Curious where I can find detailed information on stocking Hybrid Striped bass in a 1 acre pond. Do’s Don’ts. I have found info but most is vague
Thanks in advance

https://newallafishcompany.com/2021/02/04/hybrid-striped-bass-balance/

Newalla specializes in hybrid stripers and this page is quite informative. Looks like they recommend a feeding program for 1 acre ponds, and have suggestions about stocking.

We also have experts on HSB here on the Forum who I'm sure will chime in to help. I'm no expert, just a pond owner who's had good luck with HSB since stocking them in 2018.

I have HSB in a 2/3 acre pond and love them. I think they are the best fish out there for small ponds where you have the ability to feed them. What questions do you have?

Here's what they did in my small pond the first season...

https://forums.pondboss.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=38025&Number=494998#Post494998

They are now in th3 4 pound range.

Curious if any real detailed articles like they have on bluegill and bass. About ideal water conditions ph etc, water temperature, structure feed, best forage besides feed. How many to stock with with f1 tiger bass.
This is what I stocked last fall and I have plenty of structure.
Last fall September 23 from
Jones Fish
30lbs of Fathead Min. Order: 1 pound = (275 fish)
Around 8250 Fatheads stocked
30lbs of shiners (120 shiners per pound) around 3600
375 Redear

Stocked 750 bluegill Monday October 19 2020 Robert Mayer

HSB will eat anything they can fit in their mouth - so they will readily prey on your smaller bluegill, redear and the minnows

Have you planned on stocking any other predator fish? HSB will not be able to keep up with bluegill on their own unless you were very predator heavy and were looking to have a healthy population of 6" plus size BG. At some point the HSB will die off, and the BG will overpopulate very quickly - you will either have to continuously stock HSB or another predator to keep the BG at the size range you target for your pond goals. HSB are opportunistic but generally cruise open water at mid depths looking to ambush schools of baitfish - not exactly perfect bluegill predators. LMB are typically what people lean on for a primary bluegill predator as they can eat large amounts of bluegills in several size classes - basically anything that can fit in their mouths There is nothing wrong with diversifying your predators, however.

What are you goals for the pond? How much work do you want to put in to reach those goals?

I plan to stock 70 f1 tiger bass from ASF in June
Plans for pond are a few 1.5 lb brim 6.5 lb lmb

Curious if any real detailed articles like they have on bluegill and bass. About ideal water conditions ph etc, water temperature, structure feed, best forage


This is what I stocked last fall and I have plenty of structure.
Last fall September 23 from
Jones Fish
30lbs of Fathead Min. Order: 1 pound = (275 fish)
Around 8250 Fatheads stocked
30lbs of shiners (120 shiners per pound) around 3600
375 Redear

Stocked 750 bluegill Monday October 19 2020 Robert Mayer

For HSB ?

Here are some from SRAC

https://srac.tamu.edu/categories/view/12

Thanks, Eric. I noticed this from their feeding article:

"Withholding feed for short periods(2 weeks) can also enhance feed conversion temporarily through the process of compensatory growth. When feeding is resumed, feed efficiency and growth are accelerated as fish make up for the temporary lack of food. Compensatory growth has been demonstrated in hybrid striped bass but has not been exploited commercially."

I wonder if compensatory growth has also been observed in other fish. If so, might be worth adjusting feeding strategies to save cost, improve water quality & enhance growth. Or does compensatory growth only happen in situations where the fish doesn't have any other source of food other than artificial feed?

Compensatory feeding is a well known affect that has been discussed wrt multiple pond species.

(Every day I don't feel like walking to the ponds and feeding the BG is a compensatory feeding day.)

I haven't studied compensatory growth in HSB but have looked into it with TP. Whether the compensatory growth is an advantage economically depends on a lot of factors. From what I have seen this mainly has application in keeping fish (like fingerlings) in high density for later use. One has to consider time and what its value is as well as factors like fish size at the end of grow out. For TP, I have yet to read a study that establishes equivalent or better end of grow out weights. The lower cost of feeding is kind of duh, if you starve a fish, yes you are saving some money in feed but there is a corresponding loss of weight and the effect of compensatory gain and lower FCR declines with time. From what I have seen with TP, one may not bank on larger more marketable fish at the end of grow out by doing this. But the practice can help to lower the cost of overwintering high densities of fingerlings and in cases where they are sold by weight (as opposed by the head) compensatory growth has high economic incentive leading into sale.

At this point I tend to agree with jpsdad that the main benefit of compensatory growth is economical not necessarily directly creating the end product of larger fish. More testing is needed. I currently think along with the PondBoss Lusk and numerous others here that "every day a fish does not eat is a day it does not grow"..

I always figured that on compensatory feeding days, my fish actually had to work for a living. And still ate and grew on natural food, which perhaps had experienced some days without fish eating it to get bigger/more numerous.

