IMO more food consumption and growth will occur for LMB at higher temps when the bass are younger and less than 1 lb and most probably less than 3 lbs?
More proportionate food consumption and more proportionate gain will occur at satiation rations for smaller LMB than for larger LMB ---
At any temperature. It's a strawman argument. Small LMB don't make larger weight increments than large LMB when large LMB are feeding to satiation.
Case in point.
Bill, numerous times you have advised us that LMB in your climate should average/make 1 lbs weight increments each year if there is sufficient forage. Do you no longer believe that? If so, what would it be? 1 lb for 0 year olds, .8 lbs for 1 years olds, .6 lb for 2 year olds, etc? If you still believe that an LMB can make consistent annual weight increments, then the objection above just doesn't apply. To disagree with the model is to disagree with your own advice of what person should expect when his LMB are satiated.
At above 5 - 6 lbs and maybe even 3 - 4lbs for LMB, I think the data will be different and IMO mathematically or biometrically significantly different.
But why? There is no science upon which you relying. Actually, it's not clear what the objection is. The growth in my model in its present form is constrained as a maximum growth at satiation. It is not constrained by consumption. Consumption is coincident with growth to the balance energy gained in growth. If ACTUAL consumption cannot meet the demand for growth ... then the model will not predict the average of ACTUAL weights gained. IOWs, the growth is actually forage limited and therefore below model estimate of maximum growth.
This could be why jpsdad notes that his modeling data does not sometimes agree with growth of bigger LMB in natural waters.
The model only estimates maximum average growth on a daily climate adjusted basis. There is one for NLMB and another for F1s. It cannot estimate what will be actually consumed. It doesn't try. It doesn't take into account LMB density and population structure, prey density and production. It can't actually predict what any individual fish is going to grow. That will depend on many environmental factors. BUT, if your fish are feeding at satiation, the model is very effective at predicting a weight about which your sampled females will vary about. It can do this in time. It's value lies in what it can tell you about performance relative to the benchmark. One can use it to look for underlying causes of disagreement. It works just like Lusk says, on days where growth doesn't happen, that growth is lost ... it didn't happen. So in forage limited waters, it would always overestimate growth ... Soooo, I would never use it for that.
To be sure, I am not even sure I have not overly limited the potential for growth. I've used Pond Boss forum member's metrics as a source of data. It could be that the best climate adjusted growth thus far observed for each strain is not the best LMB of each strain can do. I just don't know, but I have so far had good agreement over multiple sample times (independent of season) for multiple ponds and multiple temperature regimes during the first year and one/half post stocking. At 1.5 years most stockings are forage limited and cannot sustain the maximum average growth of the model without significant reduction of the LMB population and/or supplementation of forage.
It is possible that the model is wrong about LMB being able to make consistent annual weight increments. If that is the case, then Bill, we are both wrong because as far as I know we once agreed about that. I find the assumption of consistent annual increments an agreeable assumption because environments that support observed maximum weight increments are consistent with that.
Finally, it is totally irrelevant what the optimum temperature for growth is. It just doesn't matter. Temperature is an environmental variable that governs metabolism. In as much as this is true, temperature constrains growth. One cannot expect more growth than the climate would allow at satiation. Satiation consumption as a proportion of body weight is greater for a smaller LMB and lesser for a large LMB. They are biometrically different in terms of proportionate consumption and proportionate growth. This is baked into the model. It's baked into the idea that LMB are capable making consistent yearly weight increments regardless of age.
