Originally Posted By: sprkplug
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.. grin
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)