I started thinking about this while observing the explosion of the FH population in Mr H's small pond (130 ft X 70 ft X 10 ft deep). The fall spawn of 700 adults added last October to his fishless pond has resulted in what looks like 10's of thousands of fish. They can be seen at the surface of every section of the pond, and now this healthy population of FH is spawning again. By summer this pond will be loaded with forage.

What if FH or other minnows* were allowed to multiply until they almost reached the pond's carrying capacity before stocking LMB or other gamefish?

I suppose you would stock fewer BG/RES and possibly add them at the same time you stock the LMB since the Bass would most likely target the minnows first. With so many minnows in your pond it seems possible they could multiply fast enough to last 2 or maybe 3 years in decent quantities giving your initial stockers a good chance of achieving maximum growth for that period. Maybe this strategy could be enhanced by providing a good amount of cover for the minnows.

So the question before the panel is what would be the advantages and disadvantages of allowing FH or another small minnow to almost reach your pond's carrying capacity before introducing gamefish?

*I think this might be risky with a large minnow like Golden Shiners because they might too big.

That's a really good question, and I'd like to start by stating an opinion, which is, that the forage species will reach carrying capacity much more quickly than you might suspect. I've seen ponds that achieved the ultimate weight in fathead minnows within months of the initial stocking. Because of their high reproductive potential, you may be only one spawn away from max. density. One way to get the most weight of fatheads at this point would be to feed them pellets. They will convert pellets at a terrific rate, but like any other fish species you will need to watch water quality as you begin to push the envelope in regards to carrying capacity. I believe that the best way to have the shortest path to trophy gamefish will still be to manage their numbers once you've introduced them into this great big buffet table through selective harvest, and the best way to do that is to learn to identify the fittest individuals either by angling or trapping and allow those fish to remain in the pond while systematically eliminating the gamefish with the least growth potential.

Bruce is right. Nothing much more depressing than a forage pond without predators. They spawn and overspawn. Then, it's all over.

You guys do realize there is a high mortality of adult fatheads after spawning and the fathead has a short lifespan?

DD1, isn't getting predators the easy part? Is it common that the game fish can't keep up with the minnows, causing problems?

Cecil, how does that info effect this strategy?

Are you guys pointing out that FH numbers would need to be carefully monitored?

How common is it that pond owners approach carrying capacity with forage species before adding game fish?

Is this something that is not advised for an average pond owner?

GW, I stocked GSH and FHM in April 2002, and didn't add other fish until May 2003 (BG, CC, RES) and June 2003 (LMB). There were a lot of forage fish after the year head start. I don't know how close to carrying capacity the GSH & FHM were, but the Shiners remained a major part of the Biomass for a couple of years before the bass got big enough to eat them and started reducing their numbers.

I think in a brand new pond, with a minimal amount of dead vegetation and organic waste, a one year forage fish head start is very safe from worry about water quality problems - maybe 2 years up North, with our shorter spawning season.

Remember predators need forage fish in the right size and sufficient numbers for optimum growth. FHM/GSH is a good combo for starting out bass, but LMB predation will knock out both species sooner (Fatheads) or later (Shiners), and even the Shiners won't match the size and/or numbers of "climax" forage species like BG and Shad.

For a Warmouth pond, FHM might provide all the forage size needed for the top predator. Whether they would remain for more than a couple of years would depend on WM numbers (controllable) and fecundity (an unknown to me).

GW, you have to remember that, for the most part, every fish is both predator and prey. It would seem that they could keep their numbers in order. However, it doesn't seem to work out that way.

I put 200 two inch CNBG and 200 RES in a small 1/8 acre pond. They spawned and I relocated thousands. Due to drought, it became 1/16 acre and the fish kept reproducing. By the end of the second year, it is a green mess with nothing left alive except some one inch CNBG. Mama Nature is pretty self regulating whether it be fish, rabbits or coyotes.

Stocking less fish only delays the need to manage.

Thanks Theo. At this point I'm looking into types of structure that might help the FH survive as the WM numbers increase. I'm thinking that if I can maintain a fairly low density of WM from the beginning I might be able to find a balance that preserves a good supply of FH. Since BG won't be invited to this Lepomis party, I'm in need of some type of self-renewing forage fish.

Since you are interested in native species, perhaps there is a minnow/shiner/whatever species around you, in between FH & GSH in size (so that the largest ones would be pretty much safe from WM, but small enough that th young and juveniles would be vulnerable) that will breed in ponds. It would require research to find them, and good minner identification knowledge and skills to collect them.

