Pond Boss Forums INTRO Questions & Observations Feeding, CC, and the 5ac Pond

Happy Memorial Day and thank you to all who served.

I’m considering taking the plunge into a Texas hunter fish feeder for our 5 acre pond with the goal of increasing carrying capacity and taking pressure off our existing forage base.

The pond is 25 feet at its deepest with LMB BG GSF CC and white crappie. We have a good BG forage base of all sizes we’ve maintained by removing every crappie and GSF, and we’ve released every bass caught regardless of size to help us keep the crappie in check. It’s a unique mix of fish we mostly inherited, so I’ve been a stickler on what we keep and what we release as to not let the crappie get out of control.

In general we have a few big crappie, lots of little bass <12” with occasional 5#, and 150 CC were stocked five years ago for my 12yo son and are getting large 4#, GSF are minimal.

There are some great posts on this forum on the feeding topic I’ve read and re-read. So I have some expectation that supplemental feeding could reasonably increase carrying capacity ~25%. And with pellet food, I’d assume the CC would largely take advantage of the feed, which *could* in turn cause them to become less predatory on the BG, leaving them for the LMB and big crappie. That’s the main question I’m trying to figure out, if in fact, by feeding, I could keep my CC from pillaging my BG and forage as they get bigger, to keep BG available as forage for my LMB and big crappie.

Take care and thanks

Never been sure about that. I know my cats and bluegills wait for the feeder to go off.

I personally believe that bass success is directly related to the numbers and sizes of the bluegill prey.


Lusk once said that the best way to have big bass was to be concentrate on raising bluegills. A predator needs prey that is 1/4 to 1/3 it’s size. It’s a matter of energy expended vs calories obtained.

We don't have any channel catfish in our pond, but I can at least give you my thoughts on having a feeder and what I've been able to witness since installing it.

1.) Our bluegill are numerous and FAT. They look like a dark cloud in the water waiting for the feeder to go off. I've increased our feeder to four times a day at (2) seconds each. Where did I get those numbers from? Watching them react to the feeder plus watching my bank account is what landed me at those times/duration. It could be more if I were willing to make an even greater financial sacrifice, but I'm happy with where I landed and the fish I've sampled are evidence that it is working. I do think that 4 smaller feedings is better than 1 big feeding from an activity and digestion standpoint.

2.) We have a few bass that have taken to the feed and we also have some bass that wait for the feeder to turn on in order to hunt smaller unaware bluegill. So indirectly and directly I can verify that feeding is positively affecting at least a % of our bass population. The goal would be for extremely healthy bluegill to increase reproduction which in turn would affect the entire bass population. Is that happening? Not sure yet, but I don't see any reason it isn't going to.

3.) Feeding times are fun. Our kids love watching the fish eat. The amount of top water action is amazing to witness, plus there's tons of fish darting below the surface too. The fish have grown accustomed to the feeder and people and they aren't scared when someone walks to the bank.

I'm glad we added our feeder and have considered adding a second on the other side of the pond. Our body of water is about 3 acres in size if that helps.

Sounds like you are enjoying a very productive pond where the fishing is fun and catch rates are high.

With regard to your question about CC, yes, I think your thoughts are in principle, theoretically sound. If the CC were getting their nutrition from feed, they would be eating fewer BG and this would allow LMB and WCP to add some weight to themselves as well. There will be a fertilizer effect as well that will benefit YOY of all species.

If your pond is nutrient poor, I would very much encourage feeding. Even so, in my way of thinking, the older a pond is and the larger it is, the less feeding makes sense. For example, at the same carry/acre, a 5 acre pond has 5 times the fish as a 1 acre pond. So 5 times the management effort as the 1 acre.

It depends on your goals but after reading your harvest management plan there are still areas you could explore there to improve the forage situation. You didn't mention harvesting any CC for example. Harvesting 10 and adding 13 12" CC would be a good plan to reduce the CC impact on forage situation. You don't harvest any LMB. Just the right amount of harvest of LMB will have a profound impact on growth LMB. Even BG respond to the correct amount of harvesting. They respond by growing faster and having improved condition and having more reproductive success. Only saying, unless you really want more fish, there are option that could produce similar results for the individual fish you catch going forward that are in balance with the current trophic level of your pond.

