Ok, a post recommended that I stock Condello BG. I recall seeing a post recently with giant pics of such BG, but seemed like the owner couldn't sell them. Is there a source for these?

I think Bruce Condello does.

If Bruce isn't, I'd sell you some Condello/Baird cross bluegills that perform just as well thanks to Bruce's work, but I'd have to spend a small fortune getting them health tested for VHS to ship them out of state.

Tree Farmer, can we get more info about your pond? What are your goals for it and what management practices you are practicing? Feeding, aeration, etc... I am not down playing fish genetics, they certainly are a factor. However, it's my opinion they are not the biggest factor by far... Other things such as proper food sources, good water quality, etc have a bigger factor in growing large bluegill, if that is even your primary goal.

Them fish are not easy to get..

I am working on it AS WE SPEAK!

Genetics are a really big factor!

Sure they are! Just drive to Nebraska and help TJ seine his pond. Then beat feet for home.

Come on out. Have 1,000,000 for sale.

At this time.. All I'm good for is moral support..

YOU CAN DO IT GUYS!!!!!!!!!

Then send some my way lol

So would these BG specimin do well in an Aquaphonics setup?

Yes they will. Cecil has some in a tank right now.

Both Bruce and I have had no problem with them in tanks. I also have some in cages at the present time until I can sex them. The only time I've had problems is keeping large specimens in cages that were never in cages before, which is understandable with any fish. I had beat up pec fins which may have meant they were fighting. It was also a low density cage so they probably became territorial.

Can someone show me genetics are anywhere near as important as food source/supply and habitat? I am betting they can't...

You can have the greatest genetics ever, but if you have poor conditions they will never be expressed. It's a basic principle in the management of almost any animal. You see it with whitetail deer too... You could have a buck with the greatest farm raised pedigree genes ever. However, if he lives on a crappy range his whole life where he's half starved, he'll be lucky to eeek out a 100 class rack. You put some run of the mill none pedigree bucks into high quality range, you're going to see some nice bucks. Sure, you'll have some duds... But, if you don't have good range, it doesn't matter how great the genes are.

I dont think anyone is saying genetics are the only thing that matters but if you are willing to manage the fish to try to maximize the size, then yes genetics play a huge roll.

I look at it this way you have 4 options:

1. Bad/No management + "normal" genetics = high probability for smaller fish
2. Bad/No management + "great" genetics = medium probability for small fish
3. Good management + "normal" genetics = medium probability for big fish
4. Good management + "great" genetics = high probability for big fish

It takes both. Genes are a slippery slope unless you KNOW the history of all ancestors. There are genes, recessive genes, etc.

But, you're right about proper nutrition.

I guess I'm trying to figure out who you're arguing against here. Does anybody on this forum dispute the need for good management?

And if you're implying the someone here is trying to "make money" by saying all you need is good genetics, then you've never read a single thing I've posted on this forum. I haven't sold a single fish in nearly five years, and have invested tens of thousands of dollars trying to improve the genetics in my fish stock. So where are we going with this? I've reviewed this thread over and over again, and I still haven't found the quote where somebody says all you need is good genetics.

Nicely stated. Excellent.

I was once told, after making a claim to have caught a "huge" fathead minnow, on a #10 hook, that it was next to impossible for a fathead to get big enough to take a hook that size.

Is the limiting factor here a genetic one, or a management one?

Both. There are many limiting factors in growing big fish. Oxygen, genetics, food amounts, food quality, social factors, even water itself. Any one of which can place limitations on a fish's potential.

Maybe part of it comes down to one's goals, and expectations. I've stated here before that I believe size is relative to location. I think we would all agree that a 3 lb. Bluegill is an exceptionally large fish. In some locales however, a 1 lb. Bluegill is considered huge. It would appear to me that if growing a 3 lber was the goal, then genetics would probably assume a much greater importance than it would with a 1 lb. fish.

Also, what kinds of numbers are involved? We all know that there will be that exceptional fish in every year class of Bluegills. The one that has everything going for it. I think that's where state record fish come from. But, if you're wanting a large quantity of a particular year class of fish to achieve trophy status, (say over 2 lbs.), then I would expect to source fish with the best genetics I could find.