The solution to that's a Bill Cody kind of problem.

Now I'm a little worried that the FH in Mr H's pond will be too crowded this summer. How in the world will I know if they're approaching max capacity?

Theo, I found this local minnow that might fit the bill. It's a little smaller than I was looking for, but it was the closest I could find to your suggestion:

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Labidesthes%20sicculus

Length to 4"-5", if it's faster than a FHM and will spawn in the pond, it looks like a good candidate to my uneducated eyes as well. Found in Ohio, so Dr. Perca may well know much more.

In my opinion brook silversides is in some ways sort of like an overgown Gambusia (mosquitofish). They are a more open water fish and qite a bit faster swimmers than Gambusia and can survive moderate to significient predation pressure. They are capable of strong jumping and skipping above the surface to avoid predation. Eggs may be quite vulnerable to predation depending on what creates the food chain in the pond. When I raised them I did not like the fact that they preyed heavily on fish fry - thus suppressing recruitment of some of the more desirable fish.

Carrying capacity of minnows-shiners in a pond is highly dependent on fertility of the pond. That's not new info. Prolific minnows-shiners can quickly overeat the food supply and start to stunt therefore the pond has an overabundance of tiny minnows and too few larger minnows for a good balanced healthy forage fish population. Bruce's post hints toward an important point that it is important to properly plan and try to establish an adequate food source to be present and take over when the minnows are eliminated which is almost always relatively quickly despite lots of manmade structure. In most all instances manmade structure is inadequate as a refuge to maintain FH minnows and shiners.

Thanks Bill. I'm thinking that if the Silversides reduced recruitment of WM or RES that might not be a bad thing for me. I hope to keep the WM/RES numbers relatively low and if I need more I can readily catch more in neighboring waters. I hope to introduce some small native fish so the fry predation could be a problem there.

I'm probably going to encourage some heavy aquatic plant growth and I wonder if the FH might have a chance at surviving under that circumstance.

If my target fish is small as in the case of WM, would stunting of the minnows be a problem?

GW, the water will tell you when you are overstocked. When it starts turning green and visibility shuts down, the fish have been swimming in their toilet too long.

Thanks DD1.

gw, are you gonna aerate? sorry i forget if you mentioned this somewhere already.

I don't think I'll have aeration this summer Dave. There's no electric at the pond yet and I'm poor anyway. There's two things I'm planning on doing to deal with the hot weather. One is to keep the biomass of the pond significantly lower than your average farm pond. The other thing is to stock native species that are more tolerant of low DO than others. Someday when I can I'll get an aerator, but I still think I'll work to keep the fish density down.

w/ no aeration, it might surprise you how fast vegetation will take hold...my thought being that down the road a piece, the combined death of that vegetation with a large forage population could spell troubles you dont want...its stating the obvious, but i believe the aeration would help you achieve trophy sized fish sooner rather than later. what i've found is that the bottom up style of aeration decreases visibility which decreases invasive weed growth, and promotes phytoplanktonic blooms in a big way stabilizing the base of the food chain...FWIW...i have a 20 amp direct burial aluminum line run over 600 feet from house w/ no loss in line that runs my aerator. the monthly costs are minimal even in CA if only run at night...i've figured it between $15 and $20/month.

I agree that an aerator will make managing my pond easier whatever my goals are.

It's not likely that my pond will have a large FH population this year. I've just introduced about 200 FH over the past few weeks. You may be thinking of Mr H's small pond where I stocked FH last year. That's the pond that has a lot of FH now. My pond is also about 4 times as large as his so I should be ok until the summer after next.

As I understand the original question you are asking is "What happens if you allow forage fish such as fatheads to reach carrying capacity before stocking predators?"
Here's what happens...when you stock the predators, carrying capacity of the prey rapidly diminishes. Even if the pond COULD carry more minnows, it won't...because the predators eat them quickly and won't allow it.
Remember this...at each step of the food chain, efficiency drops. In order to grow 1,000 pounds of fatheads in an acre of water, you need something to the tune of 2,000 pounds of fathead food. When you release predators to eat that 1,000 pounds of fatheads, they are converted at about 10%...yielding maybe 100 pounds of predators at the most. Then, we have to figure out how to MAINTAIN and have acceptable growth rates of those same predators over the long haul. Thus, there is no way a pond with predator/prey relationships can truly reach carrying capacity. What typically happens is that the predator/prey relationship battles its way to 'balance' and continues to battle into dominance, usually by the predators. Even though a pond overcrowded with predators has the "carrying capacity" for 1,000 pounds of minnows, it won't ever happen again, unless we say "adios" to all the predators via renovation.

