Pond Boss Magazine
https://www.pondboss.com/images/userfiles/image/20130301193901_6_150by50orangewhyshouldsubscribejpeg.jpg
Advertisment
Newest Members
Ratbird, MORiverRat, Chobee94, FarmerSJ513, Charlie97
18,616 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums36
Topics41,165
Posts560,162
Members18,617
Most Online3,612
Jan 10th, 2023
Top Posters
esshup 28,769
ewest 21,558
Cecil Baird1 20,043
Bill Cody 15,219
Who's Online Now
12 members (Fishingadventure, FireIsHot, Boondoggle, Tinylake, Sunil, czimmerm, Bill Cody, Brandon Larson, LeighAnn, catscratch, Theo Gallus, Ron crismon), 579 guests, and 165 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#355853 10/31/13 11:12 AM
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 814
Lunker
OP Offline
Lunker
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 814
I came upon this article on BG crosses while looking through a 1972 farm magazine. Thought it would be interesting to discuss if ideas have changed in 41 years.
I scanned this and sent it to photobucket so I hope it's big enough to read. If not perhaps one of you can suggest a better way.


Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,980
Likes: 15
S
Ambassador
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Lunker
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,980
Likes: 15
Wow....


"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"

If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1)
And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1)
Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT?
PB answer: It depends.
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 627
B
Lunker
Offline
Lunker
B
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 627
Some of article's positives are our negatives.

Last edited by Bill Duggan; 10/31/13 11:29 AM.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,980
Likes: 15
S
Ambassador
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Lunker
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,980
Likes: 15
I would also point out that Dr. Childers' name figures prominently in many of the studies I have read regarding lepomids and their crosses. I would be curious as to what degree his own thoughts and observations played in the formation of this article, and whether or not he would feel the same today.


"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"

If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1)
And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1)
Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT?
PB answer: It depends.
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 814
Lunker
OP Offline
Lunker
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 814
Seems like you don't hear too much about GSF/RES hybrids like that in the photo, mostly BG/GSF and BG/RES.

Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,854
Likes: 1
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,854
Likes: 1
Fascinating


Holding a redear sunfish is like running with scissors.
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,854
Likes: 1
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,854
Likes: 1
sparky, can you link this back to BBG sometime? I've got my hands full of fish slime.


Holding a redear sunfish is like running with scissors.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,980
Likes: 15
S
Ambassador
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Lunker
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,980
Likes: 15
Will do.

"I've got my hands full of fish slime."

Lucky.

Last edited by sprkplug; 10/31/13 04:26 PM.

"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"

If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1)
And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1)
Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT?
PB answer: It depends.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,255
Y
Lunker
Offline
Lunker
Y
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,255
Very interesting-thanks for posting this.

Quote:
In the past, overpopulation of sunfish has been one of the greatest problems encountered in managing the popular bass-bluegill stocking programs.
Have to wonder about this, though-unless BG were a lot more fecund in the days before global warming.

Looking into the future.....

"The Male RES/Female GSF Hybrid: A Potentially Redemptive Application of a Flawed Geneset in a Single Neglected Pond in Missouri or How I Put Egg on the Face of Yolk"

Author: Son of Sparkie

Invited Abstract Presentation, Pond Boss VII, 2016

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,980
Likes: 15
S
Ambassador
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Lunker
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,980
Likes: 15
A fellow can dream, Yolk.......


"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"

If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1)
And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1)
Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT?
PB answer: It depends.
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 222
Offline
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 222
Things that make you, "Hmmm.." Very interesting. Did anyone understand the biological behaviors that cease the population from overpopulating? We got lakes here with hybrids that have nothing but overpopulation issues. Department of Fish and Wildlife has to introduce apex predators to thin out the population.


Leo

* Knowledge and experience yield wisdom. Sharing wisdom expand the generations with crucial knowledge. Unshared wisdom is worth nothing more than rotting manure.
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,558
Likes: 291
E
Moderator
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
E
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,558
Likes: 291
Old , very old data and a lot of water (studies ) under the bridge since this article. Some right , some wrong , some out of context. Where to start.

