will not occur in a pond that has clear water during most of the year i.e. where a white object can be seen 4ft to 12 ft deep.

For years biologists believed it was impossible to over-harvest bluegills or other panfish and the best bgill regulations of harvest were NO regulations. Newer information and research is emerging and has shown that angling can �fish down� bluegill and panfish populations. The length of 6� (152mm, �quality�) is considered the standard minimal size of a harvestable bgill for table use (Novinger & Legler 1978, Anderson&Neuman in Murphy&Willis 1996).

It has been found that anglers can definitely harm a bgill fishery by removing too many larger bgill. In the first month of a new bgill fishery in Maple Lk, MN, anglers removed 30% of the larger bgills. Anglers harvested 13% of the 6�+ bgill in the first three days at Mill Lake MI. At a new fishery in Third Sister Lake in MI, anglers removed 24% of the larger bgill in 3 weeks. In another example at Mid-Lake WI, anglers removed 35% of the bgill over 6� in the 1st month of fishing and after two years of angling total bgill mortality rate increased to 61%. Within 3 yrs most large bgill had been removed from Mid-Lake. Juvenile bgill often in northern states do not grow fast enough to rapidly replace lost adults and as a result bgill populations pressured by heavy harvest become composed of mostly fish less than 6� long. Sometimes when too many predators are removed, this can also result in overabundant, small panfish.

It can take 7 to 10 years to replace or regrow a large bgill on natural food sources in northern waters such as MI, WI or MN (also see below). Schneider 1999 and Patriarche 1968 reported bgill lived up to 11 - 14 yrs in four MI lakes. Removing larger numbers (over harvest) of bigger bgills contributes significantly to poor size structure of a bgill population (Coble1988).

Several books recommend bgill harvest in the range of 3 to 10 lbs of bgill for every pound of bass harvested. Illinois Pond Mgmt guide recommends the amount of bgill harvested should be based on the pond fertility and harvested amounts ranged from 20 to 160 pounds of bgill per acre (120-640 fish). Ohio Pond Mgmt Handbook recommends for a properly managed trophy bgill pond that 100-150 (6�-10�) bgill can be removed per acre per year. Michigan Pond Mgmt booklet recommends to �follow two harvest rules: 1. remove as many under 6� bgill as you can 2. greatly restrict harvest of over 6 inchers. This practice works against overcrowding and helps superior brood stock survive. Just as with bass, the biggest, fastest growing bgills bite most readily and tend to be caught first�. Cody thinks this is true up to a point. But after these caught and released fish get �hooked & jerked� several times, they tend to become hook shy and become cautious and more difficult to catch. However this behavioral trait may actually be beneficial especially in smaller ponds because it tends to protect these larger bgill from over harvest by you and poachers.

I definitely think that the number of bgill harvested per acre per year should be directly based on the pond�s fertility and the number of large bgill that are present. Schneider 1999 studied 11 of the better bgill lakes in MI. He noted that the �best� populations of larger bgill were predominately in lakes with low angler harvest of bgill.

Some fishery biologists are researching why and how some lakes consistently produce large bgills. Research is currently in the early stages but several features are emerging why some waters produce large bgills.

1. Presence of larger males tend to out compete smaller males who delay maturation and spawning while continuing to grow. Experiments (IL Natural Hist Survey) showed size and age of maturity is determined by how big the other males in the population are. When big males are removed, smaller males then become mature and establish a smaller maturation size group that is a smaller average individual size than before. Thus presence of big males inhibits young males from maturing while absence of big males encourages younger smaller males to mature. Cody thinks several forms of intraspecific competition probably contribute to this phenomenon.

2. High mortality of small bgill (less than age 1) caused by an abundance of smaller, average, sizes of predators. Smaller predators are forced to eat small forage items. Up to 48.3% of the diet of small bass in Blueberry Pond MI was very large numbers of bgill at 7 � 15 mm long (Schneider 1999). He concluded that the slow growth of one predator species (possibly crowding & stunting) tends to cause that predator group to prey primarily on small bgill, for example, crowded, small bass. . Also cannibalism of fry or larvae of or by large bgill can reduce intraspecific competition and allows faster growth of the remaining bgill YOY year class.

