Pond Boss Forums INTRO Questions & Observations Change to the TGG Experiment

This three-part post is to request some feedback (Part 3) on a significant change (Part 2) to the ongoing TGG experiment, which is now about 10 months old. First, I’ll provide some background on the TGG experiment for those who may be new or haven’t been following it.

Part 1: Background

The purpose of the TGG (Texas Georgia Giant) experiment is as follows:
Evaluate the growth, aggressiveness, and sustainability of the GG in a small pond designed for Kid fishing.

This experiment started on Dec. 3 of last year with the stocking of 200 four-inch Georgia Giants, 40 three to four inch HSB, and Gambusia minnows. Postings on measured growth rates and aggressiveness and subjective indicators of sustainability have been provided about every two months since the beginning of the experiment.

An unexpected result has happened which has led me to considering a somewhat significant change to the structure of the experiment. That result has been the remarkable growth of the HSB in this small pond. This growth, going from 3-4 inch fish in Dec. to 12-inch fish now, offers me an opportunity to have a supply of predator proof and pond acclimated HSB for a larger pond. In addition, this growth has caused me to believe that the 12-inch HSB in the TGG pond will very soon outgrow their small ¼ acre surroundings. So, here’s the proposed change:

Part 2 : Experiment Change


In October, after water temps begin to moderate and before the Tilapia die-off, move the 40 twelve-inch HSB to a larger pond. Replace them with 40 three to four inch HSB late next winter or early spring well before GG spawning activity begins. This change will maintain the critical ratio (5/1) of GG’s to predators which is key to the sustainability factor being evaluated in this experiment. In addition, it will provide me with a wonderful source of large, inexpensive HSB for further growth in a larger pond. It will also address the concern I have with these 12-inch fish outgrowing the very small ¼ acre shallow pond that they currently reside in. This proposed change would be repeated each year (remove the 12 inch HSB and replace with small HSB) for the duration.

Part 3: Feedback

Since many folks on this Forum requested postings on this experiment, I don’t want to do anything that would cause you to feel the experiment is no longer valid or that I am abandoning you. Hence, I’m requesting your feedback on this change. My feeling is that this change will not affect the results of the experiment as related to the TGG’s. The change does, of course, offer me a significant positive benefit, a source of pond acclimated, predator proof HSB, which I did not anticipate at the start of the experiment. Please send me your thoughts via e-mail, PM’s, or direct replies to this post, whichever you prefer. Thanks in advance to everyone who responds.

HSB growout pond sounds like a good dual use, while maintaining pressure on any small Fx TGGs.

Sounds good. How will you remove the HSB? Sure hope you dont have to fish for them.

ML :

I don't think it will comprise the test from the GG perspective. What do you attribute the HSB growth - pellets , gams. , or GG or some of all.

I would try for 4-5 in HSB. I am not sure the GG would not try to eat 3 in. HSB . I know my large BG and RES do eat 3 in LMB (and 3 in lures). My only other thought is to leave 2 of the existing HSB in to take care of any 3-4in GG that may be there and to see what their continued growth rate is vs the moved ones.

How are you going to catch them - seine , hook , trap ? I would think a good seine session this fall might provide a lot of useful info on the pond.

ML, what are your thoughts about the TGG? Have they grown as large as you expected? I like ewest's idea of leaving a couple of HSBs in the small pond and see what happens.

I plan to remove the HSB by the best method for me...fishing. I also like EWEST's thoughts on leaving a few of the large HSB, at least for another year, but I imagine that will happen naturally as I doubt I will be able to get 100% removed anyhow.

The growth of the HSB in this turbid, shallow, small pond has really surprised me. Pellets are fed sporadically at no more than 1/4 pound per day average. The consensus of most experts is that the HBG do not produce a lot of offspring. Bz's experience confirms a very high % of males in the population. Because of that, I expected the HSB to stunt and show little growth. The pond has thousands of Gambusia and I'm sure that helps, but doesn't explain the HSB growth, in my mind. In my large pond with Tilapia, lots of artificial feeding, HSB will double in size in the first growing season. These HSB fish have exceeded that growth considerably. There are no Tilapia in the small TGG pond.

