I think Kenny's record fish(es) are prime example of what can be accomplished by setting up the conditions that grow fish large. The single most important variable is sufficient consumption to sustain the growth. Kenny's fish are distinguished as being record holders and if you source your YP to his stock then you have the opportunity to produce similar results. It's really great to know that you are beginning with fish who have a track record.

The YP are just the beginning however. You have to insure there is vibrant food chain. So it's not enough to have fish with a proven track record, you need to provide what it takes and achieve a population structure that will produce such fish within your pond's limits of food production. Kenny can help you with that. His food chain utilizes multiple niches that complement and expand his pond's ability to produce food. The minnows and crayfish are highly concentrated energy relative to insects and lepomis. This, I think, plays a role in his success.

Though the YP may not have consumed a lot of Optimal floating on the surface, a fair proportion of Optimal sinks and/or sinks sooner than other floating feed. But in Ken's pond, I am not so sure they really need the feed except for the manuring effect that stimulates his abundant minnow population.

We should be very careful to refrain from using the words "poor genetics" and/or "superior genetics". Few species experience natural selection at the intensity that fish populations do. Fish that possess the traits to survive under the forces of natural selection have, of course, the genetics to survive and grow to above average sizes.

I don't know where Kenny's fish come from originally but if from a local impoundment, they must of good genetic heritage as only the survivors of intense natural selection are represented in the population of adults. This isn't the case with hatchery fish which are denied natural selection influences as much as is possible to maximize yield. It is very important that a hatchery manager make good choices for maintenance of brood in order to produce populations more like the survivors of natural selection. In other words, it's a challenge to prevent the decay of artificially selected strains without good selection practice. It would be very easy to destroy heritage strengths in a hatchery setting by selecting brooders willy nilly. This is because there is little in the way of natural selection working to weeding the weakest genetics. A hatchery wants to sell the entire crop, not just the ones that are exceptions.

The Ketona Lake BG were enormous by any standard, not just records but two world records within a couple of ounces of each other. Had a private fishery obtained stock there, we may well have been buying "Ketona Strain" BG with the thought we had the genetics to grow world record fish. As it turns out, the state of Alabama fisheries biologist investigated and found they had nothing up on their own hatchery selected strain when grown in experimental ponds. This should come as no surprise. The fish probably came from an Alabama state hatchery to begin with. They started with a similar genetic toolset only 20 year (or less) before. In order to grow Ketona Lake quality BG ... you have to replicate the conditions of Ketona Lake.

I've said this before, we worry too much about genetics and whether we have given ourselves a fighting chance from the get go. How hard is it to recreate the conditions of Ketona lake? DARN NEAR IMPOSSIBLE. But if you could there is potential that you could grow World Class BG with otherwise ordinary BG. Only a few of them would be world class because fish are individuals this is why it works to grow freaks. You see if every fish in the lake had freak genes, there would be no advantage for any individual fish to excel with respect to its peers. It takes all of them to create the miracle of Ketona Lake.