Pond Boss Forums INTRO Questions & Observations Learned something about LMB

Spent Tues and Weds down helping our Black Bass Guru's at the hatchery. Tuesday am draining ponds I was watching as backs of fish started to appear.. within 30 minutes we were slinging nets up to the trucks with LMB that were in the 4-9lb range. Then the boss says lets head to the male pond and fill the other truck. 45 minutes or so later, we were transferring 4-7lb fish into truck #2.. I didn't ask any questions until we were back inside unloading pit tagged fish. I had about a 5.5lb bass in my net in salt dip waiting to be scanned and told which spawning tank to put this girl in when Hatchery Bio say "Boy", tank 4.. I'm like.. wth??? As it turns out I learned they don't even put a male into use until it reaches the 4 mark. I always believed males were seldom over 17" and maybe 3lbs max for northern bass. I was wrong. We scanned every fish and placed in 1 of 4 9,000 gal tanks/runs indoors and there wasn't a single fish under 4.5lbs
Weds was the day we moved fish that were either pit tagged as 3lb range or untagged fish needing sexed and tagged as new stock to finish the 100 pairs of breeders, so I got some hands-on for sexing and pit tagging.
Maybe not that big of a deal but I had a short convo with Lusk about these males and he was a bit surprised as well.
Next time I nail a 5-7lb LMB I will no longer just assume it to be one of the girls!

So I guess when it comes to sexing, size doesn't always matter. Oh-kay...

On a more, uh, serious note, at one time Lake Murvaul in Texas was noted for large male LMB. Northern strain, I think. There were even some attempts to breed them, if I recall correctly, to see if there were positive genetic factors at work. Never heard much about this for years, I assume it didn't pan out.

Makes you wonder if unusually large male LMB can also contribute along with the big mommas to genetically superior offspring.

O.K. I gotta ask, how do you sex the bass and what % of that is done correctly?

Cody note - Yes inquiring minds and many of us are very interested in that method of separating male, female LMbass. Based on what I know about YP, I suspect the technique becomes more accurate as the fish grows bigger and has spawned a few times.

Kenny,

Do you happen to know the source of their genetic stock that was producing such large males of Northern LMB?

We used capillary tubes 75mm long. The fish is anesthetized, the tube is inserted in the inverted, sedated fish very carefully. when resistance is felt you apply your finger tip over the tube and extract. You either have a sign of egg or milt. it is 100% certainty. I learned there is a very delicate "feel" to going in far enough to get the results you need.
When the sex is determined, the fish is pit tagged, recorded and moved to freshwater containment. As long as fish returns to normal behavior it's placed in the spawning containment structure.

Rod: these are fish that come from previous years tank spawned fish, from Kansas. We sexed and tagged some new fish from Colorado on Wednesday that are grown from small fingerlings in the Kansas Hatchery systems. The only fish that are used are those that reach at least 4lbs, no tags no sexing until then.

Snipe, what do they use to knock the fish out?

Clove oil?

Conventional wisdom (based on lots of data) is that adult female LMB are typically significantly larger than the males.

I think the results you are seeing are extraordinary in some way!

I don't know if it is genetics, if their tank temperatures are the optimum temperature for male northern LMB growth rates, if this particular strain is perfectly adapted for converting the exact diet they are feeding, etc.?

Or, if the conventional wisdom is just plain wrong.

Did your gurus think this was an exceptional crop of males? Or joke that they can grow their male LMB 2#s larger than the fisheries people in Colorado?

Smart people have been trying to optimize LMB growth genetics for a long time. I am just asking lots of questions, because anytime we find out that the "conventional wisdom" is wrong, it usually means there is some important factor that was not even considered in the studies.

For a male northern (or any Largemouth strain for that matter) to be so large is definitely extraordinary. Actually, those numbers are probably similar to the odds of being struck by lightning. Seriously. For a male to be so big, lots of factors come into play. Genetics--absolutely. Environmental conditions near perfect, plus all that fish needs to eat. Not only all it needs to eat, but some serious nutrition as well. I'd bet those fish have been genetically selected and nurtured at that hatchery for a long, long time. They probably exchange broodfish as young fish grow into their size range criteria, but males so large are rare.

