Pond Boss Forums STOCKING A NEW POND Creating the food chain Under stocking a lake

I'm wondering what people's opinions are on under stocking a lake and how far you could push it and maybe still yield a decent result If you are trying to make a bluegill and LMB fishery? My initial thoughts are that if you stuck with the same ratio's of BG to LMB but stocked them at only 1/10 the normal rate, the bluegill would probably disperse around the pond making it difficult for the bass to find them. So in that sense the bass population may suffer until the bluegills reproduce enough to become a decent food source. In this scenario both the bass and bluegill would need to be put in at the same time and the goals would be to catch eating size bass in 3 years.

I've got a friend that has a 5,000+ acre ranch that has tons of ponds and lakes. Probably in the range of 50-60 different tanks between 1 to 5 acres in size. Only two of the tanks have been stocked with fish. His family does not hunt or fish however everyone else in our friend group does and are trying to encourage him to toss a few fish into these lakes so that we can come up and fish the place once a year. There wouldn't be any management to speak of, just a place to go up and harvest fish once a year. The ranch is in north Texas near Oklahoma. They have recently cleaned out several of their tanks, so we would likely focus on those since we know there is no existing fish population in them. I believe these are all rain water fed and shouldn't have an upstream population of fish that can find their way in.

Thanks,

David

In my experience doing that, it didn't work because there were GSF in the pond that the owner didn't know about. Two years down the road I drained and rotenoned the pond and the ONLY fish that were in there were the GSF and the stocked fish. Absolutely zero offspring from the stocked fish, and they were large enough to reproduce. The stocked fish were stocked at 50% of the recommended rate.

Starting out with a very limited amount of fish, you have to be darn sure that there are absolutely zero predators in there. Stocking it at that low rate will also add years to the time frame when the pond can be utilized as a fishing pond.

I'd say you couldn't stock any bass in there for 3 years. Stocking them earlier would slow down the process greatly.

Anytime a lake/pond has swarms of adult sunfish (GSF, BG PS etc.) and limited large predators the predators may not reproduce. There are questions about how this happens (suppression, chemical or visual) but plenty of science that the predators can tell it is a futile effort and abandon reproduction.

I assume when you say under stocking, you are referring to a much lower number than suggested?
This is my experience on understocking a 5 acre pond.
First off we Rotenoned it in May ‘23 and started out fresh.
Once the Rotenone was non toxic (7 days) we stocked 85# of FHM. They had sufficient breed grounds and the reproduction was crazy
In September ‘23 we stocked both LMB 2” and BG at the same time 100/1000.
By June ‘24 we had catchable fish, At the 1 year mark we had LMB in the 14-15” range
By September’25 (2 years) we have caught LMB in the 4# - 18” range and BG over 10” - 1.4#
Now the catch rates of the LMB are pretty slow but their size more than makes up for it.
We are also already seeing YOY LMB over 12” and BG reproduction is insanely high.
Up til now IMO structure and a little supplemental feeding are the keys to success.
With that, I weigh and measure every fish, anything under 110% RW gets culled (8 so far)
I also fish the pond 5+ days a week as long as the weather allows and it has not slowed the bite down at all
We also added 50 CC and have caught a few over 6#
There are a bunch of “you did this wrong “ and “you should have done this differently” in my approach but up until now I believe the results have spoken for themself

Jason, sounds like you have a winner. I wouldn’t mess with it.

Jason D, that is pretty much exactly what I'm talking about. Although you were able to really flood the place with FHM which provided food for both the bluegill and the bass to really thrive.

The ponds that were drained and completely redone won't have any fish in them, so it would be better to just focus on those. It is sounding like the best idea is to just stock with baitfish first, then give it a year or two and add the bass later. At least the bass will have plenty to eat by then.

If you go that route, just be sure that the baitfish don't have any other species as hitchhikers. Without any predators to control them, you could have a mess on your hands and lose a few years of fish growth if you have to start over.

