Pond Boss Forums MANAGING AN EXISTING POND Corrective stocking Overcrowded bass

1000 FHM for $95? That's maybe 1/3 pound - a few dollars worth IME.

Ok - 3 pounds of FHM. That's maybe $25.

Could be only a pound and a half and no more than $25 - should be less.

Electro shocking the lake Monday night 04/06/09 and adding the additional fish Thursday and Friday. If we get alot of bass Monday night I will probably have the lake shock again Wednesday. I will take pictures of the catch.

The pictures will be great. Let us know how it all works out!

Since mid April we have killed 108 bass between 8 & 12 inches long. I guess every little bit helps. I am seeing a lot of the small bream that we stocked (35,000) but no sign of the two loads of tshad that we stocked along with the bream.

You should start seeing you Tshad in late summer they will be up in the afternoons schooling.

Love to peruse these old threads. Would have been really cool to see how this one turned out especially since I am in the middle of a similar situation.

In my 3.75 acre pond I have removed over well over 300 LMB since May while also stocking 8000 intermediate CNBG in October. The 10-13 inch bass are becoming really hard to locate and most of the bass are 5-8 inches. Quite a few of these. I was keeping track of qty and wt on a whiteboard but it got erased so I lost track of the specific numbers.

My management guy said to keep after them. I vetoed him on a few trips and started to throw some fish back with the hopes that my teenagers would have a few bigger bass to catch in the Spring (also adding TFS in the Spring). I thought better of it last weekend and started back pulling them out. Pulled out 4 that were max 6 inches and two that were 10 or so inches.

I’d love to have confirmation I am on the right track. Before the weather turned consistently cold, I could see a ton of varying sizes of CNBG including several schools of fry around all of the cover. Also, I did catch a few during the Fall that looked like they had put on a little bulk in the belly from the new forage.

Horkstram, By intermediate, do you mean 3-4 " BG? Or slightly larger?

Did your advisor also sell you these BG?

What other changes have you made, for example, have you added and fertilization or feeding? (Did your advisor advise on a goaled carrying capacity for BG?)

What weight of LMB have your removed from the 3.75 acres? How much did the RW improve for LMB above 10" after this culling?

Do you have good numbers of 1" - 3" BG present?

I am very doubtful you will get the results your advisor has promised but maybe I (we) can learn a thing or two from your experience. Keep us posted.

3-5 inches is intermediate BG in hatchery terms. I hope you habituated the new BG as that greatly increases survival. You should be on course for improvement.

jps,

Yes, 3-4 inches.

Other changes: 25 tons of lime, fertilization starting right after the electro evaluation at the end of May, from early June through end of October (to resume in March 2026), cover in several different areas. No goal advice on carrying capacity.

My best guess on weight is 110-120 pounds removed since end of May. The electro evaluation stated to have removed 13 lbs for 50 fish. That is an average of .26 lbs per fish. For the next roughly 150 fish that I pulled out, I just used that average to calculate the weight. I finally bought a scale and started weighing the fish (Rapala high contrast digital scale). I began to question the weights of the evaluation because I would say the average fish that I caught after the evaluation was around .5 lb. I lost track at about 285 fish pulled out. Since I lost track I have pulled out about 30-40 more fish.

Edit to add: Not sure on the RW improvement. Just a general observation on some of the bass caught after the CNBG stocking. On the few that I did calculate the RW, it was between 90-100. Before it was 85 if lucky.

Yes, good numbers of 1-3 inc bluegill. Since it has turned cold, I don’t see as many swarming the banks as I did in early to mid November but still lots of activity in that size range. Tonight I walked the bank with a flashlight and saw several 1-3 in gills as well as a number of gills in the 3-6 in range just sleeping (I guess that is what they do).

What makes you say you are doubtful?

Thanks again, jps.

Yes, 3-5 inches is what was stocked. Did not habituate them. They were flooded into the pond through the tube from the truck at one of the shallow fingers. Decent cover nearby. Only 10 or so floaters from what I could tell.

No one invests in so many 3-5" BG without the expectation of growing large LMB. So my sense is, you were advised that the action of stocking 8000 3-5" BG would help you to do that.