With the concept of outbreeding depression which all those crosses exhibit and the article did not touch (or intentionally left out ). I guaranty Childers was well aware of this as he is/was a preeminent geneticist in lepomis. Gen one may (or may not depending on perspective ) be superior to the parentals. Gen 2 is absolutely not superior to parentals. Gen 3 worse - you get the pic.

Hybrid lepomis can not successfully be the forage base for LMB except for a couple of non existent crosses.

While it is possible and does happen (more so in lepomis) most times reciprocal crosses (GSFm X RESf and RESm X GSFf ) have similar fecundity. One thought on the wide variance of results with GSF crosses is the difficulty of finding pure GSF stock. GSF are the most likely lepomis to cross with other species.

Here are the sex ratios (percent male) that Childers got with various hybrid crosses. The male parent is listed first. There is some variation in the numbers from other studies

Redear X Bluegill 97 (3)
Bluegill X Redear 97
Redear X Green 69
Green X Redear 48
Bluegill X Green 97
Green X Bluegill 68 (2)
Redear X Warmouth 55
Bluegill X Warmouth 69 (2)
Green X Warmouth 16
Warmouth X Green 84


Note which species has the consistentaly skewed reciprocal cross data in this list.

HYBRIDIZATION OF FISHES IN NORTH AMERICA
(FAMILY CENTRARCHIDAE)
by

W.F. CHILDERS
Illinois Natural History Survey
Urbana, Illinois
U.S.A.


Sex Ratios of F1 hybrids
Sexually mature F1 hybrids were collected from each population and sexed. Of the 10 kinds of viable F1 hybrids, seven were predominately males (RB, BR, and BG were 97 percent males; WG were 84 percent males; and RG, GB, and BW were approximately 70 percent males), two were approximately 50 percent males (GR and RW), and one was predominately female (GW was 16 percent males). Ricker (1948) determined the sex of 428 BR F1 hybrids in Indiana and found them to be 97.7 percent males.

Sex determination in sunfishes is very poorly understood. Bluegills, green sunfish, and their F1 hybrids apparently have 24 pairs of chromosomes, and the sex chromosomes are indistinguishable from the autosomes (Bright 1937). Bright also reported that the chromosomes are so similar in shape and size that he was unable to detect specific differences. Roberts (1964) found that red-ear, bluegill, and warmouth sunfishes each have 24 pairs of chromosomes; green sunfish from North Carolina had 24 pairs; but green sunfish from West Virginia had only 23 pairs.

The unbalanced phenotypic tertiary sex ratios of the F1 hybrid sunfish could result from unbalanced primary genetic sex ratios, specific differences in the strength of sex-determining factors, an overriding of the genetic sex by environmental factors, or differential mortality of the sexes.

Since the WG F1 hybrids were 84 percent males and the reciprocal cross hybrids were 16 percent males, it is possible that the strength of sex-determining factors of warmouths are 5.25 times more powerful than those of green sunfish. Specific differences in the strength of sex-determining factors cannot alone explain the sex ratios of the remaining eight kinds of viable hybrids, since none of these were predominately females.

RB and BG F1 hybrids were both 97 percent males. If differential mortality were the cause of these unbalanced sex ratios, much of the mortality would have had to occur after the swim-up fry stages, since in the stripping experiments total mortality between fertilization and the swim-up fry stages was only 14 percent for the RB and 27 percent for the BG F1 hybrids.

It is not known which sex is the heterogametic condition for the sex chromosomes of the four experimental species; however, Haldane (1922) formulated a rule which furnishes a clue: “When in the F1 offspring of a cross between two animal species or races, one sex is absent, rare, or sterile, that sex is always the heterozygous sex.” Using Haldane's rule, Krumholz (1950), in a study concerning BR F1 hybrids, pointed out that the males of both bluegills and red-ear sunfish are probably homozygametic for sex and the females heterozygametic. The application of Haldane's rule to all possible F1 hybrids produced from red-ear sunfish, bluegills, and green sunfish indicates that the female is the heterozygametic sex in these three species. Hybridization of male warmouths with females of the three Lepomis species resulted in partial or complete lethals, suggesting that in the warmouth the male is the heterogametic sex.

Some of this has since been proven wrong.