3. Presence of a �good� population of larger yellow perch in a pond with bgill also contributed a fair amount to age 1 mortality of bgill (Schneider 1999). He concluded however, that a high harvest of the y. perch can also lead to excessive bgill recruitment.

4. Low spawning activity or nesting success results in less need for predation and thinning of each year class thus improving growth rates. This justifies my comment about limiting the amount of spawning areas in the previous post. Schneider (1999) concluded it is unlikely that bgill spawn more than once a yr in MI. Peak spawn was May 25-31and at least some sporadic spawning occurred up to Aug 8.

5. Proper amount of macrophyte development provides refuge areas and production sites for abundant forage items for maintaing good growth rates of bgills. Overabundant macophytes can easily lead to over abundant panfish. In an exceptional fishery, Schneider (1999) reported that Michigan�s best large bgill fishery occurred in a unique, very weedy lake (83%coverage).

6. Diverse food web to accommodate the bgill�s generalist feeding tendencies which stimulates rapid growth of bgill. This includes an abundant food base of Daphnia (upto 2mm), Chaoborus, and midge larvae in the limnetic or pelagic zone and numerous types and an abundance of adult & larval insects and other miscellaneous invertebrates in the littoral & sublittoral zones (sediments and macrophytes).

7. Bgill were found to have diet shifts and feed primarily in the different zones at different life or size stages (Schneider 1999). Good growth requires ample food for each size class in each zone so bgill grow well during all developmental size classes.

Once a pond or lake produces large bgills it seems very important that these largest bgills should not be over harvested. The presence of larger bgills in a fishery helps maintain a quality fishery and it apparently has an impact of the future development of the overall bluegill population structure (Schneider 1999). .

The dilemma becomes for the pond manager is how many and what size of bgill to remove. A pond can withstand some type of annual harvest because a natural mortality will occur each year. I currently think the goal for a memorable or trophy bgill fishery should be to perform the larger part of the harvest from the midsize group (7.5�-8.9�) of bgill and occasionally harvest only a very few (0.5-1/ac/yr) of those in the largest (9.0 or 9.5�+) category each year. I recommend these fish should only consist primarily of bleeding deeply hooked fish. This will protect the largest bgill size classes and it will maintain a trophy fishery which is your stated goal. With this harvest technique or philosophy and ample food, you should be able to grow bgill to 9.5� or maybe 10+� if they live 11-13 yrs.

Some (primarily anglers) will strongly disagree with the above philosophy and argue that the largest and oldest bgill should be readily harvested and utilized before they die naturally of old age. This is a debate for another topic and I will not dwell on it here. I do agree with our mentor, Bob Lusk (and many on the In-Fisherman staff) who promote their conservation philosophy about trophy bass, and I think it also applies to large bgills: �these are trophies or rarities of nature and should be appreciated and held in reverence, and they deserve to be allowed to live out their entire life span in the pond not in the frying pan�. This philosophy is quite difficult to implement in public waters where �meat fishermen� prevail, however it can easily be used in private ponds. When a pond manager uses this harvest philosophy, then this is why anglers try their best and worst methods to get access and fish a pond that is full of memorable and trophy sized fish.

PBoss magazine discussed the basic concepts and philosophies of harvesting bgill, in the May-June2002 issue with an interesting cover story article (Selective Harvest, Pro Tips On Setting Effective Bag Limits),. It is recommended reading to provide good basic principles of fish harvest. In the article�s section on Bluegill Ponds, several authorities provided opinions regarding proper harvest, however few actual harvest numbers were reported which was probably due to the overall complexity of the topic.

