Pond Boss Forums MANAGING AN EXISTING POND Feeding Feeding with more protein, but less feed

Ok the posts that involved a somewhat similar topic were erased when pond boss switched servers so i will try again.

Here's my theory, i understand that the more protein fish have the faster they grow. So instead of feeding the 32% protein for 15 minutes, feed the 41% protein (or higher) in what Meadowlark likes to call a 5 minute frenzy. This in theory should help growth, cut down costs fo feed, and make fish more apt to feed on natural forage. Therefore, making them easier to catch.

The question is though, is 41% protein enough to keep the same growth rates?

Do you think the fish would grow just as fast, or slower? And if slower how much slower?

What are your thoughts on this subject?

P.S. I will be gone up to my pond for a couple days . Will try to be back soon

Thanks - Jighead

jighead I hope others respond to this question. I could not respond to your other question b/c linked to old server i guess. Do what you will, some food will help growth. I think the fish might eat less if fed higher protein??

We manage about 50 ponds with feeders. IMHO I disagree with many folks here on this subject. The fish are healthier than ever and seem to bite more agressively than prior to supplemental feeding program.

I have a much larger data base to pull from other than just a pondowner with one pond. I have not been the pond of many folks here but feel fish are not biting for other reaons rather than "feeding too much". I agree I like the food gone in 5-10 mins not 15 mins. I also agree feeding program not cheap, but how much did the pond cost, how much are the fish you stock. By feeding you have much better growth rates especially catfish and trout. So your choice I just wanted to stress not everyone thinks feeding too much results in poor fishing success, in fact I think quite the oppostie.

I believe I could feed the entire bag and the fish would eat it all. I caught a 7 pound CC that looked like it was 9 months pregnant. However, I don't use an automatic feeder. They only get fed when I show up on weekends.

Greg,

I'm not so sure that we disagree on this as much as you think. We agree on the "15" minute rule, we agree that higher protein probably would make up for some reduction in feeding, and we agree that feeding is not cheap, but isn't bankruptcy either compared to the cost of other pond related things, e.g. construction.

We differ perhaps on the question of feeding and catchability of fish....and yes I don't have 50 ponds, but know when a fish is full it isn't as likely to eat my flies as when it is hungry. I believe the trick is finding the right balance between growth and catchability.

Also, it is likely that I have different objectives than most of your clients. I am striving for a pond eco system that needs no chemicals whatsoever.

I consider algae feed. Yes, algae is feed for LMB and HSB. Crazy? I don't think so.

Tilapia eat copious amounts of algae and produce prolific numbers of offspring which are consumed by the LMB and HSB. I am in effect feeding the LMB algae. As a rancher I really raise grass, not cows. I like to apply that same common sense to Ponds.

I like that system far better than adding fertilizer, then using herbicides to kill the algae and weeds that result from the fertilization and then having huge muck build up problems and DO problems. (and as an aside, artificial feeding adds significantly to that muck also)

I just happen to believe there is a better way. I feed the Tilapia algae, they feed my HSB and LMB. I catch the LMB and HSB. I like that system. It works for me. Maybe it won't work for others....

Jighead, I hope I didn't get too far off topic and that this helps you with your own decisions on managing your pond.

M-L I agree we are not that far off. I can only dream of using algae as food for bass and agree you are doing that with tiliapia we just can not legally stock in GA or I would. However with our fertilization program we get less fialmentous algae than with lakes that do not get fertilized. Get why?

this leads to next point I disagree about fed adding to algae. If not over fed and consumed by fish and lake build right this may aid in phyto production not algae.

Ok, back to major point. I feel the opposite on fish biting. Most sportfish are oppurtunistic feeders. When fishing ponds which is rare for me working so much I can catch bass that are very skinny b/c of hunger but also in other ponds mgmted right super fat healthy bass. We try to manage for these. WHy do they bite when full? Because they have plenty of energy to chase lure b/c not using up all the enrgy to try to gain weight. So you see two phiolosphies on why they bite. Your point is easy to understand for many mine maybe not so easy but I strongly agree to be true.

On bluegill, I wish you could come to some of clients ponds. Huge bluegill that readily bite about anything that hits the water, fat and ready to hit a fly.