NorthA merican Journal of Fisherie Msnagemen6t: 156-167, 1986

¸ Copyrighbt y the AmericanF isheriesS ociety1 986

Evaluation of Male Bluegill X Female Green Sunfish Hybrids for

Stocking Mississippi Farm Ponds

MARTIN W. BRUNSON and H. RANDALL ROBINETTE






The use of hybrid sunfishes in ponds has been

suggesteda s an attractive alternative to the more

traditional stocking policies involving the bluegill

(Lepomism acrochirus)o r redears unfish( Lepomis

microlophus), or both, in combination with the

largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) (Lewis

and Heidinger 1978a).



Ellison and Heidinger

(1978) surveyed 30 privately owned hybrid

sunfish ponds in southern Illinois and determined

that the presence of largemouth bass and supplemental

feeding were the two most important variables

related to growth of hybrids.



Growth of redear

sunfish x green sunfish and bluegill x green

sunfish (BG x GS) hybrids exceeded the average

growth for bluegill in Illinois (Lopinot 1972). The

BG x GS hybrids reached an acceptable catch size

in a shorter time than channel catfish (Ictalurus

punctatus), and they were easier to catch where

both were stocked for recreational fishing.



Several hybrid combinations have been recognized

as having potential in pond management

(Lewis and Heidinger 1978b), but the BG x GS

hybrid appears to have the most attractive combination

of desirable attributes. Like other hybrids,

the BG x GS hybrid exhibits rapid growth

(Childers 1967; Ellison and Heidinger 1978) and

probable hybrid vigor (Brunson and Robinette

1985), produces mostly males (Childers and Bennett

1961; Laarman 1973; Brunson 1983), and is

highly vulnerable to capture by hook and line

(Henderson and Whiteside 1976; Crandall and

Durocher 1980; Brunson 1983). Only the BG x

GS hybrid, however, is well suited to artificial

feeding (Lewis and Heidinger 1978a) and frequents

shallow water areas, where it may be more

accessiblet o the pond angler than some other hybrids.

The BG x GS hybrid is probably the most

common commercially produced hybrid sunfish

in the southeastern United States.



From an angler's viewpoint, increased growth is

highly desirable.H owever, perhapsm ore important

to the angler is the presumed high catchability of

hybrid sunfish. This vulnerability to hook-andline

capture has been alluded to by many authors

but relatively few experimental data exist to substantiate

such statements. Childers (1967) cited

one instance where a population of more than

10,000 BG x GS hybrids was decimated by anglers

during the first week of fishing. Childers and

Bennett (1967) reported hook-and-line yields in a

0.4-hectare pond stocked with redear x green sunfish

hybrids and largemouth bass that surpassed

those of comparably fished bluegill ponds. They

concluded that hybrids were more aggressive, less

wary, and less able to learn how to avoid being

caught than their parent species. Henderson and

Whiteside (1976) confirmed the vulnerability of

hybrids to angling, and Ellison and Heidinger

(1978) reported that hybrid sunfish were much

easier to catch than channel catfish when both were

stocked for recreational fishing. They also confirmed

the aggressivenesos f hybrid sunfisha s reported

by swimmers who were nipped by these

fish. Crandall and Durocher (1980) reported that

catchability of the BG x GS hybrid was significantly

higher than that ofbluegill x redear sunfish

or green x redear sunfish hybrids.

Other than theses tudies,t he literature on hybrid

sunfishes is the result of laboratory or controlled,

short-term pond studies with relatively narrow objectives.

The total catch of

146 hybrids during the 2-h period was 21% of the

population.



These high catch rates,

especially at Britt Pond, once again confirm the

aggressivenessa nd vulnerability of the BG x GS

hybrid, and point to the importance of strict control

of harvest in hybrid ponds. Especially significant

is the effect that poachers can have on a

hybrid population.



Though hybrid sunfish are not a panacea

for all farm pond management problems, they can

be used under certain conditions to produce desirable

populations of rapidly growing fish. With

a rapid growth rate, low population fecundity, and

high catchability, these fish can be used to create

high quality bream fishing when properly managed


TEMPO OF HYBRID INVIABILITY IN CENTRARCHID FISHES



(TELEOSTEI: CENTRARCHIDAE)




DANIEL I. BOLNICK1,2 AND THOMAS J. NEAR3,4




Asymmetries in F1 Hybrid Viability

Centrarchid hybrid viability differs between reciprocal

crosses of the same pair of species (F1 asymmetry). Of 18

species pairs for which reciprocal crosses have been done

(and viability is nonzero), 17 had significantly different viabilities

depending on which species was the female (or male)

parent. The relative strength of this asymmetry increased linearly

with time (Fig. 4), because the absolute difference in

viabilities was fairly constant and represented an increasing

proportion of the overall viability as the latter measure declined.


