You're most welcome.
FWIW. I like all the ideas you expressed above but would like to add just a little.
The F1s have much greater potential than Northerns. Even so, at the same density, they will still only achieve similar average weights to Northerns on the same consumption. Above we look at consumption as limited by forage potential ... and so ... the same average weight can be expected for that consumption ... whether Northerns or F1s. But that said, when consumption is limited below the growth potential of LMB ... it works just like our economy where prey is the currency of their economy. The most industrious, skilled, etc will accumulate more wealth than the average. For fish, wealth is their body mass, it's what they have saved from their labors and this body mass is greater because they consumed more (made more currency per unit time) than the average. So my suggestion is this. I will assume that the genetic growth potential that spurs F1s to consume ... this makes them more industrious and they will outcompete Northerns for prey. Since the average is going to be very nearly the same, I would suggest maybe a ratio of 2 to 3 Northerns to every F1 selected. This gives the F1s a better chance to excel than if all the selected LMB were F1's. This because they are paired with competitors that which consume less of the limited resources.
It depends on LMB density, but F1s grow so dang fast at satiation rations that their biomass quickly reaches the maintenance consumption the forage potential can supply. Their density in balance with forage potential should therefore be lower than they would be Northern LMB. This of course has the consequence of lower catch rates but one gets bigger LMB to balance the scale. So it depends on goals. IMHO, F1s don't offer a lot of advantages once the forage potential limits their growth. This reaching of the limits of forage potential would occur sooner with F1s because they grow faster. So a person, I think, should consider this when stocking them. Small proportions of F1s in the population, however, may be a way to stretch ultimate weights. Just be aware, that the average weight isn't going to change if the LMB Biomass is fully balanced with consumable forage potential and the population densities are the same.
The current bass in the pond are Florida strain bass, stocked in 1995. Not sure if that changes your suggestion.
I would recommend that you read up on forage ponds. A good forage pond should be drainable. So that crops can be initiated from scratch with a limited number of Brood BG. It should either be easily seinable ... or ... drainable into the main pond. Catchment basins can help with seining. For a single person, it is very advantageous to drain right into the main pond. There is access to water that can be important if multiple crops of forage are the goal. Search the forum for more on forage ponds
I was actually planning to do some checking into how to manage a forage pond today. Unfortunately, with the pond that would be targeted, there would be no way to drain into the main pond. As for being seinable, I suppose it could be possible, but there are several stumps along with brush piles here and there. Probably would be easier to just dig a new one. How big would it have to be?