I am doubtful because you added so many 3-5" bluegill. These are too large for your current contingent of LMB to eat AND you don't need them to produce sufficient consumable forage. How do I know you don't need them? Because ... you produced a whole lot of YOY (1"-3") without them. I think you will agree that Early November last year that there weren't nearly so many of them present. So what has changed? First, you culled over 300 LMB. Second, you limed and fertilized early in the season and maintained a bloom this year. This expanded your forage potential. How much depends on the age of your pond and whether there were problems with excessive weeds ... but these two efforts were very successful where culling bass increased survival of BG YOY and fertilization increased production of YOY. This is also reflected in the improvement of LMB condition over the same period. The 8000 BG you stocked in October don't get any credit for this at all.

So you were on a really good path until you added the 2133 ~4" BG/Acre (8000 Total). I think this action is going to reduce YOY production next year. So for me, a bluegill has to reach 33 mm (1.3") or so before it becomes relevant to >8" bass. This is the size where they reach a high probability of evading cannibalistic predation by other BG. This action added thousands of hungry mouths and may have as much a quintupled the predatory influence on YOY BG by their own kind. Furthermore, the action dedicated a large percentage of your forage potential to the maintenance of BG that are not consumable by your current population of LMB. IMO, this action will work against the goal of growing big bass. Only ongoing culling, maintenance of fertilization will be contributing to YOY recruitment to >33 mm lengths next year.

I want to be clear that I am not against stocking 3-5" BG. I believe there are circumstance where this would be a very good remedy. Here is an example:

Let's say a pond is overrun with LMB and the population of BG is very limited. So in such a pond the biomass of LMB may be very nearly the biomass of BG, it may even exceed the biomass of BG in some cases. The population may consist of few individual BG/acre that are large in size, may primarily be male BG of advanced age. Circumstances like these can benefit from a stocking of BG in 3-5" sizes. Also, let's say there are no BG but Green Sunfish are the dominant forage. In these cases addition of this size class of BG can be very beneficial. 3-5" BG are large enough that one can expect high survival ... also they are large enough to begin spawning right away. Chances are good around 50% of them will be female. I personally would never stock more than 150-300 or so of them in a pond where an existing population of BG exists and fertility is restricted to fertilization (800 lbs forage potential with no feeding) ... that is ... if I had a big bass focus. I would want LOTS of forage in consumable sizes available to my LMB ... that is again ... if I had a big bass focus.

Below is an example of the consumable forage outlay per acre with a trophy bass focus. In it, it is assumed that all BG under the length of 6" are consumable by LMB. You will notice that there is a greater number of ~4" BG than you stocked. You may ask "what gives"? The difference is that the scenario outlined below assumes one has LMB averaging 4-5 lbs already. IOWs its not a "Field of Dreams". One can't just put 4200 4" BG/acre "out there" and expect LMB averaging >4 lbs to come. They have to be grown first and in the beginning they need much smaller prey. When you look at this outlay, what I want you take from it are these things ...

1. Most of the population of BG are less than 1 year old

2. Intermediate BG are 1 to 4 years of age and dominate the biomass (as well as the consumed forage)

3. Only a few BG grow beyond 6" and their biomass is only a small percentage of the forage biomass.

4. To feed BIG LMB year round requires maintaining multiple year classes of BG in sizes that LMB can successfully consume.



It is interesting to note that this scenario actually does fit Swingle's definition of balance except for Y/C (which still falls very close to the limits of balance):

F/C = 6.02 Ratio of Forage Biomass to LMB Biomass
E_LMB = 14 Percentage of Total Standing occupied by LMB
Y/C = 5.56 Ratio of consumable prey to LMB biomass
A_F = 47 Percentage biomass that is harvestable

Other interesting points. The forage potential required to support the standing weight and mortality biomass could be supplied by fertilization. The supported biomass of LMB meets Lusk's referenced carry of a well managed pond. The Y/C is only just a little higher than what Lusk and Willis report as most desired for trophy LMB (Y/C=5). In computing Y/C, I am using BG between 5" and 6" and if I omit these (which are also harvestable by Swingle's Definition) then the Y/C is 3.13 which lies almost within the range of ideal per Swingle. Anyways, I include BG of this size in the consumables because I think they are important to >20" LMB as forage and this scenario supports trophy LMB.

So what will go wrong with this scenario?

Recruitment and mortality. This scenario depends on consistent and stable recruitment and mortality of both BG and LMB. For LMB, an adult population averaging 16 LMB/acre where recruitment of 12-14" female LMB is offset by the mortality of >12" LMB each year keeping the population stable at 16 LMB/acre. The scenario also requires the recruitment of 14000 BG to a minimum length of 1.5" each year. I think this is a tall order and I do think a population of BG like this ... would probably fail to recruit that many BG YOY in most years. Also, it probably unlikely to recruit LMB naturally and consistently under this scenario in most years. So here is what else I want you take from it ...

