I have read pros and cons to the HBG
Does any one cross the northern BG and the CNBG?
Any advantage to this?
Also, if stocked together are they close enough to just interbreed on naturally?
I asked before about BG backrossing with HBG, I assume that the CNBG will breed with the HBG if stocked together?
............................................
Does any one cross the northern BG and the CNBG?
Any advantage to this?
..............................................................
Bobby, many of the so called CNBG from older fish farms are intergrades, resulting from in-breeding with native BGs and not maintaining pure Florida genetics.
Does any one cross the northern BG and the CNBG?Texas Parks and Wildlife sometimes stock CNBG in power generating lakes, resulting in intergrades. Original CNBG stockers from these lakes are HUGE!
My gut feeling says that CNBG probably can breed with HBG, question is, will they? I haven't run across any studies confirming this, it's just my interpretation of the two fish.
I have a few RES x BG hybrids in my ponds, but I don't see it happening very often. I think water clarity, and the availability of suitable partners probably plays a role in the occurrences of natural hybridization.
I think the CNBG crossing with the BG would be a more typical scenario, although I'm not sure what benefits, if any, would stand to be gained from such a union. Perhaps the long awaited possibility of a more cold tolerant coppernose? Maybe, but certainly not guaranteed.
For years now, fish hatcheries have crossed FL LMB with northern LMB to create the "Tiger Bass" or F1 bass...
CNBG could also be called Florida BG as they came about because of the same natural events that created the FL LMB. CNBG just expanded much further north naturally than did FL LMB after those natural events ended. Now whether crossing CNBG with northern BG would create "Tiger BG" I don't know. Where CNBG naturally intergrade with northern BG, they cross naturally... CNBG will readily bread with northern BG even when both are placed in areas they are not native or one is and one is not. There is no reason to believe GSF won't breed with CNBG. As a matter of fact it's my opinion that "Georgia Giants" are just that, CNBGxGSF and nothing more.
Bobby, depending where you live in north Florida, you may live in the area where the intergrade between the two BG subspecies naturally occurs. That area is basically where the panhandle of Florida meets the peninsula of Florida.
Under crowded pond conditions where spawning areas are limited, you will see far more hybrids. You will also see more hybrids in muddy water where the visual clues sunfish species rely on to identify the right species can be obscured. Also, if just a small number of one species is present, hybridization will be more common as the few of that species may struggle to find one another and will end up spawning with other species.
Any real size differance between the BG and CNBG? conditions being equal of coarse? I asume the longer growing season in the south would lead to larger fish but in same moerate enviroment would they be about the same?
I have always heard it said that the CNBG will achieve a larger size than the native, or northern BG, all other variables being equal.
However, recent information suggests that both fish have the capability to exceed three pounds. Perhaps someone vastly more knowledgeable than myself will weigh in, or maybe even show us a pic or two...
The world record bluegill was caught in Ketona Lake, Alabama. That is the area where the CNBG and northern BG intergrade naturally. So which subspecies grows bigger? I am betting they are about the same with the edge going to the CNBG but not by much. In the north, northern BG have longer life spans and reach big sizes by growing slow and steady. In the south CNBG have shorter life spans and grow big by growing faster.
I believe it to be faster growth of CNBG, not necessarily larger growth. Many variables control size - feed, climate, biomass to name a few.
See this from a recent post. Then ask any unanswered questions.
Almost all sunfish can hybridize. A BG and CNBG cross is not hybridization as they are the same species. They do not have bad offspring. BG are more cold tolerant. BG are not hardier in southern climates. Either BG or CNBG or both will do well in south MS. CNBG will get a little bigger and grow a little faster in that location. I will post and old article I wrote for PB.
Not sure this is the final copy that went in PB mag. Order the mag so I don't get in trouble with Bob for posting old articles ( I don't do this much and not at all with new articles)
THE CUTTING EDGE – SCIENCE REVIEW
By Eric West
Coppernose Bluegill vs. Regular Bluegill – which one for you?
A question we often get on the Pond Boss Forum is should I stock Regular Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus macrochirus or Coppernose Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus mystacalis also previously classified and referred to as Lepomis m. purpurescens . To answer that question we should look at the traits of both and use the one that will work best for the particular goals for the water in question. As we all know traits come from genetics. So what is the difference in the genetics of Coppernose vs. Regular Bluegill? Well it started a long time ago and it took a long time to get there. Here is the basic story. Millions of years ago peninsular Florida was, like it is today, connected to the mainland. Bluegill were present all over the eastern US. Sea level rose and peninsular Florida was cut off by the sea from the mainland creating two separate populations. Bluegill on both the mainland and on the peninsula continued to evolve separately each influenced by local conditions with a divergence time of roughly 2.3 million years. After a few million years of this separate path sea level fell and the two land masses were connected again. However the two bluegill sub-species were now a little different genetically. The rivers were connected and the two subspecies migrated and integrated in a zone along the deep southeast where the two sub-species mixed. If this sounds familiar it should – it’s the same story as the Florida Largemouth Bass and the Northern Largemouth Bass where the divergence time between Northern (M. salmoides) and Florida (M. floridanus) bass is approximately 2.8 million years. If you know one story you should have a fairly good idea of outcome of the other. Surely as a pond owner you have heard the bass story. Florida Bass get bigger under the proper circumstance and do not due well in cold climates. Yes Bluegill have a similar story.