Two of the best bgill lakes (large numbers of bgill greater than 8�-9�) in southern MI were studied for 6 yrs by Schneider 1999. Both lakes received low harvest of bgill and light overall fishing pressure. A few details of those fisheries follow:
Blueberry Pond, at 19.7ac, 22� deep, ave secchi 6.8ft, 83% macrophyte coverage w/ plant growth to 8ft, hard-water - alkalinity 105mg/L, BLUEGILL 8�-9� long (123-333 fish/ac) comprised 62% of the bgill stock greater than 6�. Stock greater than 6� ranged from 214 -506 bgill/ac.
Dead Lake, at 56ac, 30ft deep, ave secchi 14ft, 41% macrophyte coverage w/ plant growth to 13ft, hard-water �alkalinity 114mg/L, BLUEGILL 8�-9� (16-44 fish/ac) comprised 13% of the bgill stock greater than 6�which ranged from 208 - 237 bgill /ac.

The three next best bgill lakes in MI that contained populations of large bgill were:
Third Sister Lake � 8�+ bgill = 68/acre; fishing pressure low
Mill Lake 8�+ bgill = 22/ac; fishing pressure none
Jewett Lake 8�+ bgill = 4.6/ac; fishing pressure average (0.23), fish by permit, after 5 yrs of angling catch/hr steadily dropped from 1.42 to 0.42.

A wide range can occur in the numbers of large bgill that a pond or lake can naturally produce or sustain due to primarily the fertility of each water body. I think the key to proper harvest of bgill, and yet maintain a proper balance, is being able to estimate on a fairly regular basis the relative numbers of bgill present in each size class. Once these numbers are known then a harvest quota can be established. I always tend to error on the conservative side of the number harvested because I would rather be able to consistently catch larger fish, and harvest the medium sized individuals for the table compared to the opposite philosophy of eating the largest ones and in the future catch fewer large fish.
Another harvest philosophy involves keeping primarily the largest bgills because they will soon die of natural mortality.

Since bgill grow rather slowly in many of the northern states excessive harvest of the largest individuals can easily result in the population getting skewed toward the next smaller size class that may be growing slowly. This leads us to the benefits of pelleted feeding which: 1. promotes faster growth of intermediate sized fish to replace the larger harvested fish, 2. it helps maintain high condition factors of older fish and 3. it often helps in increasing the number of larger fish per acre. See caution items below.

Ohio�s DNR operates a public, premier, bass - bgill fishery in Lake La Su An - 82 acre lake - NW Ohio. It is composed of primarily bass and high numbers of large quality sized bgills (6�-10�); angling is by reservation only. ODNR fish surveys estimate that 30% to 40% of the bgill are 6�+. Compare this percentage to Blueberry Pond above that had 62% of all the bgills greater than 6� were 8�-9� long. At this point, I do not have any Lake LaSuAn fish survey data for the numbers of bgill that generally were in each incremental size group of fish greater than 6�. Daily and annual harvest at LaSuAn is strictly monitored at a park ranger check out station. When annual fish quotas are met the harvest of fish is strictly curtailed and fish harvest essentially stops for that year or season. Annual harvest of bgill in this productive, hardwater lake is set at around 100 bgill (6�+) per acre per yr (abt 50-60lbs/ac/yr). This figure is estimated to be about 30% of the adult population (6�+). The natural mortality of this lake in unfished years was estimated to be a 36% mortality rate (L.Goedde verbal).

After I have gone through all this information, I still have not given you an actual number of bgill that can be harvested from your new 12-15 acre gravel pit pond. I will assume your pond typical of many gravel pits that have fairly clear water and are lower in nutrients similar to Bluebery Pond and Dead Lake mentioned above. Harvest rates for these waters were: Blueberry =2.5 fish/ac (1%); Dead Lake = 5.5 fish /acre (3%). Other fish (bass, perch) were also harvested at low rates from these waters. The point to note here, is that exceptional quality fisheries in low productivity waters are at a very high quality status, probably partly due to low harvest rates, adequate growth rates and proper balance. I am not sure what the alkalinity of your pond will be, but I will assume it will be in the lower range of 30-60mg/L. The alkalinity of your new pond should be fairly similar to that of an existing, near-by water body with a similar �source� of water as your pond. As most here know that read to this point, alkalinity directly affects the phytoplankton productivity which ultimately affects the poundage of fish that a pond can grow without artificial feeding.

