Pond Boss Forums INTRO Questions & Observations Estimated Age of Channel Catfish Fingerlings

There has been just enough rain in the drainage basin for our creek that it has once again started to flow.

I checked the deepest hole yesterday, and was surprised to see the usual ball of CC fingerlings.

All of the fish are approximately the same size, which I estimate to be 7" long. They look healthy, but their heads look a little too large to me, so I assume they are partially stunted.

The creek went dry last fall, except for a few deep holes - which became stagnant and choked with algae. The water is flowing now, and I see GSF, LMB, gambusia, and some other minnows in the deep holes. However, I suspect the period of "dry creek" did some significant damage to the food chain.

Question 1: Are these fingerlings the right size for an early summer spawn from last year?

Question 2: Would these fingerlings could be a good test for the theory concerning fish that lose growth in their early life cycle have a reduced growth rate, even if they are subsequently placed into a favorable environment?

IF, I ever get a chance to install my CC pond, I was contemplating fin-clipping some CC from the creek and starting them at the same time as the stocker CC. I am going to try to have the CC NOT spawn in the pond, so I am not worried much about hurting the genetic line of the commercial CC.

Any thoughts?

1. Not sure but, without a bunch of groceries in the creek, they could be from last year. I doubt that they would have spawned this year and attained that size.

2. You would have to check on them regularly if you place them in a favorable environment. With BG in the pond they would have a lot of competition for food.

3. Go for it. No downside.

As regards #2; I should have clarified that I am going to try a CC monoculture pond with pellet feeding.

(That should eliminate some of the variables in the experiment.)

I have a spring fed creek on my place. It originates about 200 yards from my fence line. It is on my land for about 150 yards and is a mile from the house. We went through a severe 4 year drought and it dried up. But, prior to that I had stocked it with bluegills, fatheads, bass and cats. They were added to the green sunfish. Some stayed for years because it is a fish’s nature to go upstream in a flood. The guy upstream from me had some of my fish. So, he stocked some fatheads that helped both of us.

Then the next drought hit and we lost them all. However, fish from deeper holes downstream have made their way back to my place with our occasional rains. And, the springs have somehow been refreshed. They are all greens but my kids and grandkids go back there and toss feed to them when they go there. So do I. I enjoy feeding them more than I do the big pond by the house. Nobody fishes for them.

I too like observing the fish in my creek.

They manage to survive in very difficult conditions, so I definitely root for them to prosper when the creek is a favorable environment!

Our property is a little more than 20 miles upstream from the larger river. A neighbor said they once pulled out a 40# flathead at their place - from a creek that usually runs only 6" deep, or less.

Two years ago I had a bunch of 3' long gar in a hole on our portion of the creek.

All of those fish apparently liked swimming upstream to find "greener pastures"!

Should be a great test.

There is evidence that periods of starvation lead to better feed conversion. Eric has mentioned this many times describing it as compensatory feeding (the scientific description of the feeding technique). So in essence, a fish "compensates" for not having been fed for one period by increasing its consumption (relative to body weight) in the next period.

I have often wondered whether the reason big headed stunted fish got that way by being bigger and experiencing atrophy or whether the energy consumed preferentially grows the head. Considering arguments from both sides my hunch is that atrophy is the most likely cause. When a fish does not eat, it uses itself as food to meet its metabolic requirements.

Fish that atrophy grow allometrically (proportion growth in the three dimensions) where continued growth continues to reflect the period of earlier starvation. Now that said. Growth is a mathematical function and so this doesn't mean that their growth rates will not exceed that of comparable length fish that did not earlier experience starvation. There is start weight and an end weight from which the growth is calculated. So a fish that looks in bad condition at the start probably won't look "quite right" after a grow out even if its specific growth rate and conversion exceeded that of the other normal looking fish.

When working with fish that are in a stunted condition, the expectation should be adjusted to the situation. Yes, one can get great growth from them in a grow out and produce food economically. However, one shouldn't expect this growth to undo the morphology that earlier arose from starvation. A stunted LMB pond isn't going to grow a trophy from existing aged and stunted fish. But one thing I can say is this. If 9" stunted LMB are moved to a pond with GSF and no LMB competition in September ... they can grow to 13 to 14 inches by the following April. I know this because I did it. That's remarkable when considering that they increased in weight at least 3 fold over the cooler half of the year.