I have a new pond (the happy side of me calls it a majestic lake) that we just capped two days ago. It will be two acres at full pond, and has two springs feeding it from above the full pool level at a rate of about 40 gallons per minute combined. It will be 20' deep along the dam, and average depth of 8-10'. It has some great rock ledges on one side, lots of nice boulders, etc. The spring water flowing in is crystal clear, and due to the way the lake was made I think I will be able to actually create some waterfalls from it before it enters the lake. The lake also has a 25 acre drainage area...all mountainous, and I own to to the top of the mountain, so I shouldn't have to worry about activities uphill disturbing the lake.

The official goal of the lake is to support agricultural operations below the lake through irrigation. Ancillary goals are to have a place where the family can have fun through fishing and swimming (in that order). As for fishing, I don't care about having huge LMB. I would like to have large BG, but I would rather have many good sized BG than a few behemoths. One of the reasons I'm not so big on huge LMB is that I'm not real big on catch and release...like someone else on the board, I like to release em to the grease! I also love RES (tasty) and CC (tastier). I will do HSB if I can get approval from the marine folks (an utterly stupid rule here in VA).

OK guys, I started typing the post above yesterday and finished it this morning, before reading the argument about genetics/management. I do intend to properly manage the lake, and as I said many fish will become crispy brown each week/year. One thing I left out above is that I understand that for my general goals it sounds like I would be better served by having a lot of 10-14" LMB...sounds great to me, as LMB around the upper end of that size fry up quite nicely as well! We have a large family, and they all love a great fish fry!

I also plan to feed the CC, the BG, and the HSB

I'll take 500.

Do CNBG survive long term in VA? Those with experience? Tree Farmer do you know the plant growing zone for the area around your pond? With your fish harvest plans I wonder if BG would survive long enough to make to trophy status? It would take good co-operation of all anglers.

Speaking of fast growing large BG: FYI - North Central Regional Aquaculture Center is advertising for proposals for a 2 year study to "Develop Genetically Fast Growing Monosex Male Populations in Bluegill Sunfish". Their goal is to improve growth rate, eliminate the problem of prolific reeproduction, precocious maturity and their consequences. They propose this be done through selective breeding to produce monosex populations. They therorize that combining super male germoplasm with performance selected female lines should produce quality offspring. They want populations raised at two or more locations. Grant money will be $160,000 for this project (USDA funded). Results are to be published. Hopefully this will provide knowledge for growing bigger and better BG.

Wow they are only 10 years behind Bruce !! Bruce you need to give them a call - might be able to sell them a few fish and a lot of knowledge.

I think NCMike hit the nail on the head when he said :
1. Bad/No management + "normal" genetics = high probability for smaller fish
2. Bad/No management + "great" genetics = medium probability for small fish
3. Good management + "normal" genetics = medium probability for big fish
4. Good management + "great" genetics = high probability for big fish

A little more. No 1 is the most common and is reflected in most studies indicating that the biggest limiting factor in fish growth and condition in ponds is lack of food. It is very common in the overall populace but not among the people on this Forum. No 2 is IMO rare but does happen. No 3 is what the avg person with some knowledge of fisheries mgt and the desire to work some at having a nice place to fish has. No 4 is not common yet but many would like to move toward. Among people here it is much more common and a lot of us are striving to get there.

You can’t get to 3 without what CJ notes and you can’t stay at 3 or get to 4 without what Bruce notes.

I will remind again that the term “good/great” genetics must be viewed in the context of the environment into which the fish go. I have some very good CNBG genes in my ponds. They would not IMO be good genes to go into Tree Farmer’s pond. Even with good mgt they likely would result in exhibiting bad results and lower fitness for him. Good genes can be bad in the wrong place. They would make his existing genetics worse over time. A much better way for Tree Farmer to get to 4 would be , as I noted in a prior post , plenty of mgt and Condello genetics. Why not shoot for 4 from the start. More importantly don’t make it next to impossible to get to 4 or even 3 by degrading your pond with the wrong genes.

This is invaluable information guys...please keep up the conversation.

This is excellent! So simple yet broken down beautifully. Very Luskesque!

Travis,

Like Bruce said, I don't believe he said genetics was the only thing, he said "genetics are very important." Here's an example of where genetics I believe made a difference in a yellow perch:





It's my 16 1/4 inch 2 lb. 13 oz. fish taken out of one of my ponds. No matter how well I manage my yellow perch and feed them it's extremely rare for any of them to exceed 15 inches and when they do they do just barely. Add to that it's extremely rare in the wild and very few documented yellow perch exceed 16 inches including state records. However this fish passed the 16 inch barrier as a six year old fish. I've never been able to duplicate that.

How did it do that? I believe all factors being the optimum for my yellow perch it had to be genetics for this one to exceed the others.