Greg, I like the fact that you are using 50 lakes from which to develop your opinion. I'm to the point of considering stopping feeding. It's getting to the point that some of the fish won't eat anything but pellets. It's a lot of food value for very little energy expended. I've cut back on feeding greatly and that has helped. I don't care about large size or growth rates which we certainly get with pellets. What is important to me is high catch rates. We have fairly high fishing pressure, all catch and release, and commonly catch the same fish 50 or more times per year. Any thoughts?

I have huge BG that readily hit flies...I'll match the size of my BG with anyone. I've never complained about BG catchability, never. My complaint is LMB catchability, which is accerbated by excessive artificial feeding of BG (IMHO)

Sorry, my experience with lots of salt water and fresh water predator fish says that when they are full, satisfied, they are less likely to eat than otherwise. If your logic was true, I should feed all fish to satiation before going fishing so that they would have lots of energy to "feed" on my lures. Sorry, Greg just don't buy that one.

One of the strongest theories that I hold is that catchability is most strongly influenced, not by hunger, but by perceived competition.

In other words, if a fish is full or not, if it can see another fish, especially a small aggressive fish that has the chance to snatch the bait away it will respond by "throwing caution to the wind". This could explain some perceptual differences between catchability and its relationship to satiation.

I've watched it personally many times. A fish comes up to the offering, hesitates, then sees one of his buddies making a move to steal it. The results in a sudden "race" to the prize. I personally don't think that any artificial lures look as good to the fish as we think. I believe that a fish is hard-wired to act more quickly and agressively when there is the threat of losing the opportunity.

So, Bruce you believe, like Gregg, that predators should be fed in order to give them the energy they need to be caught by us? A full fish is an easier fish to catch, all other things being equal?

Just does not make sense to me, but I have been wrong before and will be again, but I can't wait to tell my friend in Campeche that he needs to feed the Tarpon before we go fishing so that they will have the energy to bite. I suspect that might result in a deserved loud guffaw.

I agree with Bruce that predators will bite even when full out of competitive instinct. That wasn't the question, I didn't think. The question is, all other things being equal, do predators bite better when full or hungry or does it make no difference?

No, actually I don't feed my fish to satiation. I probably give them about 3/4 of what they would comsume. I'm only saying that I don't believe that you can gauge, or predict agressiveness based on satiety. I think ponds are healthier and less ammonia is produced if fish aren't belching up pellets all the time. I believe that ponds with good clarity and good numbers of YOY fish create better fishing because if a fish isn't aggressive to the lure he's outta luck.

I think satiety is a factor, it's just not the ONLY factor.

Jighead,

See what you started I hope you have found these exchanges interesting and helpful to your decisions regarding what feeding approach is best for you. As you can see, there are many facets to an answer to any question about our ponds...its what makes this so much fun to me...I've got to run to get something to eat so I can have the energy to chase my fish later today

I agree that bass and other predators often "bite" due to instinct or competitiveness or? We have all caught bass that had the tail of a shad or BG or other forage fish sticking out of their gut. Most lures look nothing like normal prey.

I still don't understand why some gamefish hit everything thrown at them and others never hit a lure. The same killer instinct is there in both types, whether hungry or sated. I doubt that I could catch every bass in a forage free pond. I believe that genetics, as Bruce is trying to work on, plays a role; albeit an imperfectly understood role.

Meadowlark,

Due to the instincts and aggressive behavior of predators just because a bass strikes a lure or prey doesn't necessarily mean it intended to eat it. If you sight fish for bass on spawning beds (right, wrong, or indifferent) many times a bass will aggressively hit, peck and even move a lure or prey item with no intent of eating it. It may aggressively strike at a rattle trap or buzz bait because it just buzzed by it's face 10 times, it got mad. It would be hard to remain at the top of any food chain without showing some aggressiveness or being a bully. It's like a bear that just was just fed 20 lbs of doughnuts at a park. It may not be hungry but if you go out there and poke it enough, it'll attack. I believe that's the point everyone is trying to make.

Mike

Great topic, thanks Jighead.

There are a number of reasons , I think , that fish eat/bite or don't. As Dave noted many { I think probably all} are based on genetics. They are hard wired with many traits that we don't know or understand and can only guess at how the traits interact. Some are safety , hunger , dominance , competitiveness , reproduction , and others. Their method of perception is by sences we do not fully understand in fish. Sight , hearing , lateral line , taste etc. For example we don't know all the range of sight that fish have . Can they see a range of light that we can't { UV or IR }?

