If a specific post was interesting or useful to you, we recommend that you Like that post. It tells the post author, and others, that you found the information valuable. Clicking Like is another way to let others know that you enjoy it without leaving a comment.
Log in to join the conversation and Like this content.
jpsdad - its a good question about the ponds history. I don't know much about it, and the house changed hands several times in the last few years so all historical knowledge was lost. As for clues, I kind of suspect there have been some heavy kills that might have knocked off everyone but the bullhead. Previous owners left a bunch of algaecide in the basement, I haven't seen any algae issues so presumably the conditions have changed over time - adding that to Bill Cody's comment about fewer BH improving water clarity and increasing algae - maybe those things go together, Im not sure. For the Esox species - would I have to harvest those heavily to keep numbers in check or would those be somewhat self limiting? As for harvesting the BH as is, man they are tiny with a lot of work to clean for a little bit of meat. For 80 lbs/year that'll probably be a couple hundred fish at this size, but I suppose thats what it takes. There's at least one lunker in there that has come up for pellets, we call her big bertha.
Just looking at them in the photo, I thought they were in the neighborhood of 8" (which is ideal for me). So I may have been wrong about their size? This brings back memories of fishing with my granddad. I threw back a 6" BH once and he asked "What you doing there? That's breakfast" Having been properly scolded, I checked to make sure I didn't throw any food back, LOL. So in the video below, you will notice that the yellow BH he is cleaning are around 6 to 7 inches in length. Panfry is the way to go with small BH (meanwhile I would throw back anything bigger than 10" for sure). They are TOO BIG to panfry and will eat a fair amount of smaller BH which is a good thing. In the video you will learn how my granddad taught me to clean small catfish (up to 1/2 lb).
[video:youtube][/video]
BH can achieve standing crops as large as BG. In essence they are both panfish. But BH do have some differences. They have a larger gape for one. So don't remove Big Bertha. They will be properly managed when some can reach 12" in length. Removing the middle sizes should allow you grow the largest to bigger sizes. A little feeding should help growth too but thin them before feeding (if they are very small) to get more bang for your feed investment (more growth in individual fish). So I like Bill's idea of trapping. Whatever you are not eating or releasing .... you could dice and feed back to them. A heavy knife with a curved blade that can quickly sever by rocking (ideally something like a heavy ulu) can do this quickly and with less effort. Without a predator species, you may have to do trapping on an ongoing basis but once you have the population with 20% of its weight in 10" fish or greater it will be much easier than this early going.
As for the ESOX. I mentioned them because they should be more resistant to low DO. So just some thoughts.
1. The presence of the algaecide in the basement suggests that BH were not so prevalent and the pond had other fish species. The BH are a natural and great choice for this old pond because they match it's trophic status. Just being there, they prevent FA and many submerged weeds. Its just a matter of thinning BH to numbers that will allow survivors to grow to lengths that interest you.
2. If you introduce predators, I think it will be some time before you get reproduction from them. The numerous BH population will probably prevent successful reproduction for a time. To increase the average size of your BH will require you being a predator and/or introducing a predator. But increasing the average size of your BH will also increase the amount of predation from the BH themselves. Too much predation and your water will clear and vegetation (Both FA and others) will grow. So this isn't necessarily good. The shift to non-phytoplankton vegetation could actually reduce food chain production and accumulate more muck. It could also increase YOY survival and work against goals of growth. Also the more vegetation you grow, the more likely it is that you could have a fish kill. Probably the best balance would be where visibility is limited to some ideal (unknown) depth that prevents FA and submerged vegetation in the deeper waters.
3. So I like a balance of you being predator with a little help from some other predator that never reproduces but lives a long time. But it may be possible that you (with fish , trapping, and repurposing) with the help of larger BH can achieve a good balance (good annual production of 8" to 10" harvested pan fry size fish). So I think I would try to be conservative with the predator fish and try to maintain no more than 40 to 50 lbs/acre (less may be better for production of BH)