Asymmetrical F1 viabilities may also result from deleterious





interactions between the maternally provided oocyte



cytoplasm and the hybrid’s nuclear genes. Centrarchid hybrids



show aberrant timing of allozyme gene expression during



early development, even when the parental species have



identical onset of gene expression (Phillip et al. 1983). These



results suggest that centrarchid species have diverged in their



gene regulation mechanisms even while expression location



and timing remained similar. In many cases, hybrids expressed



maternal alleles at the normal time, but paternally



derived alleles were delayed, premature, or failed to be expressed



at all (Phillip et al. 1983). Less viable hybrids in a



reciprocal cross are generally the ones with greater paternal



allele misexpression. Whitt et al. (1977) suggested that the



greater effect on paternal alleles is evidence for cytoplasmicnuclear



interactions, hypothesizing that maternally encoded



regulatory signals are misinterpreted by the paternal allele.



If one species’ gene expression is more sensitive to changes



in transcription factors, asymmetries will result.



One puzzling pattern



to emerge from our data lends some credence to a role for



cytonuclear interactions: using maximum body size as an



index (Page and Burr 1991), the larger species tends to be



the more successful maternal parent (Table 3). Of the 18



species pairs with reciprocal cross data and nonzero viability,



one pair had equal body size and nearly symmetrical crossing



success. Focusing on the remaining 17 species pairs (admittedly



not phylogenetically independent; Table 3), the larger



parent was more successful in 13 crosses and less successful




in four crosses (x12 5 4.765, P 5 0.029). We speculate that





there is greater disruption of paternal allele expression when



the paternal allele is from a smaller species, placed in an egg



with cytoplasmic factors encoded by a larger maternal species.



However, the cytoplasmic effect cannot be attributed to



differences in egg size, as egg size is not correlated with



body size (D. I. Bolnick, unpubl. data) and egg size differences



are not associated with inviability (Merriner 1971b).



We are working on expanding our dataset to include more



reciprocal crosses to test this pattern more rigorously


HAVING POSTED THIS ON CENTRAS NOTE THAT RES X BG SEEM TO BE THE EXCEPTION FOR SEVERAL REASONS INCLUDING NEAR SIMILAR SIZE OF THE TWO SPECIES AND DO CROSS WELL IN BOTH DIRECTIONS.


TEMPO OF HYBRID INVIABILITY IN CENTRARCHID FISHES

(TELEOSTEI: CENTRARCHIDAE)

DANIEL I. BOLNICK AND THOMAS J. NEAR



Centrarchid hybrids

show aberrant timing of allozyme gene expression during

early development, even when the parental species have

identical onset of gene expression (Phillip et al. 1983). These

results suggest that centrarchid species have diverged in their

gene regulation mechanisms even while expression location

and timing remained similar. In many cases, hybrids expressed

maternal alleles at the normal time, but paternally

derived alleles were delayed, premature, or failed to be expressed

at all (Phillip et al. 1983). Less viable hybrids in a

reciprocal cross are generally the ones with greater paternal

allele misexpression. Whitt et al. (1977) suggested that the

greater effect on paternal alleles is evidence for cytoplasmicnuclear

interactions, hypothesizing that maternally encoded

regulatory signals are misinterpreted by the paternal allele.

If one species’ gene expression is more sensitive to changes

in transcription factors, asymmetries will result.





the larger species tends to be

the more successful maternal parent (Table 3). Of the 18

species pairs with reciprocal cross data and nonzero viability,

one pair had equal body size and nearly symmetrical crossing

success. Focusing on the remaining 17 species pairs (admittedly

not phylogenetically independent; Table 3), the larger

parent was more successful in 13 crosses and less successful

in four crosses ( 5 4.765, P 5 0.029). We speculate that 2 x1

there is greater disruption of paternal allele expression when

the paternal allele is from a smaller species, placed in an egg

with cytoplasmic factors encoded by a larger maternal species.