All of these traits and sences merge into one fish and each can take pirority under different circumstances. For example there may be 5 LMB in a small area all about 10 in. except one that is 22 in.. Even though the small ones are hungry and would eat your lure they may not try because of safety concerns. If one attacks and the big fish does not respond then all may go after the lure out of competition. The big fish might out of anger {dominance] hit your lure because the lure along with the other small bass in its area were just to much.

If you catch nothing in the area you may think it is lack of aggressive fish or they are full, if you catch one of the small LMB it is because the big ones are not catchable , and if you catch the big one it is because you are a great pond mgr. and fisherman. LOL. In reality none of those assumptions would be correct.

I read a study {will post if I can find} that concluded that in a pond with BG/RE and LMB that a large % of LMB { ? 50 %} will never bite a lure , that another 25 % might bite a lure under the right circumstances , and that 25% would bite a lure and would do so repeatedly. It did not say why this was so probably because there were to many reasons and not enough answers.

I think all of the posts above have truth in them but no one answer explains the total relationship. One thing is clear , there is much we do not know and need to learn . ewest

green head,

I was attempting (perhaps poorly) to focus the discussion on a "full" predator vs a "not so full" predator, to address the original question regarding amounts to feed on this thread.

Certainly there are many factors, spawning, competition, and genetics perhaps being the foremost among them, that influence the decision to eat or not. The thread, however, was about feeding artificially, not those other factors.

A common engineering approach to answering a question is to isolate only on the variable directly involved in the question. Thats what I meant by "all other things being equal".

If you could take all the other variables out of the equation, e.g. genetics, etc. is a "full" predator more likely to bite lures than a "not so full" predator? Does a "full" predator bite lures better than a "not so full predator" becasue it has more energy from being fed as Greg stated?

Maybe what you guys are saying is that it is impossible for you to take the other variables out of the equation and I can accept that. But I simply can't accept that, all other things being equal, a "full" predator will bite lures better than a "not so full" predator because it has more energy from the artificial food. Nope, just don't buy that. Don't shoot me, but I just don't buy it.

I think the difference of opinions is based more on the variables not being stricktly defined. To me a "full" fish means he is stuffed with food, natural or other wise. To me this fish will be less motivated to hit a lure due to hunger. A well fed fish (not completely stuffed) will be healthy and have energy and motivation to feed more. A hungry fish ( lack of nutrition) will probably want to feed but might not have the energy to chase food, or compete with other healthier specimens. Now that being said, hunger is only one of several factors that cause fish to hit lures. Curiosity, reflex reaction to fleeing prey, territorialness (is that a word?), and competition are other factors that cause fish to "strike" not necessarily eat a lure. Just my $.02
Very interesting topic guys keep it up!!!

Outstanding discussion! Thanks to all. I just may pass on fishing tomorrow and re-read this thread several times.

And only 2,100 of us have access to this great information. The rest of the "average Joes" will have to just stumble along blindly.

Dang, I love this site........

Dan

Looks like I stirred up a hornets nest. Ok M-L if you read my post I never said they bite better when full. I just gave example of catching them when skinny and when full and healthy. I understand your point and my answer is I do not know which will bite better.

THis brings me to my point...I as a pond manager I try to grow as many pounds and as many large bass as I can for a client concerned with these goals. So do I slow down feeding b/c I think they will can catch more fish? No way. Norm not sure on this you might be right about better catches when not feeding. Feeders going off and fish feeding like crazy seems to have little effect on catchability. THus I do it to promote better growth on bluegill and thus better growth on bass.

I think most of my clients have private ponds with little fishing pressure. This I beleive to be the #1 reason for catchability.

So if fishing pressure is #1 then why not try to grow as many as you can this means fertilizing if low fertility right conditions, as many forage species as conditions warrant, and supplemental feeding.

Sorry Jighead this is so far off topic maybe we should put this under another thread?

I don't believe fish feel hunger in the sense we relate to it. A fish's reaction to a lure, forage or fish food is predetermined by instinct.
I don't think a fish knows it is hungry. The same as it doesn't know it is stunted.
However, I agree with Greg in that a big fat preditor is more likely to be agressive.
I don't have alot of ponds to base this on but I do have quite a few years of fishing to reflect on & the big (full?) bass always hit harder than the skinny (hungry?) ones.