5. It is really helpful to have a forage pond that can supplement shortfalls on YOY recruitment. In this scenario it takes recruitment of 24 lbs of 1.5" BG for each acre. An appropriately sized forage pond could supply all of them.

6. Female LMB may need to be purchased to supplement what the pond did not recruit in a year.

7. One needs to understand that to maintain a limited number of LMB >12", one will have to remove some large LMB each year to balance mortality with recruitment. If he doesn't, the group >12" will experience slow or negative growth and the conveyor belt comes to a screeching halt. To consistently grow Big LMB ... one has the GROW THEM ... NEW ONES each year. It is just not possible to maintain a population. Mortality must balance recruitment. This is best achieved by exploitation mortality but if one has enough water, the recruitment rate could be restricted enough so that natural mortality does all the mortality. Advantage of planned end of life? Faster interim growth and more rapid replacement of the adult population. Disadvantages, recruitment rate has to be higher and this might involve more expense.

8. Finally, the scenario assumes nothing but selected female LMB >12". In your pond, there are still lots of little LMB. You've improved LMB condition and you can make additional progress but the path to big bass will be a challenge starting from where you began. I sweated over expressing my doubts about the results of the advisors actions meeting your anticipated outcome. I do believe the BG stocking will work against your other efforts for the purpose of growing big bass. In as much as I do, I also believe that your advisor believes that action will help your goals. He has experienced results after such stockings that improved things in very noticeable ways in the first year. But here is the rub. Other actions were taken. Liming, Fertilization, Feeding, Culling LMB. These are the actions that are making the difference. The advisor has no foggy notion what the contribution of 2133/acre additional ~4" BG will be ... especially 1 to 3 years down the road.

The standard practice from Fisheries Science providers for addressing crowded LMB ponds in the south is to remove LMB (20 -30 lbs. per acre) and add 3-5 inch BG at a rate of between 500-1000 BG per acre depending on what the Electro survey shows. Many of those professionals don't act as hatcheries but source out what is needed. I would not assume that a pro who saw the survey and made an onsite analysis is wrong. Was the FS pro with a reputable organization?

ewest, yes. A very reputable organization in this area of the country.

This definitely changes things if they were stocked 2-3". That's forage to be consumed by 8-13" LMB. Just a little tip. My longest finger is 3.5", the width of my hand at it widest is 4", the last two segments of my longest finger is 2.25", and the length of my hand is 7". Not exact, but without measurement tools ... it is a decent way to eyeball a length with referenced lengths. So yes, the early November observations may be largely composed of BG you supplemented. Would have been great if you had taken a census before stocking them (for example seines or traps). Relating those catch per unit efforts to surveys following your supplementation could give one an estimate of how well the BG YOY recruited. This supplementation will not be entirely eaten by your LMB. The BG are not so numerous that they cannot outpace the the growth of LMB on a relative weight basis. Some of them are going to escape predation by the LMB and contribute as spawners next year. If only 200-300/acre make it ... it would be ideal IMHO.


OK. Also important. This will expand your forage potential and greatly benefit BG >5" in length. So the scenario above in the spreadsheet, consider it supported by fertilization and the large BG supported by feed. First pass ... on an annual basis ... 3.6 LB of one popular brand of high quality feed (not to be named) will support 1 lbs of adult BG. There is a fertilizaton effect also. I'll not suggest what it would be in your pond because you already fertilize. Blooms become self shading and the effect from increasing bloom are diminishing. IOWs halving the secchi disc will not double the production. To optimize the contribution of your large BG that will be supported by feed, it would be wise to limit the number of your "Too big to eat" population of BG to a number that they can grow near their maximum potential. I would say 80% of potential because over winter you will stop feeding and they will decline in weight. If you limit the fed fish to this number, you could grow a few BG > 2 lbs. Under fertilization alone this could never be done because the largest BG would be competing for small natural foods under intense competition from smaller fish ... here assuming ... there is a consumable population of BG like the one in the spreadsheet above. When you feed, you should also harvest and manage the number of BG that are not consumable. This should balance with the first pass support the feed is providing these large fish. If you don't, the standing weight of non-consumable fish will increase over time. To the extent their support is not provided by the feed, they will compete with consumable fish and lower the consumption of BG by your LMB. Bottom line, for a given number of LMB, this will lower their potential weights and growth. IOWs, let fertility grow your consumable fish and limit your non-consumable fish to feed. Personally, I would not feed a feed that is small enough for consumable BG to eat. I want a pellet size that the big BG can eat to the exclusion of their smaller sized competitors.