However look at GSF X BG below where the better dam is not the larger species ( one of only a few).







TEMPO OF HYBRID INVIABILITY IN CENTRARCHID FISHES by DANIEL I. BOLNICK AND THOMAS J. NEAR :


" The only crosses with total inviability in
both directions are M. salmoides 3 (Ambloplites rupestrus,
Pomoxis annularis, or Pomoxis nigromaculatus) at 28.94 million
years, while 10 other crosses of that age have some
viability in one or both reciprocal directions (see online Appendix).
Centrarchids also retain nonzero viability and heterosis
for much longer than most other taxa."













Last edited by ewest; 10/31/13 08:15 PM.















Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,980
Likes: 15
S
Ambassador
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Lunker
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,980
Likes: 15
Many of the points ewest touches on are the reason I wondered how much of Dr. Childers influence was felt in this article. In 1972 when this piece came out, Dr. Childers had already been experimenting with Lepomis crosses at least 10 years, probably longer. I have a hard time believing that he signed off on everything written here.


"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"

If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1)
And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1)
Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT?
PB answer: It depends.
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,558
Likes: 291
E
Moderator
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
E
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,558
Likes: 291
Centrarchid hybrid viability differs between reciprocal
crosses of the same pair of species (F1 asymmetry). Of 18
species pairs for which reciprocal crosses have been done
(and viability is nonzero), 17 had significantly different viabilities
depending on which species was the female (or male)
parent. The relative strength of this asymmetry increased linearly
with time (Fig. 4), because the absolute difference in
viabilities was fairly constant and represented an increasing
proportion of the overall viability ...


As a
result, Haldane’s rule will not apply in fish such as centrarchids
with little or no hemizygous genome. Because the incompatibilities
producing Haldane’s rule are expected to
evolve relatively quickly (Orr and Turelli 2001), and contribute
strongly to postzygotic isolation in many groups
(Coyne and Orr 2004), the absence of Haldane’s rule in centrarchids
may explain their slower evolution of genetic incompatibilities.
It is telling that, of the many examples of
Haldane’s rule reviewed in Laurie (1997), none are drawn
from fishes. Another genus of fishes, Etheostoma, also
evolves inviability very slowly (Mendelson 2003) and lacks
a distinct sex chromosome (Danzmann 1979).
The slow evolution of postzygotic isolation in centrarchids
is accompanied by a relatively slow diversification rate. The
mean diversification interval (the inverse of the net diversification
rate) is 11.15 million years, slower than the diversification
intervals for 38 of the 45 animal groups tabulated
in Coyne and Orr (2004, pp. 419–420). Centrarchid diversification
is slower than the measured rates in any other vertebrate
clades except Ictalurus (North American catfish,
which also lack a distinctive sex chromosome;

Last edited by ewest; 10/31/13 08:30 PM.















Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 222
Offline
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 222
ewest, great collective info. Now, digesting info with my coffee and donuts.


Leo

* Knowledge and experience yield wisdom. Sharing wisdom expand the generations with crucial knowledge. Unshared wisdom is worth nothing more than rotting manure.
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 814
Lunker
OP Offline
Lunker
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 814

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 8,801
Likes: 69
Chairman, Pond Boss Legacy award; Moderator; field correspondent
Lunker
Offline
Chairman, Pond Boss Legacy award; Moderator; field correspondent
Lunker
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 8,801
Likes: 69
That kid threw her for a loop, I would have died laughing if I were interviewing him. Nice work, kid!


Many men go fishing all of their lives without knowing that it is not fish they are after. ~ Henry David Thoreau

[Linked Image from i1261.photobucket.com]


Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,088
Likes: 96
S
Offline
S
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,088
Likes: 96
I wonder what the current thinking on mixing BG with HBG in a conventional LMB BG pond is.

My reading on this forum is that having both HBG and BG in the same pond (or at least stocked together) is generally frowned on.

