So you bring up a good point. Should a person use a different RW charts/formulas for Florida's and Northerns?
But back to the point I intended. Consider just the KS and OH records. Presumably, both fish were northern LMB. The OH fish was relative to the KS fish short and fat. But the OH fish outweighed the KS fish. The KS fish is the only northern LMB that I have knowledge of that achieved 28". Given the two fish, and given the choice of one for propagation ... which should one choose? I think I would choose the KS fish because it had a very exceptional length that is uncommon for northerns.
A different case, a selection of shooters from a crop of young adults. How could one determine which fish devote more energy of the same consumption of energy to growing longer?
I would love to hold a 180 RW LMB some day. Maybe I will make a trip to Dixon.
But you completely missed my point. I think 150-180 RW has little to do with Florida or Northern genes. Fish can grow remarkably just consuming that extra fish that takes it over maintenance. Regularly getting an extra one every couple or three days will allow their RW to grow remarkably but after adulthood it isn't going to cause their length to grow remarkably. Being fat is just consuming a marginal amount more than the standard weight fish of the same length consumes.