Rather than compensatory feeding, it may be better call that feeding supplemental feeding. So indeed your fish are doing well on natural foods and the supplemental feeding is boosting their gain. But this gain isn't compensatory growth in the context were using the term. If a fish is denied food or is placed into stress that reduces it food intake for a sufficient period of time ... there is window that follows when food is abundant where growth rate is high and food conversion is more efficient (lower FCR). This increased efficiency and increased gain "compensates for" the period of stress or starvation.

There must be a good explanation for it but it is probably multifaceted making it difficult to the isolate contributions of differing effect. One of the more obvious possible underlying causes is that fish lose weight but not frame during starvation. In other words they get a lot thinner but rarely shorter (unless the starvation is severe). When a fish is exposed to abundant food after such a period, the food is converted into growing fatter first. It just makes sense that this conversion is more efficient than having to grow larger bones, fins and organs. Another contributor may be suppressed gonosamitic growth. In other words the productions of eggs and sperm is subdued during compensatory growth. There may be other effects (e.g. in TP the consumption of food also increases ... they are hungrier than controls) but how does one separate all the these by their separable contributions?

Your typing sounds so beautiful.

He's got it, doesn't he!...along with the urge to share and teach. I always enjoy reading JP's posts (even though some of them are beyond my understanding).

I will say some post I read a few times. They are sometimes still over my head. Even a dummy like me can pick up some knowledge from them (sometimes).

Guys there are a bunch of studies on compensatory feeding or growth. It involves a comparison of feeding methods and growth for example feeding every day a certain amount vs feeding the same amount but skipping a day. So lets say you feed one pound of feed a day for a week or 7 lbs. Using compensatory feeding you would feed 2 lbs one day and the next day 0 - same amount over a week but spread out. You get the idea - the concept is better growth with short periods of no food. That is what they are talking about in the SRAC fact sheets.

But there is a difference with HSB as they are one of only a few predator fish who can digest/use carbs in their diet. So they get not only the lipids and proteins in fish food but can use the carbs also. They can become morbidly obese on higher carb fish food if given to much.

I like your attitude. Since I'm often away from the pond, my compensatory feeding strategy is to let the feeders go empty for a few days. Some may call it laziness, cheapness, or thoughtlessness, but they are just science deniers.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

I wish the TH feeder I have had the ability to do skip day feeding. Needs a 7 day clock rather than just a 24 hour. Kind of like our house thermostat where days of the week can be programmed differently.

Thoughts. What is the goal of compensatory feeding? ewest says ..."on compensatory feeding or growth. It involves a comparison of feeding methods and growth, for example ,,,, feeding every day a certain amount vs feeding the same amount but skipping a day. So lets say you feed one pound of feed a day for a week or 7 lbs (total). Using compensatory feeding you would feed 2 lbs one day and the next day 0 - same amount over a week but spread out."

Thoughts. Weekly on the days where extra feed is added for instance 2 lbs one day with the regular 5day - one pound additions, WHO actually gets most of the extra pellets of the 2 lbs? Is it the usual main pellet feeding fish(hogs) or is the main surplus of pellets of the 2 lbs eaten by the more numbers of the less aggressive perimeter fish who usually do not get their belly full?? The main 'pellet hogs' can only eat so much in a short period of the 2 lb feeding so this leaves some of the extra pellets for those fish that tend to get crowded out on the 1 pound feeding days. In the feeding test/trials the overall fish poundage may increase due to compensatory feeding,,,,, but does this actually favor extra growth of the pellet hogs? IMO the pellet hogs at the end of the compensatory test have been shorted food for 1 day per week but the less aggressive fish get added food on those days when 2 lbs are fed. The end results could have more total fish weight gain but I think it might not make bigger pellet hogs? What is our goal for feeding pellets? Total weight gain and community fish gain or is the goal growth and weight gain of mostly the pellet hogs as mostly aggressive trophy types of fish? At this point I still believe, "every day a fish does not eat is a day it does not grow" - Bob Lusk. This needs more research and who actually benefits most. Pellet feeding overall grows more pounds of fish. But I think compensatory feeding has its biggest benefit for the food market fish growers and not so much a benefit for the regular sport fish pond meisters.

Excellent post, Bill. Goals, as always, must be kept in mind.

If the goal is to grow the biggest BG possible, then perhaps the intermittent feed strategy isn't suitable. But if the goal is maximize LMB growth, it may be a winner in your scenario. Once BG/CNBG reach a certain size, perhaps 8 or 9 inches, even big LMB have trouble swallowing them. HSB are even more limited due to mouth size. Maximizing the number of somewhat smaller BG suitable for LMB and HSB consumption should be a plus for those seeking a bass or striper haven.

Bill the studies are by individual fish not populations of fish. Yes the concept is better for aquaculture operations not sport fish ponds. Also the study answers are not uniform or absolute in its favor. It is more a biological concept/method not a pond fish management tool. The SRAC fact sheets that resulted in this discussion arising are primarily aquaculture related on the raising of HSB.