Coppernose Bluegill get bigger under the right circumstance but do not flourish in colder climates. In fact Coppernose are susceptible to poor results and substantial winter kill in northern US regions as are Florida Largemouth Bass. So how do you tell Coppernose and Regular Bluegill apart. Take a look at the pictures included. The Coppernose has a copper band across its head/nose in adult males, has fewer and wider vertical bars, has orangish/red fin margins and tail coloration , 12 anal fin rays and often light/white fin edges most visible when young. The Regular Bluegill has 11 anal fin rays and none of the other traits mentioned.
So how do they compare? Here are some points from a study on the subject titled Performance Comparison between Coppernose and Native Texas Bluegill Populations by John A. Prentice and J. Warren Schlechte in the 2000 Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies , Vol. 54 at pgs 196-206 looking at growth (size at age) , survival and catchability.
Coppernose Bluegill were significantly larger than Native Bluegill in all scenarios tested with the largest observed difference being 19.2 mm total length (.756 inch) and 33.5 grams ( 1.18 ounces) over 2 years. At 3 years there was a 16 mm (.63 inch) difference on average and at 4 years 24 mm (.945 inch). With other fish species present there was no difference in angling vulnerability between the types. Spawning activity of the brooders began at the same time (last week of Feb in 1995 and first week of March in 1997) and produced the same size offspring for tagging at the same time each year ( mid-April) in what appeared to be similar numbers. Survival of young of the year Coppernose was substantially greater than for Native Bluegill.
Before you draw to many conclusions note this was in Texas where the weather is close to that of the Coppernose’s native range. That is a critical key to success with Coppernose. While there is an often cited study titled Cold Tolerance in Two Subspecies of Bluegill by , A. J. Sonski , K. E. Kulzer , and J. A. Prentice, in the 1988 Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies , Vol. 42 at pgs 120-127 , that states Coppernose and Native Bluegill have similar cold tolerances the key is the test was done on bluegill all from the same area (Texas). Its purpose was to determine if Coppernose could survive the Texas climate. There is substantial observed and anecdotal evidence that Coppernose do not do well in cold climates (roughly north of the north line of Arkansas/Tennessee extended) . In the far northern US Coppernose become subject to high winterkill rates. This would be consistent with their similar relationship to Florida Largemouth Bass which have repeatedly been tested to do poorly and die in cold climates. The study first cited above was also in ponds with no supplemental feeding. Reported scientific evidence is substantial that in ponds the most common cause of reduced growth is a shortage of food. It is not known how much, if any, of the early growth difference between the two sub-species was due to limited forage. The two sub species will integrate (inter-breed) with the offspring exhibiting mixed traits and no apparent negatives but there is very little published data on them.
So the answer to the question should I stock Coppernose Bluegill or Regular (native) Bluegill or both is – it depends. Your location (climate) and your goals are key factors. If you are in the Deep South or the Southwest (including Southern California) and not at high elevation (Appalachian, Rocky or Sierra Mountains) Coppernose should be considered. In short is your temperature profile similar to those areas? To some extent management practices and the existing bluegill population, if any, are also possible factors. Whichever type you choose keep in mind that the most important factor to growing nice bluegill is to be sure they have enough food to eat and not to much competition.
See this link from the archives done by Bruce and the other mods.
http://forums.pondboss.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=92482#Post92482
I guess no way to tell weather the HBG i have are BG x or CNBGX ?
I'm not aware of any conclusive determination. Can you post a photo of your HBG? If you obtained them locally, they could be either one (BG or CNBG)
Did you stock these HBG yourself? Might you inquire about their lineage at the hatchery they came from?
I did not get them my self, added to the pond before I started handling it. Will ask the person that did but mostley we will never know.... Had to be some place close, could be a georgia giant farm Hybrid ?
Thanks George those are 2 super threads with great pics.
Could be, He moved a lot of fish..........
Just in case anybody is interested...
The daughter of the holder of the world record bluegill caught at Ketona, Alabama sent me a photo of the mount, and the eartab has a red border painted on it.
Secondly, I was just recently fishing a pond that had about half bluegill, and half coppernose bluegill in it. The pond was situated in a warm climate, typical of what you'd associate with coppernose bluegill. Both strains of bluegill achieved the same length and weight, and were in virtually identical body condition. Just a sample from a single pond, but interesting evidence just the same.