As far as bluegills I am not aware of a single fish farm that is selectively breeding bluegills other than a research facility at Lincoln University and Bruce. As far as I am aware all fish farms just grow out their bluegills and cull them by size and not age or by growth rate.

And before you think I'm biased because my bluegills have Condello genes and I'm praising them to sell to pond owners, I have sold only one batch to one customer in all the years I've had them. I just can't justify the cost of health testing, and my fish are grown out primarily for my own use. I only sold the one batch because they were extra and they were sold intrastate where testing was not required. Add to that I did not sell them at a premium price.

On a side note I drained my largest pond several years back to achieve my goal of only male bluegill and female yellow perch. I had some reproduction of what appeared to be substandard bluegills in the 2 to 3 inch range in the pond that were not feed trained or fed. The body shape was slender similar to the bluegills we find in the natural lakes around me. They do get large but dont' achieve the saucer shape of my bluegills that I've received and crossed from Bruce.

I gave a few hundred to an Amish friend and these fish once put on feed did a major catch up in growth and body conformity. They were husky 8 inch + fish by the fall. I don't believe that would have happened with normal bluegill stock that did not have a history of selective breeding.

I'm not sure how this thread got to where it is. It should be a very positive thread, yet it was starting to go negative -- which is just wrong. As a moderator, I apologize. But, we all have a lot to learn from Treefarmer's questions.

Treefarmer -- I'm just a little northwest of you, about 15 miles west of Winchester on US 50, and my eastern property boundary is the WV/VA line. I'm at about 1300 feet of elevation on what is known as Timber Ridge, which rides the WV and VA line. I have never even considered CNBG because I don't believe they would prosper in our climate and elevation.

Over the last 35 years, I've dealt with a lot of fish dealers, and not all are as honest as others in society. It is truly a "caveat emptor" marketplace. Most will tell you they "sell a lot of those fish." What they don't tell you is what happens to those fish. Recently I posted about Teaching Our Neighbors. There seems to be an epidemic, particularly this year, for bad fish stocking advice. Since that post, several other ardent pond keepers and I have witnessed even more "buyer beware" episodes as we've been buying fish for ourselves, or helping friends and relatives get their ponds ready for the new season.

Before you stock your pond, and if you want to come and have coffee with a few of us crazies some morning in Winchester, let me know by PM.

As for bluegill -- I grow some pretty nice bluegill. For a few years now, I feel that I've have harbored the state record bluegill in my pond -- and it isn't just one fish. I regularly cull 7-9 inch bluegill for the table. We have a lot of neighborhood bluegill feasts at our place. We regularly have 25 to 50 people here -- and the fish come from our 0.7 acre pond, sometimes supplemented with fish from the pond of friends a few miles away in Virginia -- but who use the same basic Pond Boss management techniques as we use. (My ramps are just almost ready for pickin' also.)

I have a lot of 10-11 inch breeders. Unless severely hooked, or otherwise threatened, they go right back in. Recently I posted about a red-eared sunfish I took out of the pond that was over 12-inches, and right at 2 lbs.





My bluegill are northern strain bluegill, my red ears are, well, red eared sunfish.

Bruce Condello and Cecil Baird have been good friends of mine for many years. Bruce has devoted a big part of his life to scientifically developing a superior strain of bluegill. Dr. Bruce Condello is an extremely well educated researcher -- who just happens to use his dentistry practice to supplement his fish research fervor.

Do Bruce's and Cecil's fish grow any bigger than mine? Maybe. But, do they grow faster with far less food -- probably four times as fast, with far less food, to get to those gigantic sizes, that are ready for harvest far sooner than mine. Will we see them for sale soon in VA and WV? Probably not.

In the mean time, I'd go with pure strain bluegill. Feed them a good quality feed. Keep lots of small bass in the ponds. Don't harvest the largest fish, male or female. Use this site to learn the difference between male and female bluegill. Don't be afraid to add lots of red eared sunfish. Don't be afraid to experiment. Be careful with channel catfish, but don't eliminate them. Be careful with winter trout, just know their limitations.

Regards,
Ken

P.S. Time to go out, get some bluegill and a few ramps!

It is my belief that your run-of-the-mill Bluegill will get to a pound pretty easily, if given a decent, perhaps even average environment, along with some supplemental basic feeding.(catfish feed). To push them to 1.5 lbs, then I think you need to step it up a notch, maybe by taking a more involved approach concerning water quality,(aeration) aquatic plant growth, fertilization to sustain natural forage, selective harvests, and a regular feeding program with a high quality feed. I think the 1.5 lb size is still attainable with an "average" fish.

