Caught some nice BG yesterday. This one is 9" and weighed 1lb5oz. Caught 1 that was bigger at 9.5" but got excited and forgot to take pic & weigh him. Also caught a 1 yr old HSB stocked @ 8". Weighed 2lb 11oz measured 17.5". Nothing like a good feeding program! Caught HSB on bottom w/ a worm.
Nice fish! Whaddya' know, pond management DOES work!
"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.
If we had a well fed 9.0" BG it has a standard weight of 0.62 lb or 9.92 ounces. If we had a standard weight BG that weighed 1 lb 5 oz it will be 11.27" long. A 1 lb 5oz a 9.0" BG would have a Wr (aka Rw or body condition) of 212. Really fat fish have Wr of 100-125 maybe even 130 for fish in exceptional cases such as full of eggs or a really fat fish after a large meal. The BG above does not look to be overly plump.
It might be a good idea to weigh a couple standard weight items with the digital scale to verify that it is correct. Here are some volumes of tap water to weigh to test the digital scale. 1 cup (236ml) of water should weigh 8.3 oz 2 cups of water = 16.6oz and 21 ounces (1 lb 5 oz bgill) will be 2.51 cups(594milliliters) of water measure out 2.5 cups of water and it should weigh 1 lb 5 oz using your digital scale. We are interested in your test results.
Last edited by Bill Cody; 08/19/1408:42 PM.
aka Pond Doctor & Dr. Perca Read Pond Boss Magazine - America's Journal of Pond Management
Just did the test & it all checks out. I may have looked at it wrong in my excitment. Now I am going to catch some tomorrow night and see. Caught a bunch of smaller 1's tonight.
If we had a well fed 9.0" BG it has a standard weight of 0.62 lb or 9.92 ounces. If we had a standard weight BG that weighed 1 lb 5 oz it will be 11.27" long. A 1 lb 5oz a 9.0" BG would have a Wr (aka Rw or body condition) of 212. Really fat fish have Wr of 100-125 maybe even 130 for fish in exceptional cases such as full of eggs or a really fat fish after a large meal. The BG above does not look to be overly plump.
It might be a good idea to weigh a couple standard weight items with the digital scale to verify that it is correct. Here are some volumes of tap water to weigh to test the digital scale. 1 cup (236ml) of water should weigh 8.3 oz 2 cups of water = 16.6oz and 21 ounces (1 lb 5 oz bgill) will be 2.51 cups(594milliliters) of water measure out 2.5 cups of water and it should weigh 1 lb 5 oz using your digital scale. We are interested in your test results.
Bill, really good information, but there is one variable missing from Wr charts that is obvious to me with CNBG, and that is width. When our CNBG hit about 9-10 inches they begin to get wider and thicker. I have only seen a couple or so pure CNBG over 11 inches after more than 10 years observation.
How much do think this would change Wr charts if width was considered as well as length?
Calibration of scale data is interesting - never tried it with cups of water on digital scale. I just hang a gallon of tap water in a jug on my boga and 8 pounds is good enough for me. Being a geophysicist, I do know that density changes velocity of sound in fresh water vs. sea water, so I also assume mineralization changes weight?
Not nit picking - just interesting data. Thanks for your interesting post. George
Last edited by george1; 08/20/1406:38 AM.
N.E. Texas 2 acre and 1/4 acre ponds Original george #173 (22 June 2002)
To my way of thinking, if there were an allowance for width, there would be no reason to have a Wr chart in the first place. I use a Wr chart not as a calculator to estimate my fish's weight, but as a tool to show my fish's deviation from what would be considered a healthy average weight for the species in general.
There needs to be a variable in the formula in order to form a comparison...I think that's where width, expressed as weight most often, enters in.
If width is incorporated into the formula, then what shall we use as a variable? Density of flesh, or mass of internal organs?
If it becomes a case of plugging in the numbers, ALL the numbers, (X+Y=Z), then what constitutes the difference or discrepancy if no two fish of the same measurements don't weigh exactly the same?
Just some random, early morning thoughts.
"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.
To my way of thinking, if there were an allowance for width, there would be no reason to have a Wr chart in the first place. I use a Wr chart not as a calculator to estimate my fish's weight, but as a tool to show my fish's deviation from what would be considered a healthy average weight for the species in general.
There needs to be a variable in the formula in order to form a comparison...I think that's where width, expressed as weight most often, enters in.
If width is incorporated into the formula, then what shall we use as a variable? Density of flesh, or mass of internal organs?