Paraphrased :


I for one am not at all surprised with the results and abundant forage. The results are predictable and consistent the natural laws that govern energy flow in a pond ecosystem. Even though the stocking rate of CNBG is much lower than many do. Those many who said "you did this wrong" and "you should of done this differently".... it still worked very well and it is still working. I recall the size of your initial stocked CNBG by the following spring. The growth over the cool months was promoted primarily by the abundant FHM and they grew the LMB too. Obviously, the LMB were not eating BG until the next year (2024) after the initially stocked BG spawned. So the minnows carried all through winter and spring.

Some key take aways:

BG do not have to be stocked in advance of the LMB (especially when the stocking size of the bass will be ~ 2").

When the BG spawned, the LMB had already attained lengths >10" and have stayed "in front of the forage" (large relative the consumable forage).

Due to the numerical strength of consumable forage, the LMB moderate consumable forage growth. The consumable BG are so numerous that they grow slowly as the LMB crop them. The LMB can stay in front of the forage because they are growing as fast as most of the consumable forage is growing. This will continue provided consumable forage remains numerically strong. I think consumable forage should exceed 10,000 per acre in a pond with 20 LMB/acre growing satiation rates of growth. The actual numbers of consumable sized BG in 2025 were likely much higher than that at their 2025 peak abundance.

It was by stocking BG at lower rates that the originals have grown so fat. They are largely supported by feed (and possibly minnows, crayfish, and large insects) but the feed is making an important contribution to the big BG. They can better compete for feed. The brood BG standing weight (despite their large size) is small in relation to the forage potential of the pond. It is small in relation to the potential because the BG were initially stocked in lower numbers. It is the lower stocking rate that is limiting the brood standing weight. The rest of forage potential can grow consumable sized forage.

Indeed, this is predictable outcome. To be sure, Jason's variation of LMB growth lies mostly with in the expected ranges of growth (at satiation) for the two sexes of Northern strain LMB. It is a shining example of abundant forage and little competition. Had the BG been stocked a year sooner than the LMB and the LMB stocked as 2-6" fingerlings ... I believe there would have been far more variation of LMB growth of the initial LMB stocking. High variation outside the normal ranges (at satiation) is an indicator of forage limitations IMHO. Though many may disagree with Jason's initial stocking rate 200 BG/acre (simultaneous with LMB) ... it works for Jason because of the reasons mentioned above. It very hard to argue with the results when they are so good and they are supported by the laws governing aquatic systems.

Keep in mind that stocking rates are not designed just for first year growth but for longer term results. In most newly stocked southern ponds stocked at 1/10 (LMB/BG plus FHM) first year growth is very good as competition is limited. It is second- and third-year results in the offspring that begin the issues. The variable for over or under stocking at an acceptable ratio is the time to reach carrying capacity. I have seen 1/10 stocking ratios used from 1 LMB and 10 BG per acre up to 200 to 2000. The best results for LMB/BG for the first 5 years, I have seen, used less than 1/10 ratio and used 1/20 LMB/BG plus FHM and feeding. But all ponds and results are dependent on multiple factors. Actual results vary greatly and often differ substantially from predicted statistical models.

CentexSaj says - Probably in the range of 50-60 different tanks between 1 to 5 acres in size. Only two of the tanks have been stocked with fish.

Mother nature and most ALL anglers or observers say they do not like water bodies without any fish in it. The older the fishless pond is the greater the chance there will be some specie of fish present. No guarantee to this rule, but it has a high probability.
So before I would ever spend my own money to buy fish and put them in an older fishless pond, I would do diligent sampling to verify the fishless condition. Diligent sampling is NOT driving up to the pond and looking in the shallows nor fishing it with lures.

ewest is providing some wise advice and possibilities for understocking numbers of fish in a fishless or renovated pond. Understocking of fish numbers during the first 3 to 6 years can produce suprising results. However subsequent fish management, recruitment, habitat, post carrying capacity and water quality for the long term can be significantly different for the fishery balance and quality after the first 3 years. Remember every pond is different based on a lot of factors.