Once we start talking Bluegills that are 2 lbs. or over, then I believe it might require an extra nudge, in the form of good genetics to push a quantity of fish over the top.

Now I'm just referring to maximum size potential. As Ken stated, I think there are many other factors and variables that lend themselves to having good genetics, such as rapid growth, resistance to diseases or infections, a high food-to-weight conversion ratio, etc.

Can't speak for what all BG producers out there are doing but I can state that Todd is doing selective breeding and genetics for CNBG. He is using his best fish and matching them with some of George's (also selected harvest) best CNBG. I have some and they are better than any others I have personally seen. I have not seen Bruce's or Cecil's fish in person. They are of course different from Todd/George as one is BG and the other CNBG.

Eric,

Glad to hear Todd is doing that and it actually doesn't surprise me as Todd is ahead of the curve in a lot of things when it comes to fish as he an upstanding individual and hard worker.

I hate to sound negative but if some of you knew what I know about several fish producers that produce fish for recreational ponds, you'd be hard pressed to want to buy their fish. From northern producers that get their fish from the south that may not be very adaptive to northern climes, to selling the runts of their fish simply as smaller fish, to potentially one producer treating his fry with testosterone to produce all male fish -- so no one can take advantage of his broodstock efforts -- it can get discouraging if you want to buy the best fish you can for your ponds.

Add to that the severe restrictions the government has put on fish producers with expensive health testing, and you end up with producers that just keep inbreeding their stock year after year in fears if they get stock from the wild or another producers they will test positive for a pathogen that could shut them down.

I have not had good success with a number of hatcheries with truthfulness of what they have and what/when they can deliver.

Same here with some notable exceptions in Ohio and Michigan.

This is one of the reasons I've gone to almost totally hatching my own fish. I know what I have that way.

Catmandoo...I really appreciate the post. It seems like your goals are very similar to mine. I absolutely love those shell crackers...a one pound specimen is big in my experience...I don't know what I'd do with a two pound fish!I guess you would say put it back and keep its one pound offspring!

Is there a way to purchase the Condello BG? I'm about sick and tired of the hatcheries at this point.

I just watched my Dad catch three one-pound bluegill, and one redear that was 1-2. One of the greatest nights of my life. Too bad that a hailstorm kicked us off the lake. The Quarry Lake had tons of 7-8 inch bluegill when we came here 2.5 years ago. The relative weights of the fish were 75-80. Now we have bluegill with relative weights of 105-110 from our feeding program and introduction of CSBG genetics. It's really fun to watch.

Apparently someone commenting on this thread thinks that I'm incorrect when I say that genetics are very important. He's made that perfectly clear. In my 7,657 posts to date, I've never once said or implied that management is unimportant. I never will. I've watched Bob Lusk do some of the most amazing things with bodies of water using his wizardry. But Bob has also often stated the importance of genetics. Genetics and management are sisters in creating ponds with big fish.

Awesome! I love that feeling you get when you see all the hard work starting to pay off. Makes it all worthwhile.

Wow this thread took off since last reading.. I would have to say Genetics has to have something to do with growing big fish.. Just look through the thread about Bruces journey making those giants, the proofs in the poodin.. Unless it's all Condello technique'd picture trickery .. I know one thing for sure it's a risk I'm wiling to take I already have great bluegill in my pond many, many over a pound quite a few around 1.5lbs and I hope maybe with the intro of CSBG I can hit the 2lb mark before I die then my pond "GOALS" will be complete.. And I will be sad because I'll have to go for 3lbs lol

Interesting thread.

Any fish hatchery worth their salt, producing a product, will tell you that superior genetics are their number one goal.

That being said, and being "the goal", I would say that management plans would have been developed, and the protocols are followed strictly, but improve consistently as learned and understood.

Otherwise, why do it?

I believe that genetics and management play a huge role in our CNBG program - plus southern waters that allow a longer growing season.
Todd’s TS CNBG allow us to regularly grow out CNBG to 10 inches and a pound in 12 months, Following growth is to 11 inches and rarely get longer but get broader and wider.
I love CNBG - my favorite fish.

The RES had fin rot on two fins, so I took it out.

As for the Condello or Bordello (Baird/Condello mix), there are none available for sale that I am aware of. I'm getting close to retirement, and one of these days when I've got several extra days, I'm may just hop in my truck, go to Indiana and rustle a few to bring back to WV/VA for breeding.