Rmedgar, I enjoy the TGG's immensely. They have accomplished everything I had intended and more for this small pond. The growth was phenomenal early on, but has slowed considerably in the summer months. They have made the small "kid's pond" the favorite attraction on the ranch.

I'm interested to see the eventual size they will attain. Perhaps they will not exceed the top end size for regular BG, but there is no doubt in my mind that they consistently outgrow regular BG. By that I mean, all 200 (or whatever is left) of the TGG's are in that 8 inch and above category now. My experience with BG is that only a few reach larger sizes, but most will not. These HBG seem to all grow to the larger sizes.

Sustainability is very much an open question. Greg's experience says that next year, the Fx will really start to show up and perhaps dominate. Thus far, the Fx have either not been spawned or have been consumed by the HSB. More time is needed but, Rmedgar, I'm totally happy with the results thus far and really enjoy this fish....and more importantly, so do my grandchildren.

Unless someone sees this proposed change as invalidating the ongoing experiment, I'll start the HSB removal next month. Thanks.

ML, I'm impressed that in 10 months you have fish over 8 inches. Can you weigh some of these. I am a believer that length doesn't tell it all. I've seen long skinny fish and I've seen short hefty fish. I think both length and weight is important for us to really get an idea of what they've grown to.

Bz,

I’m impressed with the growth, also…achieving 8 inch fish in late May/early June following a Dec. stocking. I think most people knowledgeable on BG growth would be impressed. In my limited research, I can’t find any data for BG growth in Texas ponds that comes even close to this growth, which was largely achieved in the winter months.

Since that time, the growth in length has slowed considerably. In my view a couple of things have contributed to that (at least a couple): 1) the small pond became very turbid with virtually zero visibility in late June and has remained that way through the present although somewhat improved and 2) according to your data and other data I’ve been able to find, these fish have reached the point in the length vs weight curve where weight increases predominate.

I’m not accustomed to measuring the weights of small fish and hence haven’t had the necessary equipment. My Berkely digital just does not have the granularity for small fish weights….but I’m correcting that deficiency and future updates will have accurate weights.

For me, pond experiments are all about learning and sharing results and I’ve learned a bunch about HBG, HSB, Gambusia, and their interactions in a small Texas pond in this little experiment. It has been an absolute blast!

ML, I find that a good digital camera, with ruler included in the photo, gives excellent documentation.
My photo records are very useful to me.

A "boga grip" with spring scale accurate within four ounces, is acceptable for IGFA records.
With the "lip gripper" boga, there is minimal stress on fish that don't have to handled.
TheBoga grip is high quality and rather pricey.

My Normark digital scale is accurate to one ounce, at a cost of about $40.00
Cabela’s has a quality digital scale for $20.00 .

I took Greg Grimes' advise for weighing small fish and bought a Walmart digital kitchen scale. It has a plastic pan about 7x12 inches to lay fish in. It can read #/oz. or grams. Very accurate as compared with triple beam balance scale. About $20.

I've gotta remember to look for one of those next time at Wallyworld!

What is the maximum wt the WalMart scale will handle?

Not sure, George. It is at the pond in Miss. Will look on line and post link if found. It is in the kitchen gadget section. edit: On line store has a diff. one. Found several on line under $50. Most are 5 to 10 lbs. max.

Burger,

I remember that post/advice as well but just haven't had the time to get to Wally world...where(what area?) was it located in the store? I'm not much of a shopper.

p.s. edit Ooops now I see where you already answered the question...can't say as I've ever been in the kitchen section, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

p.s.s. I've got 2 Boga's, the small one and the large one, and a couple of digitals...they just don't hack it for small fish...but work great on Tarpon!

I've got the Wallyworld scale too. It reads up to 5 lb 4 oz. Just about high enough for my HBG! Had mine for 3 years and still running on the same battery. I taped a ruler into the tray to measure and weight at once. Tray is 9.5 inches long. Not long enough for my HBG!

