You're welcome FishingRod.
I agree with regard to carry capacity and natural mortality resulting from the effects of food limitation. Harvesting fish should reduce this type of mortality significantly. Only thing of course is that the mortality happens anyway whether harvested or not. But it far better for that mortality to be in the fridge than rotting in the pond. Fish reach the carry capacity fairly soon after the initial stocking (usually subsequent year) and so their growth in weight slows to be equal to the weight of the mortality. In that sense, harvest is means of helping fish grow. You brought up a really great point above. About how a few large fish equal far more numerous smaller fish in weight. So the removal of few large fish can indeed create a lot of room for subsequent growth. When most efficient, there will be just enough smaller fish that stand a good chance to evade predation replacing those removed. IOWs the population remains stable but the removal of the few large fish lowers the standing weight below the carry capacity each year allowing for growth into the carry capacity following harvest. This allows the surviving fish to grow individually. The key is mortality, whether natural or harvest, but preferably harvest. I would bet that esshup has a plan for replacing the large fish being removed with smaller fish that are not likely to be consumed by predators in the pond.
I might be wrong, but my impression differed just a little from yours. I don't think the pond owner was aware of the need to harvest without esshup urging. It's really good advice that esshup is providing to the pond owner and this is going to be very good for the pond's fish. Had the pond owner over the years harvested and restocked replacements, it is very likely that the ultimate weights achieved would have been higher ... as remarkable as they were anyway. All the remaining fish will grow better as result of this action.
Last edited by jpsdad; 03/17/24 07:05 PM.