Could you elaborate on the ear tab.. Any pics available of the actual fish?
Thanks Bruce!
.....
Could you elaborate on the ear tab.. Any pics available of the actual fish?
Field and Stream magazine reported years ago that there were no pictures available, but at
www.bigbluegill.com we located the mount of the fish. Our site is the only place you can find them. I'll see what I can do to transfer the images to this site.
The eartab means just what you'd think...
It means the 4 lb, 12 ounce fish likely was BG X RES, or pure RES. From the body morphology it looked like a hybrid. I think it would be inappropriate for me to ever complain about it or start a controversy. The daughter of the record holder is a very nice person, who's been very helpful. I'm certain that without DNA testing it could never be proven that the fish ISN'T a pure bluegill, but this information was relevant to this thread, so I thought I'd share it.
I'm surprised it was never tested or anything to make sure it was a pure bluegill to get the record..
Honestly, I'm not surprised at all. No one gave a crap when that record was set if it was a bluegill or not. It probably wasn't even viewed by a biologist. Most of the old records were eaten.
From researching Indiana's record Bluegill, let me say one might be surprised at what you turn up when you start digging. Indiana's record BG was caught in 1972. I tracked down and spoke with the angler who caught it, as well as obtaining copies of everything that is on file for that fish with the DNR. There is no biologist's report, or record, or indication that anything other than a cursory visual identification was ever performed. And even then, IF an inspection took place, no one knows who performed it, or what their qualifications were.
Granted, this was 1972, but still I was shocked that nothing formal concerning the fish's biology was included in the file.
I won't even go into the stocking program, and history thereof, concerning the BOW the fish was caught from. More surprises there.
Seriously, when that bluegill was caught, there were probably nine people in the U.S. who gave a rat's butt.
Now they'd grind it up, and put it through a photoscopic, electrophoretic DNA test that would have to be performed on the space shuttle.
Sorry I was under the impression it was a fairly new record..(not like the last couple years but 10-15).. I've seen the pics on your site before it's a hog and don't really look like a gill.. Thanks for that tidbit Bruce (when you gonna break that record
)
...and they'd charge you $2K, and if you didn't beat the old record by two full ounces they'd let the old one stand.
Really? When you gonna break those records Bruce, you prolly got Nebraska's in your backyard
Good question. I think if I ever broke the record, I wouldn't be able to turn it in anyway. Too many people would suspect I dragged it here from North Carolina!
Well that sux.. I think you definitely deserve it already lol.. Also I wouldn't worry about what people say (unless it's the DNR rejecting your record then your screwed).. What is Nebraska record?
2-12
It's a great fish. Definitely a legitimate, purebred bluegill. I've seen pictures of this fish, and many other two pounders that came from the same waters.
I have to question many of the records of 4 pound plus fish. Most photographic evidence suggests RES, or BG X RES hybrids.
That's an excellent point Bruce. Was it a recent striper record breaker that basically went into hiding to avoid the media attention it brought? I read that the previous record holder was basically over scrutinized by the public,questioning almost violently the validity of his catch. Personally if I were ever to be so fortunate to land a record fish I think I would do the same and keep it to myself. I would take my pictures, share the measurements with people I trusted and avoid the attacks that seem to follow these sort of accomplishments these days.
The 2-12 is 6 ozs bigger than Oklahoma! I have something to thrive for when I get out of school.
That's just like they reopened hunting of gray wolves. That guy got some much hate mail for shooting the first one.
Bruce I think you'll beat a record some day, I've never seen a guy consistently catch hogs like you.. Best of luck to you and make sure the forum is first to know..
The forum will be the first to know, but I'm extremely unlikely to try to enter the record books, should I ever catch a bluegill that's 2-12 here in Nebraska. My biggest so far in Nebraska is 2-1, at my own pond.
I'm always curious as to what the different states allow, and what they will not permit.
In Indiana, there is no distinction made between BG and HBG, but fish that are on artificial feeding programs are not eligible for state record entry.
That's downright silly.
Don't feed him pellets..but we don't really care about the species.
Hmmmm.
yep....that whole "species" thing is waaaaay overrated when it comes to state records.
Yeah BG, RES ahh what the hell their all the same
I'm thinking that if you want to set the Indiana state record smallmouth, you should just catch a really nice largemouth bass and submit that one.
Probably get approved.
Tell me about it. I believe Cecil might've had some experience in the area of yellow perch and a feeding program???
I really don't know how to ascertain what the Indiana record BG truly was, at this point. I guess I am just taking the state's word on faith.....
Lol.. Taking the word of and having faith in a (nevermind could go south)..
TP&W certified private water Texas state record BG is 3.25lbs.
TP&W certified private water Texas state record BG is 3.25lbs.
That one makes perfect sense. Three pound, four ounce bluegill out of Texas is massive, but at least it's in the realm of reality.