If it becomes a case of plugging in the numbers, ALL the numbers, (X+Y=Z), then what constitutes the difference or discrepancy if no two fish of the same measurements don't weigh exactly the same?
Just some random, early morning thoughts.
Totally agree! I don't even use Wr charts - I can easily tell a skinny fish from a fat fish.. My point is that length alone is not a major criteria for determining size of pure CNBG - northern strain BG appear to grow longer but not as wide? G/
N.E. Texas 2 acre and 1/4 acre ponds Original george #173 (22 June 2002)
I don't have any experience with CNBG, although I hope to change that some day. But I hear what you're saying George, and as a matter of comparison, I have stated for years that I have doubts about using a Wr chart intended for BG, on a HBG. The hybrids typically feature a very heavy, (thick) body dynamic, and I believe using a chart intended for BG skews the results to be more favorable than what they may actually be.
"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.
I don't have any experience with CNBG, although I hope to change that some day. But I hear what you're saying George, and as a matter of comparison, I have stated for years that I have doubts about using a Wr chart intended for BG, on a HBG. The hybrids typically feature a very heavy, (thick) body dynamic, and I believe using a chart intended for BG skews the results to be more favorable than what they may actually be.
Yeah Tony,I think you are right - comparisons between various BG types and hybrids are skewed. IIRC, Theo Gallus at one time came up with a length/width ratio - I miss Theo!
I'm will go back to an old thread showing examples of wide bodied CNBG - our buddy FireIsHot will soon break CNBG 2 pounds. I have heard that Overton does not select length characteristic for his CNBG brood stock. Cheers George
N.E. Texas 2 acre and 1/4 acre ponds Original george #173 (22 June 2002)
I'm in agreement with you on the subject of length, George. Taken by itself it just doesn't tell the whole story.
I've been eagerly following Al's progress (as well as your own), with the CNBG.....can't wait for photos of that two pounder!
"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.
I knew of some in southern Kentucky that winterkilled last year. I'm also aware of some populations in Tenn. that appear to be holding on.
It's not just a matter of survival, you want a BG that will flourish and perform well for your area. Southern fish may or may not survive, but will they perform as well as a northern fish that is better suited to the climate?
"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.
There are enough people here to create our own standard weights for CNBG and HBG. The standard weights for HBG are being collected by Sprkplug. However not enough people are participating. Standard weights are available for white and black crappie, LMB, SMB, and spotted bass Striped bass, white bass, and hybrid striped bass Northern pike, musky, and tiger musky Walleye, sauger, and saugeye paddle fish male and female Stream and Lake rainbow trout
Why not CNBG and HBG???
Last edited by Bill Cody; 08/20/1410:52 AM.
aka Pond Doctor & Dr. Perca Read Pond Boss Magazine - America's Journal of Pond Management
Bill, problem is with what most folks from around here call CNBG are intergrades from Arkansas fish trucks. There are only two sources that breed from select pure Florida CNBG brood stock that I know about in this part of the country - Tyler Fish Farm and Overton Fisheries. George
N.E. Texas 2 acre and 1/4 acre ponds Original george #173 (22 June 2002)
I don't know what strain of CNBG they have in some of those left coast lakes, but they are absolutely stunning. And huge.
"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.
Bill, problem is with what most folks from around here call CNBG are intergrades from Arkansas fish trucks. There are only two sources that breed from select pure Florida CNBG brood stock that I know about in this part of the country - Tyler Fish Farm and Overton Fisheries. George
Shouldn't the intergrades look a bit different? I don't do fish trucks unless it was Rainman but I got my CNBG from Hopper Stevens here in Arkansas and they look pretty pure to me? Course I am no expert on pure and not pure...
JD if you catch another 9 inch BG let us know what you get on the scale. You got me wondering now. I feed pretty well and my pond is doing great and I have caught a lot of 9 inch BG and most are between 9 and 11 oz. So if you really do have 1.5 pound 9 inch BG I wanna know and so does the rest of the world what your doing my friend to get them
Curious minds want to know!!
RC
The only difference between a rut and a Grave is the depth. So get up get out of that rut and get moving!! Time to work!!
Tony, I betcha they are pure Florida CNBG since Californians were early pioneers in pure Florida LMB - much earlier than Texas introduction of Florida in the early 80's - Al will know more about Florida LMB than anyone I know. G/
N.E. Texas 2 acre and 1/4 acre ponds Original george #173 (22 June 2002)