Regarding the Murvaul story, that lake did have something special going on. It was the first (and only) lake I know of it Texas where northern strain bass grew into double-digits. That happened under TPWD famed biologist Charles Inman's watch. That was before Florida bass started their influence in Texas public waters.

Rod, They don't put any fish into spawning tanks until mid Feb every year. These fish are held in 1 acre ponds as soon as eggs are collected in spawning mats, they go back to ponds. The primary forage for these are Koi. They raise Koi in separate ponds just for forage use and they dump a butt-load of Koi into each acre pond containing Females in one, Males in another. Several thousand pounds of Koi are used in each during the year. I talked to the Hatchery Bio today and ask about genetics. He says nothing special but they only tag fish above the 3 mark and if they make 4 the following year, they go into spawning tanks, but Koi is the key to their system. He says 5lbs on proper forage is no problem for a male and very common. Some of the fish we moved were up to 12 yrs old.

The questions of Nature (Heritage/Genetics) and Nurture (Environment) will, I suppose, never be resolved. The arguments have been going on a long time. To be sure, both appear to have merit, but not in the absence of the other and not without variation (uncertainty).

Ketona Lake in Alabama yielded the two largest BG ever recorded. It did so with no management whatsoever. The BG in the lake were not naturally there. Ketona Lake was a pit mine that was abandoned and allow to fill from ground water. So the BG in the lake were probably stockings from a State or private hatchery .... but no different than the BG provided to many other impoundments. Yet Ketona Lake produced exceptional BG. Later, the DOW experimented with Ketona Lake BG to determine the difference that the genetics contributed to growth. What they found is that the Ketona Lake progeny had no genetic propensity to grow larger or faster than BG that they were selecting in their hatcheries. This particular case demonstrates the importance of environment for growth and ultimate weight. Without a conducive environment it is not possible to grow trophy fish.

Yet even in a conducive environment not all fish are equal. Some grow faster than others while some live longer than others while some strike artificial lures more frequently than others, etc. Fish, it seems, are individuals. This seems to have worked for millions of years for the LMB particularly. From time to time, I'll give thought to what makes fish grow faster. Whatever it may be, there is one variable that must be met. The energy/nutrient needs for such growth (plus any other metabolic consumption the fish has). So I have to wonder, is what differentiates fast growers from slower growers (growing in the same environment) mostly determined by how much they consume? Where a population shares an environment, is this determined by learning, hormones driving hunger response, inclination to various hunting strategy? To what extent does the last variable play in metabolic consumption requirements (conversion efficiency)? So the cause of variation among individuals may be rather complex, probably more complex than these traits alone.

Artificial selection focuses concentrating specific genes so that the progeny of succeeding generations possess the traits desired of the line. This is just a fancy way of saying that artificial selection is the art of "in-breeding". To be sure, any line that produces predictable traits in offspring has a high degree of inbreeding. What is lost are those traits that natural selection has historically favored.

Yet, in terms of benefits of artificial selection and the domestication of species, inbreeding dependable genetic lines to yield predictable traits can reduce the variability of the desired traits. For example, it can yield a line that produces offspring that are more likely to exhibit growth near the maximum with less variation about its mean. Now to be sure, there is no vacuum. The environment HAS to produce the food these fish require for this growth to occur. So how many give any thought to what this means for an initial stocking rate or culling rate for such artificially selected fish? The environment of anyone's water has a limit and if one is putting faster growers in, then they will more rapidly reach the environment's capacity.

We make a HUGE deal about genetics but most of the time that isn't what is limiting fisheries. More often, the environmental conditions are not conducive to growth and ultimate weights.

I am learning all kinds of new things in this thread!

I had no idea that they used Koi as the primary forage for hatchery bass in Kansas.

Presumably, the Koi are highly efficient at converting their feed into fish weight? Or the Koi are more readily digestible than some other spinier alternatives?

Does anyone know what they feed the Koi to start the food cycle that ends with large LMB?


P.S. My wife also uses "butt-load" as a unit of measurement. I believe it is approximately 1/2 of a "butt-ton" on her scale.