ML,
Your approach to feeding your bass is what most pond owners would like to achieve. I commend you & hope to mimic it. A somewhat self sustaining ecosystem. Some people though enjoy seeing their fish come to feed.
Will it make a difference whether the bass are full from eating pellets or tilapia?

If I am not mistaken, that was a popular diet plan, Atkins?, until a few months ago, eat all the protein you want and cut out the carbs. Didn’t work for people, but who knows with fish.
Some tilapia are being breed to be kinder, gentler fish, so that they are easier to handle at harvest. Also, stripped bass were fed diets containing fish oil and were able to live and breed in northern climates. So maybe diet alone is not an answer, need to add in genetics as well if you want big fish that bite..
I do know that immediately after feeding my fish, they are easier to catch, I know these fish are not “full”, they certainly are fat. I think they are not unlike the double breasted cormorant, they will only stop eating to rest.

Let's break down Jighead's original question.

He initially makes the supposition that feeding higher protein feed for a shorter period of time will cut down on feed costs, improve growth, improve utilization of natural food sources and improve catchability.

My answer to Jighead would be that growth rates would be influenced only to the extent that additional natural forage is indeed available for the number of fish that he has to take the place of the calories now unavailable to the fish through pellet feeding. Feeding five minutes instead of fifteen means that the fish will receive approximate 33% as much feed but with about 25-30% more protein.

.33 X 1.25 = .4125

This means he is artificially supplying about 41% as much protein. If he has increased his fish biomass in his pond through a previous feeding program, then these fish will need to look elsewhere to fill their bellies. If there is additional food available, and the additional calories burned by the fish pursuing and capturing this food source is also replaced, then growth rates will be comparable to what he had before.

Furthermore, he believes that the catchability will improve by using this feeding method. I think that the discussion since his original post has somewhat addressed this but ultimately it depends on the species, individual makeup of the fish, time of year, and a myriad of other factors. The best way to answer the question would ultimately be to try the new method and keep logs of how catch rates improve, or worsen.

My guess is that growth rates will initially slow and that the overall pond biomass will adjust to the new feedings. I also believe that the fish will be very agressive immediately after these "teaser" feedings, making the fish easier to catch for a while. How the pond's fishability adjusts after this change will depend on continued availability of natural forage and whether or not the same number of fish remain in the pond.

I agree with Bruce in part, total calories are a bigger issue than protein alone. Protein, fat and carbohydrates all convert to calories.
But, I believe that the answer to the question lies more in a bell curve than a straight line equation. 10% eat most of the food, 10% eat the least and the other 80% somewhere in the middle. So that no matter what you fed them, them meaning any or all fish, they would wind up proportionally the same. The bigger, stronger just get more, regardless of how much you feed, or don’t, or what natural food is available.
I have 100 fish of the same species, all were approximately 1 1/2” long when I got them. Now they range from 6” to 11”, per my fishing log, thanks for that idea Theo . I watch them eat almost every day, the aggressive get to the food first, then a bunch just at the edge of the gluttony and finally the timid hanging around picking up scraps. The big guys come to the surface, mouths open, vacuuming the pellets, not one at a time, but three or four, the timid dart to a stray piece and quickly snatch it and run. But, I believe that Darwin has already cornered the market on this type of heresy.

I had been trying to use pellets for my bg's, most of whom appears to be in the 4" range for months. Few would try it and it seemed like a decent portion would spit it back out.

So I decided to try bread. They are killing the bread and producing the "boiling water" effect. I am still tossing the pellets in for the huge catfish and the grass carp. The turtles also eat the pellets.

Is feeding the fish with bread bad? It appears as though some are taking the pellets after is gets soggy when they finish the bread.

Kevinlp,
Here is a previous post about bread that might be helpful.
http://www.pondboss.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=10;t=000087. It the post doesn't show up run bread in the seach feature under the topic feeding.

kevinlp,

I don't know if you could get to the post that Rad provided or not (I can't)...and I don't know what it said, but bread does not provide the necessary protein for fish growth. It is just basically a filler.

Many have reported on here that it has taken their BG a good while to take to the pellets. In my experience, they readily take the pellets. Be patient and they will learn. I notice the small ones commonly spit out the pellets for whatever reason, too large, too hard, etc. but they eventually consume them.