To be conservative and error on low side for your situation, I am assuming moderately low alkalinity and low natural productivity for your pond, which I am guessing will have a standing stock of around 75 to 100 lbs of total bgill per acre. Note, if you provide me with the alkalinity concentration of your pond, when it is full of water next year, I can adjust my calculations as needed. I am currently working on a simple formula to determine how many bgill should be harvested from ponds of varying fertilities.

Lets assume your bgill population / poundage is well managed with ample predation pressure on small individuals and the older year classes of bgill have a population skew of larger bgill of about 40% to be greater than 6�+ bgill. This assumes a lot of positives. With total standing crop of 100 lbs of bgill per acre, this results in abt 40 POUNDS of bgill/ac greater than 6�. I assumed the weight of bgill that are less than 2.5" - 3� to be in autumn or spring a fairly low poundage (abt 10lb/ac) due to predation and or manual thinning by you.

Your goal, as stated, was for harvesting is 8�+ bgill which will probably cause the harvest number to be somewhat low. This is due to in a normal population distribution, as the fish get larger, their numbers generally decrease, with the fewest individuals in the largest, oldest size class. For example in Blueberry Pond and Dead lake, as noted above, the numbers of bgill in the largest size class of 10+� there were two individuals in Blueberry an none were found in Dead Lake.

My estimated numbers of bgill 8�-9�long/ acre for your pond would be around 40
FISH/ac (20%) and for fish 9�+ long would be around 10 fish per acre (10%). Harvest about 30% to 40% of these numbers i.e. 15 to 20 fish per acre that are 8�+ /acre/yr. Keep good catch records and when the average size of fish you are catching gets smaller you need to look at making changes. Also note the condition factor or relative plumpness of the large bgill when you catch or clean them. Skinny or thin fish indicate over crowding (food shortages & or competition) and more numbers of one size group should probably be harvested to supply more food for the intended individuals. A fish feeder will probably increase fish condition factors and fish catchability (CPUE) in vicinity of each feeder. However, with out proper management this could still lead to overcrowding and possibly survival or life span problems.

CAUTIONS and TIPS; 1. It will take time to grow your first batch of fish to 8� and 9� which could possibly require 4 to 6 years in MN to see your first stocking (2�-3�) reach 8�. The fish growing season in MN is considered to be three months (Flickinger&Buglow in Kohler&Hubert 1993). However, in a new pond with a rich, abundant food web for bgill you could see 2�-3� stocked bgill grow to 8� in 3 full yrs which would be excellent growth in your location. You may want to initially stock 2 or 3 size classes to hasten the time it takes to produce 8� bgill. In WI slightly better than average growth of bgill is 1yr=2-2.5�, 2 yr= 4.8-5.7�, 3 yr=5.0-6.4�, 4yr= 6.6-7.2�, 5yr= 7.4-8.0�. Ave growth of bgill in IL was also similar to WI accelerated rates. Average MI growth rates are 1yr 3.1�, 2yr 4.3�, 3yr 5.4�, 4yr 6.6�, 5 yr 7.3�, 6yr 7.7�, 7yr 8.2�, 8yr 8.4�, 9yr 8.7�, 10yr 8.9�. Once a bgill, in MN growing season, reaches 7�-8�, I think its growth rate will be only �� to �� per yr. Overall bgill growth in your pond will very likely be at a somewhat slower rate AFTER the first several years in your new pond unless you supplement their diet with fish pellets. This is due to in the first few years of a new pond, the balanced numbers of stocked fish have the fastest growth rates compared to those when the pond fish populations stabilize (crowding) and a combination of numerous factors occur that can inhibit growth. Annually evaluating the forage food base and maintaining the proper fish density are impt tasks for properly growing your future year classes of fish. I think hand feeding or at least one artificial feeder is very important for growing large plump bgill at least in one localized section of the pond. Note that feeding the fish pellets is not just about growing more and bigger fish. Feeding should be combined with proper harvest or implementing population adjustments to improve the condition factors of the remaining fish yet maintain proper community balance. Many miss this important point.

