Pond Boss Forums INTRO Questions & Observations Old joke, New Quandary

A physicist, a chemist, and an economist are shipwrecked on a deserted island. All they have is one can of soup.

The physicist says “We could drop it from the top of that tree over there until it breaks open.” The chemist says “We could build a fire and sit the can in the flames until it bursts open.” Those two squabble a bit, until the economist says “No, no, no. Come on, guys, you’d lose most of the soup. Let’s just assume a can opener.”

Economists are infamous for making simplifying assumptions before analyzing a situation, mostly because the real world is so complex. So, true to my professional background, I'd like to make such an unlikely assumption and ask my fellow pondmeisters about the consequences.

Assumption: At some point, we develop technology that can oxygenate the bottom layer of water below the thermocline to the point that fish can thrive there all summer long. At my place, that means temps don't exceed mid 70s, barring perhaps a tropical storm rain event.

Given that assumption, tiger muskie should be a year round fish. Rainbow trout are doubtful, though I'd dearly love to have them long term. An advantage of both TM and RBT is that they won't reproduce, so won't take over the pond.

So I have two questions. In such a scenario, assuming the can opener, what would the impact be on existing stocks of LMB, CNBG, and HSB? If LMB could drop down to where the temps are very comfortable & still have plenty of DO, would it help their health? Their growth?

Second, if TM could survive & thrive, say 1 per acre, would this lessen the risk that stocked gizzard shad would take over? TM are great sportfish, but their primary value would be to keep down excess LMB numbers and, if stocked, GSH. They get plenty big enough to eat a 12 to 14 inch GSH, similar to a 6 lb plus LMB or 7 lb plus HSB.

The goal would be to significantly increase trophy LMB prospects due to GSH forage and reducing LMB numbers via TM.

Given the assumption of working oxygenation, do you think this would work? If not, what would be the issues?

Frank,

As always thought provoking questions. I often try to approach such questions like the economist but with the physicist's tools. I think the thing you need think through is a vision of the populations in the pond within the constraints of the limitations fish carrying capacity. You could hypothesize that capacity and then construct hypothetical populations. Simply apply the known rules for forage needs and you have a sense of what is possible and what it would take in terms of production of forage to support them. If those needs fit the weights you want to carry, hey you are considering something that holds promise.

I was once told in the results of a personality test that my personality type is "an architect of worlds". Probably nothing could better describe me than that. But I bring this up because my brother is actually an architect and he and I have had many intriguing conversations. Fishing and ponds are only two of my interests ... there are many more. But I recall a conversation with him about the challenges he faced with clients' limitations imagining real world spaces. Often a client can imagine something that is very real in their internal vision but problems arise fitting the vision within the spatial limitations because spatial awareness in the imagination doesn't follow Euclid's axioms. In a sense, the same challenge faces the pondmaster but the space is under the surface of the pond. To be sure, the inclusion of TM or RBT will create interactions. Both space and resources will have to be afforded them.

There is one thing that really stood out in your initial posting. Your main reason for consideration of the TM is to grow larger LMB. This may happen but if you have apply the can opener in order to sustain them then what will it cost? Also if the system providing the sustaining conditions fails, is there a risk all progress will be lost. What other opportunities might provide better results and be more reliable? If you could ... yourself ... control the population of LMB then you wouldn't need TM and the RBT would continue to be the great cool season blast. With limited competition, LMB grow huge and if you can find a way to completely control this ... you cannot fail to have the very large LMB you have your heart set on.

If the entire water column was saturated with oxygen, and ideal temperatures could be maintained as well, the biggest positive I see from that is a huge reduction in stress levels, and therefore, might increase fish growth and/or reproduction. In theory, it should also increase your biomass capabilities. Interesting topic.

Frank, you are assuming that you can tell the TM what fish to eat and what fish to NOT eat.

True to my training with the assumptions! Of course, I certainly can tell the TM what fish to eat, but whether they listen is quite another matter. Reminds me of my experience teaching.

Based on my reading, TM do tend to prefer fusiform fish, such as LMB, GSH, and RBT, over BG and CNBG. Easier to swallow. I used to fish in a private lake in Ohio that had TM, and had luck using a 12 inch LMB as bait. (To be fair, I also once accidentally hooked a TM on a nightcrawler, but that's really the ultimate in fusiform!)

Great post. If doable, I'm sure it won't be cheap. And reliability is critical. How long would DO levels be ok in a summer power outage?

Large TM are key, in my view. Reduce excess LMB and may open the possibility of GSH by reducing risk they take over. Also, I hope cooler water helps bass grow.