Bread is not a substitute for pellets...if you are feeding for growth. If you are feeding so that you can catch more fish (under the theory that a full fish is more catchable than one not so full as stated in this thread), then I have no idea if bread works or not for that purpose.

I couldn't get that link to work either.

Meadowlark,
I asked a question I guess you missed so here it is again: ;)

Ther have been posts about fish just not eating certain brands of food. Mine will eat anything.

;) [/QUOTE]

Ric,

I'm sorry I missed your question and its a very good one. I thank you for asking it. I was just too caught up in the discussion and somewhat stunned at the response that full fish hit lures better than not so full fish, all other things being equal.

For the most part, my LMB do not eat pellets, only on occasion and really not that often. They are, however, lined up at the feeders to eat BG, not pellets. They litterally feast on the clouds of small BG that are feeding on pellets. I see it at every feeding. I have fed small amounts by hand and seen it happen right in front of my eyes. I don't want lazy LMB that simply lay in wait for the BG to expose its tender underbelly when feeding. I want sort of hungry LMB that have to earn their keep and food by attacking healthy prey in a natural manner.

I'm kind of old fashioned, I guess. I want an aggressive LMB that does not have a sure thing every 7,12, and 7 o'clock. Tilapia really help.

I hope to achieve a balanced pond, without chemicals of any kind, and without any artificial feeding of any kind. I'm running an experiment this year in a pond I call "Walden" in which that is the rule of engagement. Tilapia are the key ingredient in making this dream a possibility. They eat algae and in turn feed the LMB with their numerous offspring. I call it feeding algae to LMB.

I didn't happen on this without thinking about it for a long time. It may not work, but every indication 6 months into the experiment is that it is working spectacularly. We will see in another year.

Again, thank you for the question and for considering my logic. Also, thank you for the kind words. If you have any other question, I would be most happy to try to answer if I can. I learn from questions and suspect that others do also and this Forum is about learning, for me. Thanks.

Ric,

p.s. I would appreciate your comments and anyone else's on the above answer, either positive or negative comments are welcome.

In the pond where I'm experimenting, I've observed LMB chasing young fish to the dirt, the bank, to try to catch them. I see them actually going airborne to catch their food. I haven't seen that in a long time and never see it in my pond with the feeders, never. I'm encouraged that the F1 LMB may indeed be a more aggressive fish. I'm also continuing to believe that artificial feeding does not promote aggressive LMB.

The F1's that were 4 inches in spring now look to be 8 to 10 inches...but no fishing allowed so I can't tell for sure. Thanks.

On the topic of will more protein and less food raise bigger fish cheaper. I would like to add that the effect of higher or lower protein would also depend on the species of fish. Take ML's talapia that are eating algae but growing though that is not a source substantially high in protein. If ML ran out of algae and fed bread the tilapia would probably still grow quicker with the additional food source, though low in protein. Now the purpose of the Tilapia is to grow and provide a high protein source for the LMB in ML's experimental pond. So would higher protein and less food be as effective would depend on the targeted species and subsequent purpose. Many fish have the characteristics of land animals ie. dogs need protein to grow but cows can grow on grass, the point being the benefit of higher protein may depend on the purpose of the feeding program.

A portion of that answer comes from whether or not the fish of which we speak is a predator (carnivore) or not (herbivore/omnivore).

If a fish is normally designated as a predator, it stands to reason that that fish will grow faster on a diet high in protein.

If a plant eater (tilapia) then perhaps they don't need the protein..similar to cattle, which need some protein, but can get by on starches/carbohydrates.

Matt, that's a really interesting bit of speculation. Keep in mind that fish that aren't considered top end predators in a pond are still carnivores. Sunfish, bluegill etc. eat live organisms, albeit small, all day. They are still in effect predators. I'd like to know if tilapia diets are higher in carbs and starches.

Try this link
http://www.ext.nodak.edu/extpubs/alt-ag/tilapia.htm
I know this had been hashed and rehashed but to just throw less food that contains more protein is not an effect way to raise larger fish. The younger fish that need the elevated protein levels are going to be shut out by the larger fish. More protein cost more money so there would probably not be a cost savings either. Here, a bag of 32% protein costs $1 more than 30%. Then there is the question of what kind of protein are you throwing, fish, mammal or vegetable? Do you feed once a day, younger fish probably need to eat more often than older fish. I think the question is to broad for a definitive answer.