Not downing feed at all, but the milage varies and not all outcomes are better, it really depends on your goals. If you do feed, it will expand the carry and that carry will be 80% filled by the end of the first growing season. By the end of second, it will have filled and you will have more fish and some of the fish will have grown in response to feeding. BUT, you will have more fish that will have to be managed with more effort as they grow. In other words, the effect on the growth of fish is mostly in during the first year and a very modest effect in the second year. After that, there is no effect on growth. All you have done is expanded the carry and increased the number of fish you have. Only population management or increased feeding can improve growth going forward. Feeding is great if you want more carry, but if after careful consideration what you really want are larger fish, then go the route of adjusting populations as you will be eventually forced to return to that approach in the future.

Are all of the CC that you observe or catch the same size?

One of your pond management factors to consider is; are the CC reproducing in the pond?

If the CC are reproducing, it may be time to start culling some. 4# CC are a good eating size. More importantly, they are now large enough to start eating you large BG and your LMB. I don't believe you want that result.

If you like the fishery balance now, then the CC may be net beneficial. Therefore, if the CC are not reproducing, then I think you still may need to start culling, and then ladder-stock some small CC every second or third year to keep a small, ongoing population in the pond.

The LMB harvest point is well said and strikes at the heart of the issue. Points out the root cause of the topic I’ve been struggling with the most to understand.

Which is…For a 5ac pond, with white crappie present, what is the “right amount” of LMB to remove. Specifically, the right slot to protect, in the right quantity.

I would love to take out a few LMB, and I agree it would have a profound impact on their size. I just don’t want to miss on the side of too many and end up with a pond full of 4” crappie. I’ve been essentially paralyzed with that decision…what slot and how many to keep…so I landed with keep them all to ensure they consume every crappie spawn, which has kept them in check to this point. Would love to hear your perspective on what a “safe” LMB harvest strategy might look like in this scenario.

Regarding removing 10 or so CC and ladder stepping them back in over time. It makes perfect sense…and gives my 12yo a “job to do”! Starts today

Probably the greatest threat to WCP over population is irregular recruitment and mortality of LMB. IOWs a super dominant year class of the LMB which will undergo high mortality after that abundant year class reaches old age. WCP can themselves impair recruitment of LMB. So I totally get your concerns about not wanting to take too many.

LMB have a great capacity to grow. For example, a 11" female LMB can grow by 1.6 lbs. But when a population is dominated by LMB less than 12", the growth is a minor fraction of that. Maybe as little as 1/6 of a pound (or even less) annually. Consuming optimal sized prey, the 11" LMB growing by 1.6 lbs consumes a little over 800 BG annually. The 11" growing by 1/6 lb/year consumes around 580. The difference is around 37% and this is probably the maximum mortality your population can undergo while still consuming the same number of prey fish. For example, if you have 100 LMB/acre averaging 0.60 lbs each, your population could have up 37 LMB mortality and still they would consume the same total number of prey. Assuming 10% natural mortality, harvesting 25 LMB per acre (this year) may not hinder predation.

The key to stability is stable recruitment and stable mortality. This leads to a stable population and population structure.

Anyways, you could probably take a total of 50 LMB from your 5 acre pond this year with no ill effects. 10/acre for 6 lbs/acre is not excessive IMO and you could see what effects this might have on both LMB growth and WCP recruitment before doing any more. Also, you could begin selecting 8" to 10" LMB each year to reserve as a core population. Say, for example, 10 LMB/acre-year. Do not keep those fish and after 5 years under 10% natural mortality you have a minimum of 40 LMB/acre protected under this arrangement. You could probably do this while keeping 10 LMB/acre year of unmarked fish. After 5 years, you could keep any marked LMB older than 5 years and any unmarked LMB larger than 10" and maintain a core adult population of 40 LMB/acre. That would probably be enough LMB to have a good balance with WCP and BG in your pond. What it would take to maintain this structure is recruitment of 10 8" to 10" LMB/acre annually. If you pond fails to produce these recruits, you supplement them. The benefit of stable recruitment is a minimum stable population over time.

What is your normal water visibility (i.e. productivity)? Have you had an assessment of your population balance ?

My guess is that your plan is sound. Feeding will increase production and required management. You can adjust as you see results. You do want to keep (not harvest) the fish that can eat 3-6 inch crappie.

Visibility is 24”-36” most of the year. 60” plus in August/September when we have minimal rain, less than 24” right after a big rain.