The population of LMB is always a concern. I would never be unconcerned about that. One of the ways you can relieve concern is to choose which fish are allowed to grow out. This is done through a process of selection and controlling recruited >12" LMB. Applying an expected mortality, then one limits annual recruitment such that the adult LMB population is limited to the desired number. To maximize trophy potential, all selected recruits would be female. Males will lower growth and may contribute to greater LMB recruitment ... and both with lower average adult weights.

My biggest concern is the demographics of your LMB population. Averaging only 1/4 lbs in May ... I am imagining a population of middle aged fish that have lost their early years of growth. Personally, I would not want ... nor recommend ... selecting recruits for growout from this population. If all you were trying to do was achieve balance ... yes ... in that case I would but wouldn't want a selected fish from your current population dieing in 2 or 3 years. I would want some young 12-14" LMB sexed female for the selected group. Personally, I would pay what it takes to get them. These will have the most potential and given the backdrop of investments made ... it seems to me to be an essential piece. There are some distinct advantages to growing out selected fish. To me, selected means they are marked (eg a finclip identify the year of selection) and preferably identified (eg PIT or Dorsal spine clips). Identity allows you to monitor individual growth ... while selection allows you to estimate populations when sampling (eg creel or electro-surveys). It just gives you more tools. It also give you the confidence you need to remove fish. You know, for example, if it isn't marked that it must not be returned to the water. When electrosurveys are done ... these marked fish are returned (unless significantly underperforming) and only unmarked fish are retained. An estimate of population can be done from the results of the survey.

It took years to get in the condition the pond was in before starting your journey. This means it will take a 5-8 years to correct. Possession is 9/10 of the law. If you look at the original outlay of forage above you will see that recruitment of YOY is single most important thing controlling that outlay. The second is the LMB population which is large in size but small in number. What comes first is the food. In other words, the most critical piece is the recruitment of YOY BG. You need to make sure there are high numbers of consumable forage that is only consumable by LMB. If you can budget a forage pond, you can ensure that this variable is not left to chance. 9/10 of the law. The greater the proportion of the forage potential occupied by consumable and consumed BG ... the greater that LMB support can be and the larger they can be.

One important variable that can mess things up is too much survival of BG to non-consumable sizes. Trust me on this. BG grow fast when competition is low and they can easily attain lengths/weights that are either difficult or impossible to consume (considering normal rates of LMB growth). IOWs LMB can not outpace BG in growth when the BG numbers are too low. This lowers consumption, reduces potential for gain, and reduces the biomass of LMB supported. In my example above, the average relative weight of consumed prey is 0.78% the weight of the average LMB. As a rule of thumb, I use 0.91% as the ideal relative weight when the numbers of prey are contrained equal. I want the average to be below that number. What that number is, is the relative weight at which consumption per pursuit is maximized (taking into account the weight of the prey and the probability of successful pursuit). This minimizes the number of pursuits required to consume an arbitrary weight of consumption. Likewise, because pursuits are proportional to population density ... to consume an arbitrary weight of prey ... the population required is minimized when the proportional weight of prey is ~0.91%.

OK, now that said, I still want the average size of consumed prey to be below that number. This because even though the optimum proportional weight is optimum for a fixed population ... the rate of consumption by LMB is not. Now this is important. If we examine what produces the greatest daily rate of consumption at an arbitrary biomass of prey ... the smaller the prey the better until the probability of successful pursuit approaches 100%. So it is better to have 400 lbs/acre of consumable prey averaging 0.5% proportional weight than it is to have 400 lbs/acre of consumable prey averaging 2%. Here is why. There are 4 times as many prey fish and they will provide 4 times as many pursuits. Furthermore, they will be more successful at consuming 0.5% prey than 2% prey. When one does the math. It take less time foraging to feed to satiation with 0.5% prey than with 2% prey. There is probably a limit to the benefit of smaller prey under the equal biomass constraint ... I think this is were the probability of prey surviving pursuit approaches 0%. The greatest growth experienced by LMB will always be when prey are easily consumed and are high in number. It will never be with BG restricted to 1/4 to 1/3 lengths.