I like the HBG that I have in my mostly BG pond and am actively trying to increase the HBG through natural hybridization in my sediment pond. And it appears to be working (perhaps to my self induced detriment???? smirk ). I have transferred hundreds of CNBG from my sediment pond to my main pond. During this transfer (both by trapping small 2-3" fish and fishing with hook and line) I regularly see both a small number of GSF and a slightly larger number of hybrids. Not sure if the hybrids are CNBG/GSF or RES/GSF (or reciprocals). But they are definitely hybrids of some sort. They have some markings of GSF but are too tall and too small of mouth for pure GSF. They are easy to spot in the minnow traps lying by either a pure GSF, CNBG or the occasional RES fingerling.

I have been catching some of these transferred fish from the main pond now that they have grown from fingerling to the 4" to 7" range. Had a dozen kids over yesterday at wife's family reunion and my job was putting bait on hooks and removing fish from cane poles with lines. Something between 100 and maybe up to 200 fish were caught in a few hours. I did not get to see every single fish, but of the ones I saw I saw a lot of BG, one CNBG, a few GSF and a several of these hybrids that were naturally produced in my sediment pond. I like them...... so far at least.

Some day I may see the down side of encouraging having hybrids within what I an trying to manage as a panfish pond (don't really care to have trophy LMB). But so far I am enjoying experimenting with the naturally occurring hybrids that I'm getting out of my sediment pond. For my goals, I have yet to experience the downside of having BG and HBG (or maybe HRES) in the same pond.

Edit: I have caught one 7" and another 5" (approx) GSF from my sediment pond (and transferred now to main pond) which have likely been the source of the hybrid fingerlings I have been capturing from this sediment pond. I also have fingerling GSF in there now in relative low numbers (compared to the CNBG fingerlings). No predators in this pond to date, though some day I likely will add some as the numbers of CNBG get out of control. Original stocking in this 1/10th acre sediment pond was FHM, 175 RES and 100 CNBG. Obviously there were a few GSF in the stocking mix or got in the pond somehow to create these hybrids.

Edit: I had also put in 4 adult RES caught out of my main pond into this pond some time later that fall after the fingerlings were stocked.

Last edited by snrub; 06/26/16 11:02 PM.

John

I subscribe to Pond Boss Magazine
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,099
Likes: 23
R
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Hall of Fame
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Hall of Fame
Lunker
R
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,099
Likes: 23
HBG are fine in a typical LMB/BG pond, as a bonus fish, IMO. Offspring should be readily controlled by LMB, with minor recruitment of hybrids happening each year.

Last edited by Rainman; 06/27/16 05:47 AM.


Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,088
Likes: 96
S
Offline
S
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,088
Likes: 96
Thanks. That is what logic suggested to me, but some seem to think it is a bad idea.

If a person was wanting a specific strain I could definitely see not wanting the hybrids in there. Kind of like a guy with a registered Charolais or Simmental cattle not wanting a Herford cow or bull in with their herd.

But for a general panfish pond, I have not seen any problem to date.


John

I subscribe to Pond Boss Magazine
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 6,080
Likes: 1
Offline
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 6,080
Likes: 1
FWIW I have a few HBG (GSF x BG) in my pond with my BG. I did a little Bill Cody type fishing survey(seated in a chair with a small hook, worms and a float) Saturday morning. In the 1 hour I caught 24 fish. 1 CC and 23 SF. About 50% of the 3 to 4 inch SF caught were hybrids. As my HBG grow faster and are more aggressive than my BG, the survey results made me think the HBG are dominating the spawning beds and producing a lot of HBG X BG hybrids. I removed 3 HBG in the 8 to 9 inch size during the survey. Biggest BG caught was 7.5 inch.


[Linked Image]
Be Brave Enough to Suck at Something New!
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,088
Likes: 96
S
Offline
S
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,088
Likes: 96
Bill my experience is if you are using fishing to do the survey, you will be getting a higher percentage of GSF and HBG if they are present than the representative population. They tend to be more aggressive and more likely to beat a BG to the hook. I have the same experience trapping them with minnow traps. The GSF and HBG are more prone to go in the traps than the straight BG, even though the BG go in pretty well.

This appears to be even more so if fishing in shallow water. It seems to me the GSF and the HBG, at least till they get up to larger sizes, hang close to the shore line or in shallow water. I feed some AM400 in shallow water, and it is more common to see a relative larger size HBG come up close to shore to get the AM400 in competition with the hundreds of fingerling BG than my regular similar sized BG. I hand feed almost every day and see this regularly. The whitish/yellow tipping on the HBG are easy to spot. The CNBG I've been putting in from my sediment pond may complicate that visual observation some day as they also have white tipping on the fins.