No formal assessment; Over last 12 months we’ve fished it probably 20 days. Over that time, have caught roughly 250 LMB below 12”, 1 LMB 21” over 6#, 50 white crappie over 10”, 400 BG all sizes, 30 GSF, 10 CC all over 3#

All GSF and white crappie removed. All LMB BG and CC returned.

Based on feedback so far we’ll now start removing 10 CC a year, 25-50 sub 8” LMB, and continue pulling all GSF and white crappie

LunkerTrout,

How old is your pond?

Old! Would estimate 50 years. We took ownership 12 years ago.

OK, so the chart is a regression of the standing weight of OK ponds whose standing weight was determined by total kill. It is certain that you have a more than modest standing weight of fish. You will notice that by 50 years, the accumulation of organic matter begins to fail to increase standing weights. There are a couple of reasons for this. One is that organic matter tends to migrate in pond soils and are limited to around 3% organic matter. So mobilization of nutrients stalls at what 3% organic matter contributes to annual mobilization of nutrients. The other reason, I think, is that the juice from the squeeze of organics accumulation declines as the organics increase. If I were to offer an explanation, it would be this. Eutrophication lowers quality and adds additional stress that requires metabolic investments of energy to negotiate the stress. It may also change significantly the kinds of organisms that can colonize the water. Anyways, an increase in primary production has a declining corresponding increase in fish carry capacity and there are limits. For an LMB & BG combination, the limit of natural mobilization of organic nutrients is to support no more than 500 to 600 lbs of LMB and BG. For a pond to exceed 600 lbs of fish, it has to have more species diversity than just LMB and BG. It needs fish that consume detritus and/or vegetation.

Is your standing weight of LMB and BG 500 to 600 lbs? I really can't say. Ponds don't follow that curve. They scatter all around it and for ponds limited to LMB and BG ... mostly below it. Anyways, one approach one can take is to assume something reasonable. For example, your pond will support at least around 300 lbs of an LMB/BG combination. If we were to plan around that number, we probably wouldn't fall far from the tree and if we have it wrong, it would be close enough that the growth of LMB could serve to buffer the consumption of prey keeping the balance of the prey species in your pond. Chances are that the assumption is conservative. Take a look at the spread sheet below and let me know if this looks like the LMB population structure you presently have.

Looks spot on for the LMB population. There are also a handful of large 20” plus 5# plus fish present. Attaching a pic of one from last August. Oddly it seems like there may be a large gap between the sub 12”, and the 20”+

lunkertrout,

There is a large gap between the small group and the large sized group. A couple of possible explanations. The handful of 20" are extreme competitors that managed to turn the corner, that is, reached a length and weight they could handle the prey slipping through the other grouping. Based on your description. Perhaps 5 to 6 lbs per acre being supported by ~25-30 lbs/acre of BG. Another possibility is irregular recruitment of LMB. This is very common, so the big fish may be the final survivors of previous dominant year class and the population of small LMB may be mostly composed of 1 or 2 year classes. This is very possible. If only nature would give us the goldilocks recruitment we need!

The spreadsheet is based on consistent annual recruitment as kind of an ideal that would also be associated with stable population structure and mortality. Irregular recruitment will be associated with more irregular mortality. Even so, and this is important, the average weights will still be completely determined by population numbers and forage production. A good rule of thumb is that balance for LMB and BG range where LMB comprise 10% to 22% of the standing weight where good balance is achieved at 16% of the biomass. So at 16% 250 lbs of BG can support 50 lbs of LMB/acre. Add that to the 5 lbs of big LMB and 25 lbs to support them maybe around 330 lbs LMB/BG. Given the ponds age, this is probably close.

In the spreadsheet I sought to find a balance with 50 lbs of LMB that fit your stated population structure. The result was ~ 174 LMB/acre older than 1 year of age and exceeding 6". For those exceeding 6", the average weight is around 4/10 of a pound. Your distribution may be more concentrated towards the average where there are fewer <8" and fewer >11". But if you were getting regular annual recruitment to the 8" lengths, the 8" class would be recruiting around 20 LMB/acre-year (depicted as age 3 in spreadsheet above). 8" is essentially recruited where the probability of predation by resident LMB is very low. So lets use that age class as the age of recruitment. If we adjust the recruitment of that size class to a lower number say 16, 12, or 8 LMB per acre year, then we can evaluate the effect over their expected lifetimes.

