What one doesn't want to do is cull a 22" fish at 90 RW and keep a 20" fish at 110 RW when these two fish are the same age.
I'll bite. You would keep a longer fish at a lower RW vs a shorter fish at a higher RW of the same age class?
Length......Weight RW Fish Std. Wgt
20..............4.95.......110.00%.......4.5
22.............. 5.6 ........90.32%........6.2
The thinking is that the longer fish could gain the missing weight vs the shorter fish is growing slower and won't be able to max out on weight in the long term?
At first I thought you were inviting others strike a conversation (something I think would be great) but after re-reading ... I think you wanted further comment from me to explain my case. I will oblige.
Sure, I would keep the 22" and consider taking the 20". Here are the reasons why.
1. I want the faster grower (22") to be giving its genetics to recruits. Removing the 20" LMB takes her slow growing genetics out of the equation.
2. Together, at a Northern OK location, the two LMB will consume 52.75 lbs of forage for maintenance, a similar (variation less than 3%) amount was consumed over the past 12 months. By removing the 20" LMB, this quantity of forage will be available to the 22" LMB. If it were to consume it all, the potential for weight gain would be ~3.8 lbs over the next year. At a reasonable Length Increment of say 3/4", this would be a RW of 136. This is high but achievable. There is potential for the 20" LMB to gain to the same weight but given a reasonable growth increment of say 1", this would be a RW of 177. This is very high and at the limits of known data. The probability supports that the shorter LMB probably wouldn't consume as much as the longer fish would.
3. Keep in mind that the history supports that the longer fish grew faster and has more growth potential. This is evidenced not only by the length but also the weight. Competition is limiting the larger fish where it is denied the forage ration that would allow it reach it full potential.
