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?
Here's the problem with that.. If at 90%, this fish has LOST growth potential. .
Only relative to itself. It has probably lost some of its growth potential because it probably did not make its full potential length increment in the last 12 months.
It will never achieve the true potential of the other, shorter fish assuming it stays at or above 100% RW, even being the same age.
It's already exceeded the potential of the other. It has nothing to prove about its potential for growth because it is longer and heavier. The shorter fish is remains the slow grower. It just takes less forage for it to achieve 110 RW because it is inferior.
The longer fish has more frame to gain on. It will gain in weight based on consumption. The key to its growth is consumption. Life will limit the longer fish, but to overtake it, the shorter fish of the same age will have to live longer. Chances are good, that when signs of forage limitation are showing, that neither fish will maintain RW without mortality of peers.
Snipe, think about it. If what you are saying were correct, then stunted fish couldn't resume growth. I've personally seen 9" LMB grow to 13" over a 6 month period over winter. Their RW was very poor and no telling how old they were. They were bucket stocked into pond chock full of little GSF. To be sure, they lost years of potential but they ate as much as they could over the 6 cool months and tripled in weight. To be correct about what you are saying, being at 90 RW would have had to severely impair the 22" fish from consuming excess above its maintenance or consuming as much as the 20" fish can. It already consumes more than the 20" fish does because it is heavier so there doesn't seem to be any plausible reason why the 22" fish couldn't or wouldn't eat the forage freed by removing the 20" fish.
Again, the 22" fish has nothing to prove. Its bigger and longer than the 20" fish. Its just that it is easier for a 20" fish to be RW 110 than a 22" fish to be at RW 110. It takes less forage, that is all. We want high RW because we know that fish are achieving their full potential. I would agree that 20" LMB has achieved a good proportion of its inferior potential where the 22" LMB has lost some of its superior potential.