I think I agree with your take on the size of the TM. Bigger is probably better but the solution would rely on the goldi-locks standing weight that yields the results you are looking for.

I like to imagine different combinations as you are doing here. Thinking outside the box and creating new visions. One of my quests is discovering combinations that can support trophy predators and large panfish as well. With regard to trophy predators, a limited number is always the key but how does one grow large panfish also? Well one approach is to use panfish that have lower reproduction. How so? LMB are going to eat a limited number of prey each. So if there are fewer of them, the production of panfish prey numbers is likewise eased. Of course throw in LMB reproduction and it hits the fan. Many more LMB mean many more prey individuals are needed because LMB eat prey proportionate to their body size. But if the LMB do not reproduce ... They will grow large and consume prey in limited numbers at the 4" to 6" lengths. So 3 fish come to mind that could fill the prey role for trophy LMB where LMB numbers are in the 8 to 12 females/acre.

1. Warmouth - doesn't get as large as BG but the gape is much larger and the reproduction much more subdued. Where LMB do not reproduce WM could fill the small predator role between the lengths of 6" and 10". WM smaller than 6" are essentially prey when LMB populations are below 12 individuals per acre. The largest standing weights achieved by Warmouth in pond that I can find in the literature is 120 lbs/acre. In OK ponds sampled complete kill, Warmouth had among the highest proportion of harvestable populations exceeded only by LMB and CC.

2. RES - So these can grow as fast as BG and their reproductive rate is only about 25% that of BG. So if the population of LMB is low enough, these can even without the Warmouth, provided sufficient forage to feed large bass. Lower reproduction may actually be more ideal in that the growth of the RES should outpace BG and so reach the 4" to 5" lengths sooner than BG and be less prone to develop large populations just below the optimum lengths and stunt ( a risk of panfish with low populations of LMB). I would hope that WM would help keep the numbers of RES low enough to mark good growth into the >3" sizes that would pass into the prey window of Large LMB.

3. MOZ TP - IMHO, the combination of the above may need supplementation of additional prey in order to achieve desired growth and ultimate weights for the LMB. MOZ TP interest me because they can utilize resources that the Warmouth and RES will not. So there is a lot of free food rotting in the pond that can significantly increase prey production with MOZ TP. This activity has the added benefit of improving water quality. MOZ TP can be cultured in situ, but they can be more efficiently grown to the 2" size in small forage ponds and then released to the pond. This size will be near the upper limit of prey 10" WM could consistently eat and so most would survive and grow quickly into the Large LMB prey window. It takes a little over 30 days from fertilization to grow 2" MOZ TP fingerlings. They can be fed catfish feed if desired and the WM & RES probably wouldn't eat much if any of it.

I also like RSH for the Warmouth and RES. Adults are small enough to be eaten by 10" RES and WM. They have a short life (usually less than 2 years). They reproduce greatly without parental care of eggs. The LMB would virtually ignore them due to the large size of limited LMB.

So I figure if a person can limit the number of LMB in a pond to around 8 females he could grow a population with an average weight of >7 lbs per individual. It would involve an initial stocking of 6 females per acre and then subsequent stocking of 1.5 females per acre with an annual harvest of 1.5 LMB/acre year for the first 3 years. In the 4th year, the harvest is reduced to 1 LMB/acre limited to fish > 23" TL. This would allow some LMB to live long (2/3 of the ladder rate are taken beginning year 4 while 1/3 remain) Even with some mortality, some specimens are allowed to grow after year 4 (which is the 5th fall of age). These could later be harvested as trophies or simply caught and released.

So an 8 acre pond would be stocked initially with 48 Females and laddered at 12 Females annually. Harvest up to 12 LMB per year of the initial stockers for the first 3 years, beginning the 4th year a harvest of 8 > 23" LMB/annum is enforced, I think LMB up to and possibly exceeding 13 lbs could be grown this way even while the total LMB Standing weight is less than 54 lbs/acre. So such a pond needn't be really hot or running on extra cylinders. Especially in light of TP being able to convert more efficiently and utilize pond wastes. The forage required would be around 400 lbs/acre and half of that or more could be supplied by TP with no additional feeding in most ponds. It would probably take TP to produce that much appropriate sized forage. It might even take TP to do it if the primary forage species was BG. Without large numbers of LMB, however, BG are very likely to overpopulate so where LMB numbers are very limited, other species of panfish prey hold promise.

Since I am more interested in having 8"-10" WM and >10" RES than I am 10 lb. LMB it would probably be a failure. There may not be enough bass population to do it ... but if the pan fish could ... I'd be having cake and eating it too.