In my shallows when the water is reasonably clear I can observe this visually. Any GSF or HBG stick out like a sore thumb with the white, yellow or reddish fin margins. I can see hundreds of small BG and only a few hybrids and a rare GSF. But if I put a minnow trap in, the HBG or GSF gravitate to it. I threw in a minnow trap in for the kids to see some small fish Saturday and picked up several of the small GSF I had recently put in from my sediment pond. They are a tiny portion of the general population, yet they found their way into the trap for the feed.

In another example, when I started fishing about a year after stocking the BG, I was catching quite a few HBG. At first I thought I had a bunch of them. Well after about the 30 or so mark over a few months of moving them to my old pond, I hardly ever catch one. In fact this year I have only caught one that would have been of the original stockers (have been catching some of the later ones I have introduced from my sediment pond but they are much smaller). Point is out of hundreds and hundreds of original stocked BG, I fished out the majority of the 30 or so hybrids that were accidentally in with the BG within a few months. Yet had I based my population on a fishing survey early on I would have thought I had a fairly good percentage of HBG.

Anything with some GSF in it just likes to get on a hook or go in a trap for feed. They are chow hounds.

Last edited by snrub; 06/27/16 09:55 AM.

John

I subscribe to Pond Boss Magazine
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,980
Likes: 15
S
Ambassador
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Lunker
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,980
Likes: 15
That may change with time. Large HBG subject to C&R display conditioned behavior just like other species do. At least that's been my experience.


"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"

If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1)
And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1)
Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT?
PB answer: It depends.
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 28,769
Likes: 910
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 28,769
Likes: 910
Originally Posted By: sprkplug
That may change with time. Large HBG subject to C&R display conditioned behavior just like other species do. At least that's been my experience.


They get so conditioned that they won't even eat a fish food pellet that is 1mm different in size! wink


www.hoosierpondpros.com


http://www.pondboss.com/subscribe.asp?c=4
3/4 to 1 1/4 ac pond LMB, SMB, PS, BG, RES, CC, YP, Bardello BG, (RBT & Blue Tilapia - seasonal).
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,980
Likes: 15
S
Ambassador
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Lunker
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,980
Likes: 15
Yep!


"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"

If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1)
And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1)
Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT?
PB answer: It depends.
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Today's Birthdays
LaNoel Bond, phil metzel, RON MOM, TexasFish
Recent Posts
Dropping Lake and want to improve Spawning
by FishinRod - 07/15/24 02:13 PM
Small LMB Gape and Proper forage size
by FishinRod - 07/15/24 02:03 PM
Floating platform - barrels or floats?
by jludwig - 07/15/24 11:40 AM
Fish kill - help
by Boondoggle - 07/15/24 09:52 AM
Faux trees & plants
by Boondoggle - 07/15/24 07:16 AM
Building + Sinking Man-Made structure. Guidance
by FishinRod - 07/14/24 01:58 PM
Bass spine curvature?
by FishinRod - 07/14/24 11:45 AM
Weeds Wanted
by Boondoggle - 07/14/24 09:59 AM
Dying Fish!
by esshup - 07/13/24 03:09 PM
Annual drought - do pads make it worse?
by SENKOSAM - 07/13/24 02:14 PM
Best weed
by FishinRod - 07/13/24 11:11 AM
I think I’m getting ripped off
by gehajake - 07/13/24 10:44 AM
Newly Uploaded Images
Major change since 2009
Major change since 2009
by SENKOSAM, July 3
Fishing with my Best Buddy
Fishing with my Best Buddy
by Theo Gallus, June 29
Eagles Over The Pond Yesterday
Eagles Over The Pond Yesterday
by Tbar, December 10
Deer at Theo's 2023
Deer at Theo's 2023
by Theo Gallus, November 13
Minnow identification
Minnow identification
by Mike Troyer, October 6
Sharing the Food
Sharing the Food
by FishinRod, September 9

� 2014 POND BOSS INC. all rights reserved USA and Worldwide

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5