I hope everyone on the forum successfully raises a "butt-ton" of their preferred fish this year!

Rod, Koi are just a perfect size/shape to maximize what goes in their mouth fills every dead spot, if you know what I mean.
I did ask the question about BG and the response was that they can't get more weight gain in the same time period with BG as they can with Koi (read pretty Carp). Now, it seems obvious to me this is a hatchery deal, as I don't think we would ever put that type of poundage of pretty carp in our fishing ponds. I'm guessing energy spent on a Koi that doesn't have much fear of the predators is minimal so growth is real good. A month ago, they talked me into purchasing some koi to fatten my smb prior to spawn and they have disappeared much quicker than I expected in 53 deg water, but my smb are FAT. Now I'm using some adult FHM available at all times as well in the tanks and I've found some of the smaller YP I trap at the 3" or so mark disappear quickly as well, but those are fish I can grow and sell later.
I think butt-load and azz-ton are closely related.

From sources I have read, Koi are domesticated common carp that are artificially selected for desirable traits. Koi are dogs where common carp are wolves ... so to speak.

Common carp are very energy dense relative to say BG. I didn't realize there was such a difference but one source tabling laboratory determined energy showed common carp wet weight energy density to be 7524 J/g. Compare this with BG at 4186 J/g . So by wet weight common carp are almost 80% more energy dense than BG. There are more fusiform in shape and soft rayed as well. To be sure, provided they are the right size they are a superior source of food. Given the Koi's common heritage, I suspect Koi are also much more energy dense than are BG. As to why the state uses Koi instead of common carp? Perhaps they can sell koi which have grown too large for forage but are not needed for brood? I could see this as possible financial support of the hatchery. Snipe ... what are your thoughts?

Another possible candidate as a replacement for koi are big-mouth buffalo. A benefit would be better water clarity and high standing weights with extensive fertilization. I don't know how the energy density of BM buffalo compares with carp (though probably isn't as high) which would undermine the benefit. Their growth rate is faster too but I do think YOY BM Buffalo would be especially suited to supply yearling LMB the second summers growth where if stocked at sufficient density grow to length of 6 to 8 inches by fall.

The energy density of all life is tightly co-related to ash-free dry weight. So the percentage of water in the wet weight sample is the primary contributor to wet weight energy density.

jpsdad, we were chucking anything 13-14" or bigger up onto bank if it was in a net. All other koi collected went into a separate pond for future forage production. The hatcherys' trade stock back and forth for different projects so I'm sure some of that comes into play also.

Another reason hatcheries raise koi for bass food is volume they can raise with very little effort. A little bit of feed goes a long way with koi and they can raise hundreds of pounds in a small pond.

Bob, would it make sense to raise koi in a forage pond? They are slow & very visible compared with common carp, and could feed both my LMB and HSB. Obviously I don't want koi taking over, but is that really a risk in a pond with a strong population of 2 to 10 lb predators?

Don't forget that the hatchery system is using the feeder koi (color carp) in a contained controlled system i.e. hatchery ponds that are drainable and seineable. Uneaten too big, turbidity causing koi can be periodically removed to prevent unwanted recruitment.

Frank,

You make a good point that koi will be more vulnerable than common carp due to standing out.

I can't venture a guess as to how many will grow past predation. Some probably would. Swingle, found goldfish would and so they (colorwise) are just as vulnerable but if they grow slower than koi (which they probably do) then one might expect koi to be more successful at evading predation. Carp and koi can grow large so it doesn't take many large ones to have an impact.

In extensive systems carp can usually not be grown to large standing weights. It really depends on the extent to which they increase turbidity. But they can muddy things up and reduce primary production. Swingle found a niche with them where he grew a combination yielding ~160 lbs/acre Carp (102/acre) and ~660 lbs/acre of Big Mouth Buffalo (918/acre). Under the same treatment of fertilization but with same total number of fish (~1020 fish/acre) only 278 lbs/acre of carp were produced. The carp worked against fertilization by muddying the water and their foraging was limited to the benthos. The combination produced marginally more than Big Mouth Buffalo alone (by about 25 lbs per acre) something that Swingle credited to the Carp's benthic niche which did not compete with the BMB. The key was restricting numbers of Carp so that turbidity did not overly restrict primary production for the BMB. In essence, Swingle was employing polyculture as had been done in Asia for centuries but using an American species for the pelagic planktivore (eg BMB in lieu of BigHead Carp)

IMHO its really hard to beat MOZ TP which is also more energy dense than BG though not as dense as carp. You never have to worry about supporting a heavy standing weight of "too big to eat" ones as long as they die out each winter.

