Hey guys I am actively trying to manage my 3 acre pond for trophy largemouth, and bluegill simultaneously. Do you believe this is possible? I've read a lot, and understand the importance of a stunted bass population and it's role in growing giant bluegill. Can both be done. I'm feeding my bluegill as much as I can, practicing suggested selective harvest of the bluegill, and providing plenty of forage for the largemouth, crawfish, fatheads, golden shiner, and trout in the winter. What are your thoughts???
Also, what do you think of substituting the stunted largemouth with stocked hybrid striper???
Abaggs,
I think you should choose big bluegill where you set the stage for numerous small LMB. In this scenario, the BG reproduction will be mostly consumed by LMB and you can further manage BG through harvest. You need many LMB to grow large BG. This is because LMB consume prey at a limited range of lengths proportional to their own. What this means is that big LMB need roughly the same number of BG to maintain themselves as do small LMB. So if you have a greater number of LMB there will be a greater number of BG YOY consumed each year. The idea is to have LMB standing weight divided among many more smaller individuals in order to maximize the consumption of individual BG YOY thus preventing too many BG.
This would create a situation where large LMB cannot find enough to eat.
So to have large LMB you have to have some artificial means of supplementing food. The choices are feeding a few female LMB/acre an artificial diet or by supplementing forage that has attained a minimum length. Let's look at the possible pros and cons.
1. Artificial Feed.
Pros. Artificial feed could provide all the nutrition a few trophy LMB need to be maintained and grow.
Cons. It would be best implemented by providing daily rations. So one complication is how do you feed them through the cooler months under ice? Or when they are deep and won't come up to feed? The simple answer is that the LMB can't depend entirely on artificial feed and it is likely that they need to rely in part on natural foods in the pond. Although at first this seems totally cool ... we must consider what it may mean for the primary goal of having large BG. The problem is that large LMB that consume natural prey will consume small LMB. So figuring that an LMB will consume around 350 to 500 BG annually ... each small LMB that a big LMB eats increases the survival of BG. There is only so much standing weight of BG you can have and if its 500 lbs then if divided by 500 BG then they can average 1 lb. The loss of just a few small LMB can increase the need for harvest management of intermediate sized BG. Just something to consider. Having a few large LMB will make it easier to grow large LMB but it won't make it easier to grow large BG if any cannibalism of small LMB occurs.
2. Supplemental Forage.
Pros. If supplemental forage is stocked at sizes to ensure good survival (from predation by small LMB) then the forage supplemented will provide forage for the largest LMB in the pond. In principle, the large LMB need between 350-500 appropriate length forage fish per large LMB annually. The supplemental need is probably less than that.
Cons. The same caveat applies. Only it is more complicated. First large LMB may cannibalize smaller (LMB) increasing the need for BG harvest. Second, you really can't supplement BG without undermining the original goal. Supplemented BG will compete with BG already in the pond thus reducing growth rates. Also, if you must already harvest BG ... isn't supplementing BG just adding to the harvest need directly? If you were to supplement forage, you would need to introduce other species that are less competitive. Crawfish and trout seem to be good choices but they still need to be in the appropriate sizes throughout the year to be optimum supplements for forage.
I think either approach would allow you to grow larger predators but I just wanted the response to clearly describe how having larger predators will come at the expense of the goal of large BG. I don't think there is way to make both goals optimum. Each goal comes at the expense of the other like some kind of law of nature. Any action will create effects that cascade through trophic levels. To return to Bill's question ... the key to understanding what to do will be to understand what your goals are in terms of ultimate sizes. If 2 lb BG are a goal ... I would definitely only sparingly harvest LMB and I would concentrate harvest on the largest of the current sizes. If 8 lb LMB are the goal, then it will be very, very, difficult to grow 2lb BG sustainably. The question is do you want optimum for one extreme or the other or do you want some type of compromise between the two extremes?