Here is annualized recruitment of 16 LMB/acre-year which is associated with a harvest of 5 LMB/acre-year (25 total for your 5 acres).



Here is annualized recruitment of 12 LMB/acre-year which is associated with a harvest of 10 LMB/acre-year (50 total for your 5 acres).



Here is annual recruitment of 8 LMB/acre-year which is associated with a harvest of 15 LMB/acre-year (75 total/acre-year for your 5 acres).




Now, the effects on growth you see take place from age 3 through 8. They are combination of 5 years worth of harvesting with recruitment sustained at the aforementioned rates. The adjustments are slow to develop but would have similar effects over time. Can you fast track this? Yes, I think so. For the first year, I would probably be more aggressive. I would try to reduce the estimated population by 35% or by 60 LMB/acre. At average lengths of 9" (8" to 10") that would be around 20 lbs/acre this year (300 LMB weighing a total of 100 lbs for your 5 acres). Your LMB as a whole should consume just as much as they did last year but will grow faster because they are fewer in number. One should expect something in the neighborhood of 30% to 40% improvement in average weight in July 2026 if you can harvest them in the next few weeks. Per your previous post, this could be done with as little as 25 hours of fishing. Next year, go to the 25-50 total a year plan which should be about in balance with where they should be in 2026.

You should consider removing only LMB who look bad (in bad condition plus low RW). Those sub 12 inch LMB eat a ton of small Crappie. I would rather error on the side of too many LMB than too many Crappie.

Some of us have ponds, some only spreadsheets.

I just come back to questions like this.

1. If the 10" average length LMB are eating a ton of crappie, then why are they growing so slow?

2. If the LMB are growing slow, why wouldn't most all of them have low RW and be in poor condition?

3. Just how many Crappie are the LMB really eating? If the LMB are growing at less 10% of their potential ... wouldn't they eat a lot more of them ... that is ... if they were actually there?

4. Are the LMB eating only crappie? Are they eating more crappie than they are BG? Are their no BG to eat? Are the LMB getting enough of either BG or Crappie to eat given they have potential to grow 10 times faster than they are?



None of propositional rates of exploitation will have large impacts on the average weights or the populations. At 5 LMB/acre-year ... we are talking less than 3% of the estimated population. At 15 LMB/acre-year ... less than 9%. The LMB will have some recruitment, so the effect on growth will probably be less than those proportional differences (less than 10% added to average growth). 5 years of keeping up with these exploitation rates will probably not lower the standing population of LMB below 120 LMB per acre. At either of those low rates of exploitation it will take 5 years to result in the estimated increases in average weights.

For me, the biggest risk in my analysis is that your 50 year old pond won't support 300 lbs of fish but only 100 or something like that. But this isn't consistent with its age or the 12.5 LMB/hour catch rates that you reported. Actually, your catch per unit effort is consistent with a population density in excess of 250 LMB/acre (not the 174 LMB/acre that I estimated with 300 lbs standing weight). All evidence points to a significant over-population of LMB that can be exploited within the propositional exploitation I have suggested. Do I need a pond to have this level of knowledge? No, of course not. That takes a motivation to learn and an understanding of how to ask the right questions and apply knowledge.

All the feedback you have received from me has been in good faith. A very honest and heart felt attempt to give you guidance for your special circumstance. Reasonable assumptions have been made and so I am confident that you can rely on all of it. If anything, I think you will probably be disappointed in the growth of your LMB (rather than disappointed with way too many crappie). The exploitation proposed is very modest given your apparently very populous LMB. In the end, I do recommend that you do what you are most comfortable doing. Even if that involves not harvesting any LMB like you have been doing many years. You asked for help with harvest recommendations and I did that.

The time and thought you put into answering this question was impressive and truly appreciated. I spend a lot of time in excel in my day job, all you provided makes a lot of sense. this is really great to be able to speak to folks as knowledgeable as you on a topic that I really enjoy, and frankly wish I could spend more time executing the plan, ie catching and removing fish! Mostly leave that up to the 12yo.

And as you said it really comes down to what I’m comfortable with as the pond owner, taking into account all the best facts and expert opinions that I now have in front of me. There is no doubt I will be removing CCs target 10/year and replenish after a couple years. Regards the LMB vs WCP, I just mounted a LiveScope on my pontoon, and if I can continue to reduce the WCP with more precision I will take a run at reducing LMB as well along the 50/yr lines.