Debbie and I had 30 huge koi in one of our small ponds at LL,2. She loved the color, watching them dance around pond's edge during their spawning ritual, and the fact they showed up and could be seen. Me, on the other hand, really didn't want them becoming dominant with numbers. That pond worked out because we had enough bluegills in there (we fed the fish very well) to make sure any baby koi didn't have much chance to survive to adulthood.

I don't like the risk factor of using them as a forage fish. Even if 99% get eaten in a 10-15 acre lake, that means enough survive to start a population. At that point, you are trading problems. For us, Debbie wanted color. For me, I didn't want them to establish.

One other little factor...when koi are hatched, they are the same color as carp. Some change colors and become beautiful, others don't. We ended up with several carp-colored koi in our pond at LL,2.

I don't recommend them as forage in a bass fishing lake. It makes sense at a hatchery with total control.

Some claim koi do not cause water turbidity. I then ask why do clear water koi backyard ponds have to have an elaborate extensive water filtration system to keep the water clear so one can see the fish on the bottom of the pond/pool?. Clear water is a relative term. 'Clear' pond water IMO is when you can easily see the koi or fish in 5 to 7 ft of water. I have seen some ponds where you could see the bottom in 16 and even 18 ft of water. When one can only see the koi or fish in shallow water or when the fish are at the surface then that water technically has enough suspended solids to classify the water as cloudy or turbid. Water clarity of 16" to 3ft is not 'clear' water in the technical, limnological meaning of clear water.

Example - What if you awakened and you could only see 2-3 feet or even 4-5ft in front of you? How would you define the clarity of the air - maybe as a dense fog was present or you were still dreaming?

What really is clear water?. Very or ultra clear water exists in some lakes. Crater Lake OR has a water clarity of 100-134ft deep. Lake Tahoe NV has average water clarity of 100ft. Lake Superior has water clarity that ranges from 27ft to 90ft. Suspended particles as mainly phytoplankton and tiny organic detritus and or clay-silt particles create most of the cloudiness of water.

See this from:

CLEAR AND MURKY WATER - Alexander Lee with edits by B.Cody

Perhaps the most striking quality of a lake or pond and one of the first things you notice about any body of water—is its color. Lakes and ponds can come in a wide variety of colors, from the clear blue waters of Lake Tahoe to the murkier opacity of many lakes in the Northeast or your pond. To be clear, no pun intended, no single color is better than the other, and every water body has its unique benefits. But why is there such a range in color among lakes across the United States?

No lake is 100 percent consistent in its coloring; depending on the season, climate, and a multitude of other factors, the appearance of every lake is always changing. But some lakes are indeed naturally much clearer than others. The clarity is generally due to low levels of algae, which occurs when the soils surrounding a lake are fast draining and healthy. Soils with high levels of plant nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus can spur the growth of algal blooms, which further muddy the waters by supporting increased fish populations. The clarity of these lakes causes them to appear blue to the human eye. Unaffected by algae and other detritus, the relatively pure water of these lakes absorbs longer-wavelength red, orange, and yellow light, causing mostly blue light to reflect outwards.
On the flip side, certain lakes can appear particularly green or olive due to high levels of algae with pigments. If the environment surrounding a lake hits the right nitrogen and phosphorus levels, light levels, temperature, and pH, some for or type of algae are likely to run rampant. Most algae are completely harmless. As a hearty fish food, algae can even be beneficial for lakes stocked for fishing. However, lake homeowners should be wary of certain harmful algae. Filamentous green algae can be a big nuisance and some forms of Cyanobacteria can produce harmful health related toxins.