Bob, would you not recommend letting the initial minnow population approach carrying capacity? If it's an acceptable approach does it require more careful attention? If done successfully could it result in the maximum growth of the predator fish?

No, I wouldn't recommend letting the minnow population reach carrying capacity before stocking predator fish. If a fishery were so simple as to fill the plate, bring in the game fish and presto-chango, we have giant predators, this business would be easy and no one would need any of this stuff.
Our mission is to set the stage for the natural dynamics to become self-sustaining as possible. That means stocking a variety of forage fishes, allowing them to become established and then add the "right" number of predator fish. As the forage fish base continues to expand, young predators grow rapidly, but not too fast. If they have all they want to eat all the time, they will outgrow their food chain, then crash. We want the food chain to expand along with the predator population, striving for a "balance" at some point. Balance simply means having enough forage fish reproducing at a fast enough rate to supply food to game fish growing at the "right" rates. Sure, we definitely want the forage base to have a healthy head start. At the same time, we want the forage base to have the opportunity to expand even when the game fish are with them.
I'll always remember my long time friend and one time mentor, Harrell Arms, calling me one day to tell me about a two year old, five pound bass he shocked up in one of his managed lakes. He was proud and happy.
It scared me.
What that single fish suggested to me was that the food was so abundant that the bass in this lake could grow unabated. While, on the surface, that sounds good, the fact is that the forage fish dominated the lake and the originally stocked bass (stocked in low numbers by the way) could grow so fast that it boggled us. But, here's what happened.
In their third year, the bass spawned...exceptionally well. Since there wasn't a "balance" between game fish and forage fish, the youngest bass grew rapidly, too. But, their numbers raged out of control and with too few larger bass to control their numbers, these young bass quickly became the dominant fish in that system. In the fourth year, the landowner was catching lots of small fish...and never saw his big fish, except when they were electrofished. By the end of the fourth year, the food chain was so out of whack they were forced to spend lots of money and time electrofishing those intermediate-sized bass and removing them and working to remediate the decimated food chain.
By the way, the biggest bass hit double-digits in their fifth and sixth years...phenomenal. But, at what cost? Those giants had all they could eat. They feasted on 10-12 inch bass and had all they wanted to eat. The trouble was there were so many mid-size bass that they overate the middle of the food chain. The rich grew bigger and the middle class fought for every meal.
While those few bass grew exceptionally fast, the food chain crashed fast, too. Then, the landowner's pocketbook crashed and instead of being thrilled with the prospect of having a well balanced lake with abnormal numbers of catchable trophy fish, he had quite the opposite. The only pictures he had of big fish also had a shocker boat in the background
So, in theory, if you could grow minnnows to carrying capacity and keep the population at carrying capacity while game fish pillage their way to obesity, you would have the ideal situation to grow some truly giant fish. However, one species of fish does not a food chain make. It's like a hungry football player diving into a pile of ribeyes and expecting them to reproduce faster than he eats them. Doesn't work quite that way.
Wish it did...we would have broken the world record bass years ago.

Many thanks boss!

very interesting read for a "pond meister in training" Mr. Lusk.

Worth reading several times.

Apparently I was right about the shortest path to trophy fish. Just as apparent is how bad of plan it is.

Another chapter.

Mr. A , a friend , had a 5 acre BG/LMB pond in the typical LMB crowded state. LMB were at about 80 % RW with the deficiency in the 10-12 in size (10-12in at 70 % RW). He decided to add some BG both 2in and 3-5in at a cost of $1000. He started a minor supp feeding program for the BG. Things did well for a year with RW rising to 80% for the 10-12s and about 85% for the general population. The second year was flat - no change. Year 3 brought a reduction in RW. Head scratching time for Mr. A. What the heck happened.

In his case the temporary increased forage capacity did not result in better/bigger/healthier LMB over time only more 10-12in LMB at 70%. The better conditioned LMB in year 1 and 2 produced bumper crops of new yoy LMB which increased the problem at a new higher forage demand level. You don't always get better but sometimes only more. LMB ,like all fish, respond to natural selection in the larger view both individually and as a population by selecting for survival. They are hard wired to seek safety (fight or flight) , food and reproduction in no particular order depending on time of year (hormones). When they are not starving (65-70% RW) the genetic instructions for survival of the species as a whole take over with a large reproductive response. They will attempt to fill the available space whether it’s a food surplus or room surplus in an empty or low population pond.