We've had pretty good luck with bluegill from the fish suppliers. And even though I have a lot of nice bluegill in my pond, every couple of years I take my small tank and bring home a few big males from a state run lake near me that is managed for big bluegills (bass are catch and release only). I do that just to help reduce the effects of inbreeding.

As for redears, they are a little more difficult because few suppliers raise them big enough to put into a pond with mature bass. At a friend's place a few miles away in VA, we put 100 2-3 inchers in a brood pond last fall. They are now in the 4-5 inch category, and we'll seine them out in the next month or two, to put into the main pond.

All factors, when trying to excel, are important.

Livestock producers have proven that selective breeding(genetics) pays off. That is undeniable. They make sure that there are no mutts in the mix and eliminate those that don't improve the strain.

I'll betcha that I could stock a pond with Bruces and/or Georges BG and another one with mine. If I feed them the same and pay equal attention to water quality, the "selected" pond will out produce the non selected.

BTW, the Texas Share A Lunker program has proven the value of fish genetics.

I agree with Dave. You want superior genetics ideally but you also want to have the right conditions for those genetics to excel. For example, there are two different cattle. A has average genetics. B has superior genetics. Put them in the same conditions with plenty of food and correct care. It is not unreasonable to say A would gain 2 pounds/day and B would gain 3.5 pounds/day. Over time, this makes up a large change in growth. Same school of thought can be applied to fish. That is why there is a large demand for superior genetics and the cost is more.

Of course, superior genetics will not thrive without adequate feed. Assume good genes in pond A and run of the mill fish in pond B. Feed pond B with high protein and feed pond A with junk feed. The mutts will outgrow the thoroughbreds.

