.... There were a bunch of 5 lb LMB but not another one like this. Sample size was about 10%. Was this fish smarter, or lucky. There were other LMB with the same genetics. Growth is an enigma.
I think every fish has limited potential to grow. Each has its own limitations. Some more limited than others. I estimate that Lake8's best fish so far at least has the potential to grow 3.3 lbs annually. So, if it were instead 10" on May 1st, 2025, it could potential make >7 lbs by 11-1-2026. Being 4 lbs today, it has the potential of being in excess of 7.3 lbs 10-7-2026. This is fastest growth I have yet to see posted by a Pond Boss Member. BUT ... I would also concede that even this fish might have grown better. IOWs, it may not have consumed as much as it could have ... it may not have been satiated all the time. Lake8's best fish exceed the average estimated of the model. His averages - limited in number of samples - have set the model. That said, there has been good agreement when compared to others growing F1s during the first 18 months. It's pretty good growth and he now has multiple fish exceeding 3 lbs. The one he posted above ... might actually be male. At the very best, it seems to be one of the slower growing females.
For me, the model provides a limit to what I should expect of a population of female LMB when all is well. I would want to manage for that maximum average as opposed for the outlier that may or may not be present. To gain a good sense of growth, one really needs to understand what the population is doing and how the population is growing. One needs to understand the population density and the biomass. Within these metrics are the calculable forage consumption requirements. The biomass and the average growth are going to balance with this consumption. This consumption is a reflection of forage production. IMHO, the example above is just like that. If we were to look at the entire population what we would find is that the growth and biomass of LMB was in balance with a reasonable expectation of forage production. We shouldn't take 1 fish and project its seemingly unlimited growth as a metaphor for the entire population. In the end, biomass will balance with consumable forage production and the whole population will reflect that.
You asked:
Was this fish smarter, or lucky.
I love this question. Could well be smarter, lucky, or even something else. Part of the profitability of prey is the success that LMB have in consuming varying sizes of prey. Small prey are easy whilst bigger prey is more difficult. This is countered by the fact that smaller prey contains less energy than bigger prey. These two relationships maximize the energy gained per pursuit (predatory attempt or whatever one wants to call it) somewhere between the maximum size (defined by gape) and a minimum size that would prompt a pursuit. Its a curve with a bump somewhere in the middle.
So yes, a smarter fish might have a greater success rate or be able to consume more frequently larger prey sizes. Perhaps both. If a fish had just a small advantage, it could grow faster than peers. Even if the difference is small, COMPOUNDED these can lead to remarkable differences in growth over a period of 18 months (especially if including 2 growing seasons).
Luck? Why the heck not? By my best reckoning, the optimum prey has a 42% probably of being consumed in a pursuit. Lets just call that 50-50. Its a coin flip so to speak. So if probability plays any role in success of pursuits, then there will be strings of success and strings of failures that for limited spans of time seem to violate the 50-50 rule. Just like flipping coins. These sequences can propel one fishes growth while hindering another's.
Another possibility is the variation of sizes of the initial stocking 10-12 inches doesn't seem like much variation but the difference is 81% by weight. I do model relative weight as THE variable affecting pursuit success so if the prey available was most optimum for 12" fish ... then they would have a distinct advantage over the 10" fish. Imagine also the potential outliers of the stocking. Sure, most were between 10" and 12", but is it not possible that there were 1 or 2 13" fish in there? If the prey available at the time of initial stocking significant favored a 13" LMB ... then this fish would have a strong competitive advantage.
Just throwing a few ideas around for the "odd girl out".
Anyways, one can't expect 197 LMB to grow like that one example did ... even if they were clones. How do I know that? Because I know how much forage it would take to balance that growth. That much forage will not be produced in situ ... it would require supplementation of forage. In the end, the population biomass will find balance with forage production (specifically that portion of forage production that is consumed).