ML,
I agree with your response & as I said aspire to the same self sustaining fishery.

My question was somewhat pointed in that your bass though not full on pellets should have ample oportunity to fill themselves on tilapia.
Therefore if it is true a "full" fish isn't as aggresive your bass should also be difficult to catch.

I don't believe this will be the case.

I still agree with Greg's statement that bigger fish are more aggresive.
I further believe that once fish are stimulated into feeding, whether by pellets or the avalibility of lots of forage fish, they are easier to catch because they are more aggressive.

Ric,

Maybe I didn't explain myself or hypothesis adequately. A LMB that has to catch its food naturally will be more aggressive than a LMB that can just sit back and pick off BG at the feeders. A LMB accoustomed to "gathering" food rather than having it served up to it, will be more likely to chase artificial lures/flies. Thats my hypothesis, that I'm testing out in a pond entirely without feeders.

I believe I will be trading LMB top-end size for aggressiveness. My interest is in having 4 to 8 pound LMB, that can be caught, rather than 8 to 10 pound LMB that can be observed. Hope this helps explain my thinking, which I'll be the first to admit may be completely screwed up.

But I'll say this again, in that Pond, I'm seeing very aggressive LMB behavior, very aggressive. Time will tell, but its fun even if it fails. Thanks for responding.

I have a different observation to offer. For those that remember, I have reason to believe that poachers had hit my pond pretty heavily. I had seen virtually no LMB activity. Then, I added about a dozen or so 6 to 10 inchers from a neighbors bass heavy 1/3 acre pond. You could literally catch one on every cast. After a couple of weeks, it has lit up the place. Once again, I have bass feeding on BG when I feed. Although I understand that nobody is going to catch every fish of any species from any water hole, I believe I had a bass shortage or they were so hook shy that they wouldn't show themselves even though opportunity was always there. The added fish had never had an easy life or even a really square meal. They are agressive. My Grandson and I trapped some small bluegill yesterday to try for catfish. Couldn't keep the bass off but couldn't land any.

So, I have a different scenario than Greg or ML. These fish have always had to hustle for a living and are now in a place where living is easy. And yet, they are still agressive. Time will tell.

Sounds like your situation validated ML's theory, keep them lean and mean and they will bite. He was giving examples of how the bass ran the bait fish to ground in his test pond.

Rad,

Yes, as some say..."now thats what I'm talking about"

Dave my point is that I think full or empty bell is not main factor in catching them. Makes sense to me that skinny bass now have food so they go for it.

M-L answer me this do you think pellet trained bass are more or less agressive? I know from my experience the answer but curious your thoughts on this.

Greg,

Aggressive in what sense? The aggressive trait I want is the aggressiveness to take lures/flies, not pellets.

A LMB trained on pellets is likely to be more aggressive at taking pellets than most other fish, but I'm not interested in fishing with pellets for LMB....HSB are a far better choice in that regard. They grow faster, are better tasting, better fighting, never overpopulate, etc.

There is no doubt in my mind that LMB on feeders are less aggressive at taking lures/flies than those that are not provided with feeders, other things being equal.

With all due respect, I know of no creature in nature that feeds more aggressively when full (or provided handouts) than those that have to earn every meal...applies to all creatures that I have encountered.

Show me some data that says I'm wrong...that shows LMB hit artificial lures/flies better if feed pellets than otherwise. My experience overwhelmingly says otherwise.

Okay, If I want to grow large cows, I feed them all they will eat...if I want to grow large bass, I feed them all they can eat. Yes, agree.

The question is, if I want to catch large bass consistently, are my chances better or worse, if they are fed handouts to satiation vs natural approach, all other things being equal?

I'm not after the record LMB in my ponds. I am after aggressiveness, not fat and lazy. I fish my ponds, regularly. Not infrequently. I would much rather catch 4 to 8 pound bass with consistency than observe 8 to 10 pound bass hanging around the feeders. Depends on your objectives.

M-L take this how you will. This goes back to my core point and why I'm super busy but want to take the time to write. I don't know why but I seem to care about the avg pon owner on this site.

A FED TRAINED BASS WILL HIT A FLY/LURE 10X's better than a regular bass. Part of it is genetics I'm sure. If they will hit something that normally they would not hit that is lying on the water still then they will hit a lure.