2. Monitor or evaluate annually the small and intermediate sizes of bgill and adjust numbers if necessary. I spend much more time fishing for the small and intermediate sized fish than for the larger fish. Learn how to build and use fish traps.

3. Whenever fishing, continually monitor the relative plumpness of the bgill. When I clean fish, I always check for the amount of body fat. Thin fish are not getting enough to eat. Adjust densities as necessary.

4.. Spend a fair amount of time evaluating and tweaking the predator population so the majority of the predators are in the proper or targeted size groups to effectively crop bgill to meet your goals of producing big bgill.

The need to release large bgill depends on how many fish are harvested. Generally, releasing larger bgill can help sustain high catch rates of bigger bgill.

I wish you well with this new fishery. It will be a very good practical learning experience for you. Keep us advised on what you are learning and on the progress and growth of the fish in your new small lake. I also recommend that you keep good data or records and these bits of information will be very helpful in the future. Inquiring minds want to know.

Bill,
That is great information. Thank you. I am going to email it to the rest of my family.

After dedicating several years of my life to the study of ecology I have determined that the two principles of ecology are 1.Flow charts and 2.mathmatical equations.

What are the parameters for the BG harvest formula? What kind of input data do you have? This is a very interesting topic.

Thanks, Tyler

TyW - I did not have an actual written formula for calculating numbers of bluegill harvested. No actual formula exists that I know of for various types of water bodies and that is the problem. Each water body is unique and has different and ever changing standing crops due to all the variables influencing it. My numbers of bgill to be harvested for your small lake were estimated numbers based on probable alkalinity, water clarity, type of predator, average standing crop and my experiences for some low nutrient ponds and a typical local gravel pit that I am familiar with. Use the numbers as initial guidelines. If your alkalinity and productivity are different than what I have estimated then an adjustment of harvested bgill and bass would need to be made based on how individuals in the populations are responding i.e. condition factors. The fish will tell you how "things are going in your lake". You just need to make the observations and implement proper adjustments when necessary.

Bill,

WOW! Great information.
Would your large bluegill management scenario also apply to other panfish species? Say...... yellow perch?

Thanks,
Ed

Ed - It all depends. Generally for other panfish yes, but it depends on the species, predator density, and mostly on water productivity. Yellow perch feed "a little higher on the food chain" than bgill which means they can have more of a percentage of fish in their diet compared to bgill. This can also be quite variable depending on the forage fish populations. Typically not as many perch will be produced per acre as bgill and harvested numbers will be fewer, again this depends on several things or variables. The bgill numbers to be harvested for TyW are quite low due to the estimated low productivity of his water and to error on the side of a conservative estimate to reduce the chance of overharvest. An overharvest of large bgill in low productivity and competitive conditions could take a fair amount of time for the populaiton of large bgill to recover to pre-harvest conditons.

How hard is it to measure alkalinity? If I estimate productivity with a sechi disk do I need to know my alkalinity?

What about a formula that estimates the production of BG from productivity?

TwY, How did you graduate from college and not know how to measure alkalinity? Or haven't you graduated yet?. If you are still in school check with the Limno prof or someone in the chem department.

No alkalinity is not really needed if yuou are only interested in current productivity estimates. Secchi measurements will provide a current relative estimate of productivity whereas alkalinity will provide a potential for productivity and increased standing crops if and when proper ratios of dissolved nutrients become available. Productivity levels vary throughout the year season by season in natural waters where fertilizer is not intentially addded. Amount of variation is dependant on nutrient budgets and inputs, flora and fauna, and somewhat on alkalinity. It is a complex system which should have been emphasized in limnology / ecology class.

