Now that's a dandy fish!
There has to be something positive going on to get a 4# LMB in Kansas after 2 years
Maybe this is just normal IDK
Something positive is going on. But this doesn't mean there is something special or different is going on. LMB in a Wichita climate can be expected to grow like that when they are satiated. Now if we consider getting to eat all they need to grow at their potential abnormal ... then yes ... we could say something different or special is taking place. But by and large, it is not unusual for LMB to satiate and grow at their potential when forage is plentiful in the consumable sizes. Indeed, growth like this can be expected.
My Northern LMB model is largely fitted to Boondoggle's samples. And tested against Learninbout fish, bstone's, and your samples (climate adjusted). The model makes good estimates of weight gains +- 10% where the estimate may be considered average gain where consumption was at satiation. What satiation means to me is all the consumption required to support an LMB's individual potential for growth. Most of the variation of samples fall within 10% of the estimated average and this might be considered normal variation encapsulating the first two standard deviations. If a population of same age females have greater variation than that ... there is a good chance that the average in the pond is below the model's estimate. This is because when forage is limited, the "wealth divide" is more extreme and some may significantly underperform others because of competition for limited resources. Under forage limitation, it is possible for a limited number of LMB to meet the model's estimate and normal range of variation while others significantly underperform. This isn't genetics per se ... if forage were not limiting ... then the underperformers would do better.
The good news is that there are no signs in the history that would indicate a forage limitation. For example, all of your reported samples fall within normal variation of the model's estimate. Assuming an LMB stocking date of 9/15/23 and 4-6" LMB at stocking .... the model's estimates are below.
6.20.25 2.68 +- .268 lbs -- sample 2.5 lbs
8.25.25 3.21 +- .321 lbs -- sample 3.0 lbs
10.18.25 3.52 +- .352 lbs -- sample 3.5 lbs
12.26.25 3.71 +- .371 lbs -- sample 4.0 lbs
The model estimates that your first 5 lb LMB could be caught as early as 7.20.26 when the estimated average will be 4.6 lbs. Assuming females continue to consume satiation rations ... the average weight of females is estimated to breach 5 lbs. around 9.9.26
Conversing with another member on F1, he had caught a fish 3 times in the space of about a month. The growth followed the F1 model except for the initial span where there was an 11 point improvement in RW. So the weight increment for this period exceeded the model. I think this normal when there is a lot of variation of RW which can happen when forage comes in waves. An LMB will consume above what is needed to make the length increment at static RW and will store excess. This excess can be used to fuel length increment even when followed by periods where the weight increment maybe below model. During such periods, the RW declines.
Seems as though they have taken off in the last 3 months even with the water temperature being below 50* for a vast majority of the time
While it may be normal for LMB to stall or lose weight over winter ... one can expect growth all winter long when forage is plentiful in consumable sizes. The continued good growth and condition of the LMB is a sign that forage in consumable sizes were abundant going into the cold months.