While some murky lakes are green, others have a brownish color or hue. A more pleasant-sounding term, lake connoisseurs call them tea colored. In reality, brown stain lakes are just as vibrant and healthy as their clear counterparts. Water can become tea-colored when tannins from plants in or near a lake leach into it, steeping the lake as with water in a teacup. There’s nothing inherently unsafe about swimming or boating in tea-colored water; the only real danger presented by this murkier type of lake is that submerged logs or other underwater objects might be more difficult for swimmers to spot.

Since the colors of most lakes are continually shifting, there aren’t many hard-and-fast statistics about lake colors in America. But the general trends are clear enough. Studies done between 2007 and 2012 found that the proportion of clear-water lakes in America dropped by 18 percent, while murky lakes increased in number by nearly 12 percent. While this change isn’t inherently bad, researchers warn that such a rapid shift indicates that human factors are having a significant impact on the composition of the world’s lakes. If your hometown lake goes from clear blue to bright green, it might be worth bringing in an expert to figure out what’s going on.

Thanks for all of the great replies and brain storming about the advantages & disadvantages of using Koi.

It sounds like they are similar to the utility of gizzard shad. The perfect food for rapidly adding weight onto your LMB population, UNTIL they become too large for predation. At that point the optimal forage fish becomes a detriment to your pond.

It appears that Koi should only be a consideration for ponds that can be drained or cleared with rotenone every few years. Not a common situation for most Pond Bossers, but I suspect there are a few specialty projects where it could be advantageous.

An update to answer some questions here..
Yesterday I got to go finish sexing and pit tagging the remaining fish. I also got a lot more direct with some questions and I want to share the answers I was given.
I ask the hatchery manager about genetics and how he felt they fit in his program. He said genetics didn't really seem to play a huge role, but adding several thousand pounds of koi into a 1 acre male only, and a 1 acre female only pond, each containing between 100 and 150 fish makes it all happen.
I ask about conversion rates and this year, the conversion was just over 6lbs of Koi to produce 1lb of Bass, now, with that said, not a very big % of Koi are eaten on day 1 so some of those have some growing time and may weigh 2-3 times original stocking weight at the point of consumption, so there are other factors to what the true number would be in a hatchery vs a pond. But basically, the bass never has to work and therefore just grows.
I also found out our Manager there worked in Texas for the state before coming back to his home state. He made it clear that he brought some Texas knowledge in and applied as needed to make this facility what it is.
I also learned a bit more about our Hatchery chief bio there and found that he was a student of the late Dr. Willis and has a framed letter behind his desk that was written in regards to him being one of the best students he'd ever had the pleasure of having in a class and really looked forward to amazing work from him in his endeavors. So, I feel like these guys are pretty sharp guys and I believe them when they tell me they can't put anything else in the ponds to make LMB grow any faster than they do now. The biologist actually said the first 3 years they see males often growing faster than females.
I did find the comment about genetics a bit confusing but I think I understand a few things now that I didn't think about before this.
I might also add that as these ponds are drained to collect fish, there is another team present taking care of sorting the correct size Koi to go into the ponds these Bass will be put back into. The bigger Koi are removeable every year.

Kenny,

Thanks for getting even more information from some of our local fisheries experts and posting it to Pond Boss.

I have learned a lot from this thread and obviously need to bookmark it for future reference!

It appears you will be doing more work in the future with that group. Any chance you can use your powers of persuasion to get them onto the Pond Boss forum, or get them to write an article for the magazine?

In my experience, academics that are out in the "real world" frequently like to go back to their roots and might enjoy a chance to publish again - even if it was as small as a post on the forum.

I'll be 100% honest Rod, These guys have been pinned down so tight on hours worked they have little time to do something such as write a news letter or something like that. The field Bio's are required to do I think a monthly news letter (maybe quarterly)?? and they are controlled by those at the top that ....count..... beans, maybe? I'm back on the Walleye program in 15 days and the Bass guru's will be babysitting the wally eggs.. I can ask but I can "almost with certainty" tell you what I will be told..... and I should be honest here also in saying that what they allow me to be a part of is not really normal procedure so I have to watch my P's n Q's.. These guys are getting me hands-on that can't be bought-to help me succeed .. I have to be careful of what I might ask of them you might say.