Estimating BG standing crop from productivity estimates or measurements has probably been done; at least overall fish standing crops or maybe forage standing crops have been correlated with producitivity. I do not have these numbers or formulae in my literature files. Get to the science library and do some homework and literature searches. A good placed to start would be searching Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts. You have time to do this before the pond is finished. If you find something let me know about it since I provided lots of previous BG info for you.

I haven't graduated yet, and I haven't taken my field limn course yet. I have been lectured on alkalinity, and understand the concept. But I don't know if you use a test kit, a probe, a color changing strip. A YSI can measure alkanlinity, right?

I will do some looking into BG/forage production as a function primary production, it seems like it could be an important, if inexact measure of secondary or tertiary production.

TyW - Okay , you still have some good opportunities to learn more limnology techniques.

If before you graduate, you get a chance to chose a term paper topic in one of your courses, why not make it about lake productivity and how it relates to bgill or panfish standing crops? If you don't find the formula you are seeking in the literature, try and create one from the relevant papers that you read for the topic. I would very much like to read a copy of anything you create about this topic. I would even proof read and review it for you before you hand it in for a grade, if you do not wait till the last minute to finish it.

YSI and alkalinity. As far as I know they do not make a meter that measures alkalinity. Alkalinity is typically determined with titration to an end point as indicated by a color indicator. Conductivity is often metered but conductivity is not the same as alkalinity. However, the two are somewhat related to each other. The simplest way for you to determine the approximate alkalinity of your pond is to buy a simple test kit from a well stocked pet / aquarium store OR take your pondwater sample to school and test it when you take limnology techniques and they cover alkalinity testing in lab.

TyW33: Bill, Dave and other have provided very good info. BACKROUND....I also have a active leased gravel pit lake approx 19-20 acres now but should be completed by the end of this year and the pit license turned in with some 22 acres at the end. In my situation, farm land was dug starting in 1988 and gravel and sand removed forming a ground water level fairly shallow pond-lake. The depth is determined by the depth of clay.
Once the pit excavator hits clay below the water they stop and move on creating more sand and gravel being removed and water created. The depth is mostly 6' or less but I do have 4-6 acres 12-14' deep. When I bought the house and property (Spring 2002) the lake was very clear with only stunted yellow perch and rock bass with no predator fish. I bought and caught mature LMB and SMB and added to the lake with great results along with 600 plus mature bluegill that spring of 2002. The spawns have been great since for the bluegill and LMB. I'm in SW Ontario, Canada @ 42 degree's north latitude. I too don't want to fertile but I added approx 40-70 domestic ducks and geese to help. The results are the clarity levels have reduced to the 3-4' range from 8-12' and the YOY are growing very well. The birds are eating the vegetation in the water and keeping it below the 20% range. Therefore, I have seen my bluegill grow to large sizes 6-10" from my good gene pool but have far less 3-5" BG. I believe my young LMB are targeting this size range at this time. The bass are very heavy in relative weight and most are in the 10-16" range when I fish for them. Each year my LMB are growing and becoming more dense in #'s and size. The yellow perch are reducing in #'s but they are growing from the 3-5" size to the 8-12" sizes perfect for the table. In talking with both Bill and Dave in the past.....remember there is only so much biomass in the lake and choose it wisely! In my case, the forage fish are culling all rock bass, yellow perch, bluegill and pumpkinseed with the LMB and a few SMB as predators. Maybe next year I will add a third predator "WALLEYE" to the mix but the lake is still under evaluation and my goals of both large yellow perch & bluegill with avg size LMB and SMB as predators with a few lungers throne in if possible. I hope this helps and isn't pond management fun......... remember what Dave says, this isn't an exact science and each situation may be different......trial and errors along the way as you move forward. Best of luck in the future and stay with your goals.

Rowly

Rowly,

Sounds wonderful. I hope I am able to get my pond to be something close to yours, thanks for the tips.
How many BG do you harvest a year? What sizes?

Thanks
ty