The pond fish population pie is like a pizza -- whether its a 10 in low volume pie or a 18in carrying capacity + pie , its still a pie. If you want it to be different/better you have to change the recipe to meet your taste (goals).

Here's another true story.
Steve Cody, from Ada, Oklahoma, built his own 30 acre lake. Literally..he is a tall, stout farmer/rancher who builds feed bins and other agribusiness products. He and his ranch hands built the lake with a dozer Cody bought just for the purpose. Three small creeks feed the lake, and he left almost all the standing timber in those creeks.
We stocked it with coppernose bluegill and fathead minnows in the spring of that year...probably 2000 or 2001. In June, we added 50 bass fingerlings per acre, 25 Florida's and 25 natives. He built a dock and a pavilion, added a cabin powered by solar power and propane and began to feed those bluegill. The bluegill answered the call and all was well. For a year and a half, Cody faithfully feed his bluegill at least a five gallon bucket of fish food every day off his dock. I saw them several times, stacked in a circle that completely filled the underside of his dock. Lots of 4-5" bluegill.
Well, that fall we electrofished his lake. The bass were now 18 months old. We didn't get many bass and everyone of them looked exactly the same. They were at least 2 3/4 to 3 1/4 pound each. We shocked literally thousands of bluegill in the 4-7" range.
Cody had become concerned because he couldn't catch any fish yet and it had been about two years. He thought he should at least be catching some hungry yearlings.
He should have.
We saw no baby bass as we should have.
We saw no intermediate bass, as we might have.
We saw few young of the year bluegill, but we did see three size classes.
What to do?
I understood there were too few bass feeding in this food chain and the bluegill had become the dominant species. Left unchecked over two or three more years, I believed he would have too few bass, albeit they would be giants, the bluegill would disrupt everyone's spawns and we would have a lake where he couldn't catch a bass and would be forced to feed the bluegill to keep them healthy.
So, we talked it over and went to another lake on his ranch, launched the electrofishing boat and started harvesting. By the end of the day, we had transferred 250 bass in the 1-2 pound size class into that lake. We added a "missing" size class of bass.
The next year, bluegill numbers under the dock diminished, those fish were three times as heavy, he could catch more bass, relative weights hovered slightly over 100 and he was happy. Now, the lake is in its 7th or 8th year and is thriving. One of his buddies caught an 8 pound bass last year.
We'll be looking at the lake again this spring to see where it is. I suspect we'll find a lake that's close to balanced...we'll see.

It's seems like there are rules, but we can never fully understand them all.

I'm managing Mr H's pond and the FH stocked last fall are exploding in number. I started adding WM, but I can't add the recommended amount at one time because there's no commercial source. That means I'm stocking extremely low numbers of WM, so far there are 6 small to medium fish. I looks like I've set myself up for a future secenario like what Bob described above.

Maybe I'll be ok in the end because his pond is so small at about 60 ft X 130 ft. If the WM start to reproduce too much it hopefully won't be too difficult to thin them out. What I really need is a trap that will target WM primarily. The traditional traps seem to work on BG, but not so well on WM. Maybe this has to do with WM not taking pellet food well. If all else fails Mr H has a large family and we can recruit some grandkids with fishing poles.

With recent stocking concepts of non-reproductive species and supplemental feeding introducing new variables, perhaps the definition of “balanced pond” should be revisited.

http://www.pondboss.com/forums/ubbthread...true#Post107069

GW why not seine or trap out some of the FH and transfer them to your or another pond if you think there are to many or carrying capacity is near. If you can't increase the WM #s to what you think then reduce the forage #s.

That's exactly what I'm planning on doing ewest. Mr H has a 7 acre BG/RES/LMB pond that could use the forage. I've already transferred about 300 FH from his small pond to my new pond and that's all I'm going to add for now.

If the few WM in Mr H's small pond have a heavy spawn I'm thinking that I can use the offspring to stock my pond in something close to recommended numbers. Then I just need to figure out what to do for long term forage...

GW,
One thing to remember about fathead minnows...since they are small and have a very short lifespan, they make up by reproducing. Baby fatheads are having babies when less than six months of age. Their reproduction can actually become exponential.
Look at fatheads as a renewable, self-sustaining crop. You can harvest them, and they come right back, so long as there are not too many fish eating them in their home.

Bob, do you think it would be likely that I could maintain a FH population in a WM pond indefinitely?