Not sure what else to tell you. I hope you know I provide what I think is ture. Hard proof? You can go to some of my private fishing clubs if you want to pay for it. This as close to fact as it gets. I do not mean this with disrespect but if you disagree with this I guess you know more than many biologist and hatcheries that produce these fish mainly for the purpose of being more agressive. I pay big money for fed trained bass for this reason. I stock them in lakes for fly fishing b/c they want an agressive fish and they get it.

On your other post. Most of my clients want like you to catch several 4-5 lb bass instead of a few 8-10 lb bass. Guess what they all have feeders going to maximize growth. They also seem to catch them pretty well. Another point is that if your visibility in the pond is greater than 24 inches (because I know you do not like fertilizing) during the summer and your not feeding the total carrying capapcity is much lower than it could be in the pond. How many 4-5 lb bass do you expect to grow in the 3.5 acre pond?

I'm interested in how the bass respond to you stopping the feeding it might help. However I'm more concerned that folks reading your comments will stop feeding and in reality I know for a fact end up putting less food on the table for the bass.

10x better...that's a bunch Greg. So, by my simple math, if I stop feeding in the one pond, my catch rate will fall by a factor of 10 and in the pond I'm not feeding it will increase by a factor of 10 if I start feeding. Sorry, I don't buy it...my experience says otherwise.

I typically catch 15 to 20 native bass in a 2 hour session in the pond without feeders (that's only a 3/4 acre pond), then I would catch 150 to 200 bass with feeders (or with feed trained bass). Hmmm, don't think so. Or maybe catch 15 to 20 bass in 12 minutes instead of 2 hours, no don't accept that either.

Likewise, if I stopped feeding in the 3.5 acre pond, then the 2 bass I catch in two hours would only be .2 of a bass...in other words, I'd catch nothing. That’s probably more likely, but I don't buy that either.

My participation on the Forum is to learn and share my experiences to help others. There is no financial connection or conflict of interest at all derived from pond stuff. It’s just my passion.

I do wish to help anyone to not make the same mistakes I have made...and I consider stocking Florida strain bass with feeders in a small pond with fishing pressure and catch and release to be the number one mistake I have made and fertilizers to be the number two biggest mistake I have made.

With the advent of the F1’s and the success I’ve had with Tilapia, I believe there is an opportunity to do things better in my ponds. I’m trying that combo out in a newly renovated 2 acre pond. Maybe I will fail miserably. Maybe I will return in that pond to chemicals to fertilize, and then chemicals to kill the stuff the fertilizer created, and then chemicals to remove the dead matter, and so on.

Maybe I will have to feed for 15 minutes or satiation in order to be able to catch any bass. Somehow, I don’t think so. Time will tell. One thing I promise, whatever happens, I will report my experiences here honestly and without any bias whatsoever. If I fail, I will be the first to admit it and write about it.

We always say on this Forum, “it depends on your objectives”. My objectives are to be chemical free, self sustaining, and have a reliable consistent fishery. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

I agree with Greg. My pond was stocked last fall with 200 2-4 inch native LMB. I feed Aquamax 500 2 times a day. Saturday evening about 2 hours before feeding time, I was trying to retrieve a float from about 25 feet out in the water close to my feeder. I was using another float with a bare hook. It took about a dozen cast to get it back in. In the process I caught 2 bass about 7-8 inches long. Maybe it will change when they get to a couple of pounds. Maybe then I'll have to bait the hook!

Greg,
Before we leave this thread and if you have time, are the ponds you speak of, pellet only, no forage fish?

David Cagle,

Try that same tactic after feeding to satiation. That is what I was addressing, that was the question...does a full LMB hit lures/flies better than a not so full LMB, all other things being equal? Greg said yes, because they have better energy, I say no.

Just before the feeders go off is prime time. The fish are conditioned to eat. So, if you turned off the feeders completely (which I'm not advising) you would experience more aggressive fish. If I have guests coming, turn off the feeders and the fishing is far better. It amazes me that this is even questioned.

Report again in a couple of years when those bass are larger. I'd be very interested in what tactics you are using then.

This thread, for me, is about finding the right balance in feeding. How much protein for growth and how much free food and still have aggressive fish? I submit you can overfeed for growth and sacrifice aggressiveness in the process...if thats what you want, go for it.