Let me chime in here. I've been watching this thread since it started, interested in where it goes. I think this is a valuable one.
It's also interesting to me to hear the opinions of others, especially those "who have done it."
I've been to Bruce's place quite a few times and have been fascinated with the effort he has offered to grow, cull, examine and study bluegills. His facility (which he sold) was set up for research and study and his patience was certainly evident when it comes to growing fish.
I know he's been passionate about bluegills for a long time. "Management" of bluegills, up until just a few years ago, was primarily making sure that there were enough bass in the lake/pond to control bluegill and keep them from overpopulating. If someone really wanted to grow big bluegills, they would overcrowd their bass or focus on growing big bass which would eat all except the largest bluegills. Oh, yes, people might feed the little critters some grain-based feed back then, but a 1.5 pound bluegill was a giant in those not-so-distant days gone by.
8-10 years ago, I'd stand in front of a crowd during a speech and tell them this, "Over my career, I've probably held 5 or 6 bluegills which weighed two pounds. I've probably seen 25 or 30 which weigh between 1.5 and 2 pounds. But, I've seen hundreds and hundreds of bluegills that weigh 1 to 1.25 pounds. You can grow bluegill larger than a pound!"
"Good" management just a few short years ago centered around bass eating bluegills and feeding a cheap feed.
Then, people started targeting bluegill a little bit more.
Bruce focused on genetics. His fish probably grow considerably faster than any pond run fish from the hatcheries. Selective breeding offers a better product, in my opinion.
My first really good, steady customer was Ray Murski. (Read about Ray in March-April Pond Boss) He challenged me to grow some giant bass, so that was our focus.
My thinking, at that time, (1986) was that we needed great genetics to grow great bass. I had also learned by that time that our native bluegills rarely got much larger than 6-8 inches. I was convinced we needed larger bluegills in order to maintain the backbone of the food chain. If those bluegills only grew to 6-8 inches (and it took 3-4 years for them to grow to that size), we'd run out of food. So, I trucked over some pure strain coppernose bluegills from Florida and stocked them in the lake. Then, we fed them catfish food (that's all we had in 1986 for sportfish).
To further hedge our bets, we stocked some threadfin shad and once the bass began to grow large, I gambled and stocked gizzard shad. As the bass population expanded and some of the individuals grew into double-digits, I couldn't help but notice the bluegills were pushing larger than a pound. It was all coppernose, even though the lake had some native bluegill in it from earlier stockings. Those coppernose were genetically superior, in my opinion. A few bluegills grew to 1.5 pounds, but that seemed to be about as big as they grew.
Then, I stocked other lakes in similar fashion and this situation replicated itself to the point I believed coppernose bluegill were genetically superior to our native strains of bluegills.
Then, Harrell Arms, in the early 1990's, got his hands on some bluegill from the Mississippi River drainage area. Those creatures were beasts! Much thicker, they outweighed coppernose bluegill, which seemed to be more slender, side to side. Coppernose were beautiful, much more colorful than their cousins from the river drainage, but those Mississippi River fish were stockier and more muscle-bound. I saw what I suspected were genetic differences.
Then, around 1995, Purina Mills took an interest in designing fish food for different species of sport fish. Game Fish Chow was born. It was much better than the other over-the-counter feeds you could buy at the feed stores, but it is still a grain-based feed, designed for recreational feeding of fish. There were several clients who faithfully fed that product to their fish, primarily to grow bluegill to reproduce to provide a better food chain for bass. The consequences were a few more aggressive fish grew to larger sizes. As I studied these results, it was easy to see fish of the same age, but there were fish within those age classes that definitely dominated the growth curve. Again, I figured it was something genetic, whether those fish had the propensity to grow large or they were simply more aggressive to the feed. Either way, I thought genetics played a significant role.
Then, fast forward to 2005 and Richmond Mill Lake. By that time, Purina Mills was working diligently to develop the best feeds they can and bluegills became a target species for better feed. Dr. Mark Griffin was enamored with those fish and wanted to build a feed to make them grow to giant sizes. So, together, he and I tested some feeds on different fish populations. We really didn't know what to expect. But, Richmond Mill Lake near Laurinburg, North Carolina, has grown some giant bluegills and I have no idea where it will end. Bruce caught two bluegills topping 3 pounds each and there have been hundreds of two pound-plus fish caught and released.
Today, I have several lakes under management which are growing bluegills well beyond two pounds each. The difference? AquaMax 500 & 600.
That feed has taken fish to the next level. So, nutrition is huge in the production of giant bluegills. Are those 3 pound bluegills genetically superior? They HAVE to be. They are the same age as many of the two pound fish which are the same age as more of the one pound fish. There are definitely different size fish of similar ages.
But, here's where I'm going.
I absolutely think the most important aspect of growing anything is habitat. If you don't have the best habitat, you can prop up a fish population with management and genetics only so far. Without great habitat, don't expect to have the best fishery, even if you try to money-whip the rest...food, genetics, fertilization, culling...whatever you choose.
Richmond Mill Lake has, beyond any lake I've ever seen, the best bluegill habitat. Consequently, the genetically superior fish have an advantage, especially as we feed them to satiation. Oh, and yes, there is an amazing natural food chain there, too. Grass shrimp, a variety of insects, small fish such as roaches, shiners, topminnows...a wide variety of fish that are also excellent prey for bluegills.
Here's the way I see it.
1) Habitat is most important. Not many hobos are great athletes. They're too busy trying to figure out where they can sleep and where the next meal comes from.
2) Food chain is second. If you have great habitat, but don't have an adequate, diverse food chain supplemented with whatever you can, don't expect premier fish.
3) Genetics is third. If #1 and #2 are in place, those genetically superior fish have the opportunity to become champions, suited to their propensity.
4) Harvest as a management strategy. If too many bluegill share too little habitat and overeat the food chain, those genetically superior fish are similar to the others...with a handful of lucky exceptions.

After those four fundamental principles, you can choose whatever management strategy best suits your region. Fertilize, or not. Fluctuate water levels, or not. Feed, or not. Selective harvest, or not. The management strategy you choose has the potential to afford your genetically superior fish (and even those that maybe not quite genetically superior) to excel...if you have the right habitat and food chain in place.

I've seen this over and over...and have done it.

That is one of the best write-ups ever. Even though a lot of people will see it here, and parts of it have been in the magazine at times, it deserves to be published in the magazine -- without edit.

Bob has a very elegant writing style. It's not often you find somebody who can get a point across in a very concise and accurate way, yet still maintain that sort of friendly "down-home" style that people keep reading.

Ken,

I'd be happy to just give you some but can't allow any to go out of state unless I kill 60 of them per lot and pay Purdue $300.00 to test for VHS for each lot. I just don't raise enough of them to justify this cost, although I'm sure if I did, I'd have no problem selling them out of state. Just don't have the infrastructure to produce the thousands of high quality fish to make up for the health testing expenses.

Any fish coming out of a Great Lakes state such as mine need to be tested for VHS even though it's never been found in fish farm waters and probably never will be. I even have to test for viruses, pathogens, and parasites bluegills have never been known to get to sell to some other states. It's crazy!