The only way to keep fast growing BG at easily consumable lengths (into years 1,2,3,& 4) is to maintain populations of consumable BG at numbers that prevent them from growing at their potential. One has to overwhelm at the 0-year enough BG YOY recruits so that growth is slow for all consumable BG. This maximizes consumption for LMB populations that are small in number but large in average size. If one fails to recruit/supplement sufficient numbers of 0-year BG ... he will fail to support a population of LMB of high average weight. If he fails to keep the LMB population adequately limited, then he may fail to recruit/supplement sufficient numbers of 0-year BG. So the solution is two fold, which something you already know and are working to implement. But if one succeeds at the first ... it eventually makes doing the second much easier. LMB YOY recruitment is reduced by populous BG and so success of BG YOY recruitment will over time make it easier to control LMB numbers.

Had planned to begin targeting large females for harvest asap. I have a couple of boys and even my wife likes to get in on the bluegill action! She says "I only fish with a cane pole", and I don't even know if they sell those bamboo poles anymore LOL.


Interesting note regarding the adding of select fish. One idea I had that is easily do-able and that I have seen suggested here is, for every OTHER adult bass removed, add a new, healthy adult bass in that same size range you mention above. There is a great private lake nearby with absolutely GIGANTIC F1 bass in it. My cousin, who helps me oversee my place is a member. He has added F1's in the past to our pond (a few years ago) and they seem to have adjusted well although they never really grew due to the conditions in the pond. I have culled most of them, but could begin that process. It's worth noting that I wasn't planning on doing (or any deviation from the plan) this until, at the very least, I get the annual evaluation next Spring.

I actually do have a small, probably 1/3 acre pond that I could use as a forage pond. I had thought about making it a bass pond, but it might be better to just utilize it for forage only. Also, as mentioned, the management plan is to stock TFS in the Spring. [/quote]

All of this makes sense to me. Thanks, jps.

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.

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.

The current bass in the pond are Florida strain bass, stocked in 1995. Not sure if that changes your suggestion.

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?

To be sure, I was under the impression that the pond had Northern strain with some F1s added later. This just emphasizes something I have been saying a long time. Genetics mean very little when LMB populations are too high for a pond's forage potential to support. Fast growing Florida strain LMB can certainly stunt at average weights of 1/4 to 1/2 lbs. The age-old incessant argument of heritage and environment, LOL. Florida and F1s perform similarly to Northerns under similar population density unless they are consuming at satiation (which is a bigger ration per unit body weight for Floridas and F1s).

People overstate and over expect the results achieved from genetically superior strains. You still have to balance with prey production and consumption.

As to whether introducing genetically inferior fish would produce similar results if limited to the selected population? I think it would. In essence, the genetically superior fish would benefit from their superior growth trait because the inferior fish would allow them more to eat. The LMB would have greater variation and greater extremes about the average than if they were totally composed of F1 or Floridas. The smaller fish would be even smaller than the average - whilst the larger fish would be even bigger than the average ... all the while ... the average not being much different between uniformed or mixed selections. Since you don't have Northern strain in your pond, I'll say it does change what I would probably do. I might not add the northerns and probably wouldn't.

I think I would want .20 to .5 acres for the forage pond. A larger pond has the advantage of doing double duty. If it is large enough to produce the needed recruitment of BG YOY in one cycle ... you could grow some advanced fingerling LMB over the remainder of the Summer through winter and be able to select recruits the following Spring for your main pond. Something to consider within the constraints of the topography and budget.

If possible, correct soil and location of the pond should be the first issue, second should be the layout and size, and third should be the proper equipment needed to remove and move fish carefully. If you don't have a proper sized knotless seine net, then getting a true assessment of the LMB and forage is almost impossible. If you want to have fun, then a larger pond to pull out fish with fishing rods is the way to go. If you want to bring them all up to the bank with a net and get the ability to select what you want, then stay with a smaller pond.

My hatchery pond is around 1/8 of an acre, and it's loaded with 5-7" BG that we grew from 1-2", and 30 2#-3# HSB that are ready to be seined out this next spring while the water is still cool. Maybe esshup will remember when, but several years ago I added 4-5 LMB to my forage hatchery, and they all came out at near 3# in 180 days. Volume and properly sized forage was the key.

After that fine dining experience, I hope those LMB left you a nice tip!

What you gonna do? 25% is the new 15%.