M-L I too like to tell it how it is. I do not take comments on here personally until now. It really upsets me to see your last remarks. You seem to suggest I make suggestions based on profits, etc. Are you kidding, you think I make money from taking the itme to post on this site. Occasional fish feder sell, but please. The fact you think that hacks me off. Heck I even emailed you a relative weight spreadsheet for free.

You have a right to your opinion and I have a right to mine. I work about 60-80 hrs a week and read these post for fun and sometimes I learn some things. However if I see something that I think is worng and will harm a pondowner reading it I will post. That is why I take the time. So you think I'm not passionate?

SO harp on the 10 x's commnet and be a smart you know what about it. Nice math, impressive. A better anology is that a fed trained bass might hit 10 mins after being caught instead of 2 hrs later b/c it is more agressive. Maybe you do not understand the art or the science of pond mgmt. Heck even after being upset here I agree with one of your above statemetns about turning off feeder for a few days, that might work. The bass are agressive though b/c they were trained to hit a non living thing. How do you not get that?

Your ending statement above tells me you just do not get it but I hope others do and maybe some day you will. You wrote "I submit you can overfeed for growth and sacrifice aggressiveness in the process." Actually no you do not have to sacrifice growth for agressiveness. Try your experiment fine but I can tell folks also to not turn off their feeders and follow what I think is bad advice. I try to help FOR FREE on what others had to learn by spending money with me.
I will not post on this thread anymore I have made my point I hope.

Rad,
I do not have a single client's pond with just fed-trained bass with no forage. The growth to me is not that great with just pellets. Sometimes they even lose the passion for pellets after being in the pond for awhile. However they always seem to be easier to catch than regualr bass.

David that is good to hear, just do not overfish the pond that is one of the keys to lowering fishing success.

Greg,

Nothing personal was meant at all and I'm sorry you took it that way. I said nothing about you or anyone else, only myself, to explain that I'm just a pond owner who is trying to find the best fit for his ponds...no other motives, no hidden agenda.

We should be able to disagree without any personal implications and I'm sorry you read my post that way. I appreciate reading your views, but just because I don't always agree with them, does not make for anything personal.

Heck, it appears that no one agrees with me on this question, but I don't take that personal and I hope you won't either.

I hate to see two 5-stars have even a hint of getting personal when I agree with BOTH your ratings.

I can understand both ML's and Greg's position, I think. I sure don't have enough experience to know either is wrong. I do have enough experience to know they both can be right even if they disagree. Greg know his clients' lakes better than anyone. Ditto ML for his water. But there are 3 states in between you guys as well as what are certain to be definitional differences that can be confusing things. Just one possible example: what may be "heavy fishing pressure" as reported to Greg by a third party could be lighter or heavier than "heavy fishing pressure" as ML defines it on his ponds. The exact answers lie in the Bass; I don't know if GA LMB and TX LMB agree on this issue, but I am sure they do not talk to each other.

We can give each other a lot of good ideas here, but it is up to each of us to implement any of them as we see fit AND to decide what is success, failure, or "needs improvement." I'm damn happy catching BG that would be seen by some as bait for Blue Catfish but that does not mean that either viewpoint is wrong. Just different viewpoints from different eyes.

Theo,

I couldn't agree more with you. In fact, I think you may have really hit a proverbial nail on the head with your comment on fishing pressure.

I fish my ponds a bunch, probably more than Greg's clients, at least it sounds that way. In fact, I fish every weekend and sometimes have one or more guests. Three weeks ago, I had 10 guests, all fishing. Now thats fishing pressure on small ponds. One guest swore he caught "100 bass in my 3/4 acre pond" (the one without feeders, sorry don't mean to go backwards again ). That pond needs significant rest now regardless of what kind of feeding is present....and does not have 100 bass either.

At any rate, I've found that our differences are largely due to different and not understood variables, e.g. amount of fishing pressure. By discussing them, without personal rancor, we can almost always reach agreement and at the least learn in the process.

Thanks Theo for your observations.

ML and Greg :

See my post on your {ML} other thread about this. Ditto Theo's comments. ewest

I agree!

Yes i agree to, and thats why i havent posted in the last week as to not stir it up again.

Although, the topic was very educational and my question was answered.

As to why fish eat when they do I think it has to do with a little of everything that was suggested it just ends up to being whats in the particular fish's genetics and genes.

Thanks for all the great responses from all of you
- Jighead