ML, you likely have the 60# model Boga unless you are fishing for baby tarpon.

The 15# model Boga handles smalll fish even to BG Size, and you never have to touch them.
Also lessens concerns about killing HSB by over handling.

The digital Normark works well even with the 50# model. Use a piece of stainless leader wire, fashion a hook on one end and a large eye on the other, slip the eye over the large digital scale hook, and weigh even the smallest fish within an accuracy of one ounce

Remember, without documentation, it's just another fish story.

That sounds like the perfect answer, Bz. Except for the tray...I caught three 9 inch TGG's this morning.

I'm surprised about some of the negative comments about lack of documentation on the TGG's. I've posted digital pictures every two months on this forum with a ruler in every picture since the experiment began. I've maintained a tabular collection of the all the data for the complete duration of the experiment. I've freely admitted my inexperience and lack of tools for measuring the weights of very small fish, but until the last couple of months, weights haven't been significant. Future updates will include the weights of the TGG's(in fractions of ounces) as measured on Wally world scale, in addition to the digital picture which have always included a tape measure.

p.s. edit...all of the past documentation including pictures and tables are available at http://www.meadowlarkponds.com/

BTW, since the WallyWorld scale has electronic zero that compensates for tare weight you can replace the tray with one of your own liking. That would solve the size problem if you can find one that will fit reasonably well on top the scale that is longer. I haven't looked for one yet.

ML, dont mind the negative comments. That is from a vast minority. Any time spent to provide helpful information re: ponds and their fish is greatly appreciated by most. Everyone's input is helpful(except for mine )

Reading through the lines, I think the recommended HSB to GG ratio was wrong, and hence the need to alter the experiment, which kind of allows for a change of results. Who gave the original recommendation of HSB to GG's? Obviously it was not right.

And who was it who said these are high maintenance fish? I think it was me. What are we 9 months in and alterations are already having to be made?

Wow.


To me, a more legit. experiment would be to do whatever, and let it go for a long span of time with only monitoring it, instead of altering, which is a more real life experiment. Otherwise, it is just tweaking for whatever results are wished for, or at a minimum, it appears that way.

I guess I can't call my pond an experiment, since I tweak the fish populations all the time to (try and) manage it in the direction I intend.

Robinson, the lurker, shows up to stir the pot. How's it goin' P.I.? Bill, I think 5 to 1 is a good ratio since GG dont spawn heavily, HSB not at all, and HSB are good pellet feeders. What is the ratio you have been seeing recommended?

Rob, I disagree. I think it is wise to tweak or even alter during the course of what is obviously an experiment. If he had a spare pond or two, he could try it in different ways. The objective is to find what works, not just what doesn't work. Of course, he may still find out what doesn't work and wish he had stayed the course. But, that will be hindsight.

ML ask for opinions and PI gave his . No problem , we are all entitled to our opinions no matter if they are right , wrong or anything else. As long as they are presented in a appropriate fashion ( as in gentlemanly).

While ML did ask for our opinions we need to recall that first and foremost the goal is not a GG experiment (for our benefit) but an outstanding kids pond. That goal has been met. If we get extra info so much the better but that is secondary. Just be glad ML is willing to do the work (and it is a ton of work) and put up with our requests for info. No matter what we each think or what the results are - good , bad , excellent or uncertain - Go for it ML and thanks for the ride from the rest of us.

Along the lines of ewest's comments, I don't recall anyone else reaching for their wallet when ML first suggested that he may try the GGs.

I don't really see the removal & restocking of HSB to be that much of a change. Granted that nothing in ponds is absolute, and that you would try to keep as many variables nailed down, the overall experiment was geared towards GGs. If this pond can also suffice as a grow-out pond for HSB, I think that presents a whole new aspect that will be of interest to a lot of pond owners.

On a side note, I wonder how the same experiment, with a goal of HSB grow-out, would work with pure Bluegill. Might you even get a faster growth rate of HSB due to more forage by straight Bluegill.