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
Paraphrased :
In May 23 1 week after rotenone stocked 17 lbs/acre FHM and let them reproduce before adding BG or LMB
In September 23, stocked 20 2" LMB/acre and 200 CNBG/acre when the pond was swimming with crazy numbers of FHM.
There were a bunch of people saying "you did this wrong" and "you should have done it differently" ... but ... to date the results are speaking for themselves.
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.
