The Bluegill Diaries.....Loch, Stock, and big as a barrel........ Someday!

[Tony Livingston]

This blog will be an attempt on my part to document my family's attempt to grow consistent numbers of big Bluegill, which in this case will mean fish that weigh one pound or over. The key words here being "consistent numbers". Think of the times you have seen a photo of a smiling angler holding up a single, colossal Bluegill. There's certainly nothing wrong with that, after all it was his or her skill as an angler that lead to that memorable catch, and they should be justifiably proud of the achievement.

Our efforts however, are directed towards growing a quantity of larger fish, and if need be we are willing to sacrifice the ultimate size potential of a few specimens, so that a greater number of our fish may achieve a smaller, but still well above average size. I suspect that the techniques and methods needed to produce a quantity of bigger-than-normal Bluegill are applicable in many private ponds and lakes across the country, requiring only a modest monetary investment,  diligence, and some hands-on input from the pondowner.

Simply stated, our ideal scenario is one in which we can catch 20 Bluegill, and at least 14 of those fish will weigh between a pound, and a pound and a quarter. The remaining 6 fish should not weigh less than 14 ozs. This should be fairly easy to achieve, and in fact we are very close now. The next logical question concerns whether or not this ratio can be maintained, and still allow for a modest harvest. This is an area my family and I will be exploring in the near future.

So, to begin, an introduction to my family's ponds!

 

[Leo Nguyen]

Oh man, this is fabulous! So freaking fabulous! Tony, you Bruce, and Walt need to open up a group for yourselves, and record these major finding for future references. I'm seeing so much data flowing through just a few of of your blogs alone, not counting Walt and Bruce, that my head starting to hurt try to project future trends based on analytical data based on what I've studied from my years in micro and macro biological diversity from my fields of work. I think I'm going to have a mind melt down when I sleep tonight, blabbering about fishes. Hope the wife does sock me in the ribs to wake me up.

This is truly invaluable data that needs to be compiled in one single area, rather than scattered throughout the site. This is stupendous! Holy mother of gill's data. I have for years collected library info for the species' in order to fish effectively, including behaviors, but in one single site, all my years of data collection got blasted away like a freak train just seeing you boys posted. I've read nearly 20 years of DFG's data throughout the nation, and no collective amount of data from DFG's can even come close to your analytical findings. Smack me with a stump knocker and call me little bottle sucking Leo. WOW...

[Jeffrey D. Abney]

That's cool....so everything I've read on cold tolerance indicates that Coppernose don't like it.... That's what I've read from several people's forum on growing gills up North....From the pictures you have posted, you're doing good and it has to be rewarding to catch a mess and know you helped to raise the fish....Neat concept on fishing!

[Tony Livingston]

Jeffrey, I've never lost any due to winter conditions, as far as I know. They appear similar to BG in that regard, regarding cold water tolerance. At least in my pond.

As far as catchability under the ice, I would rate them as equal to my Native BG. Same preferences, same habits.

[Jeffrey D. Abney]

Good read and very informative......how do the HBG do under ice Tony?

[Tony Livingston]

This week I thought I would talk a little about hybrid bluegills (HBG). It's certainly no secret that I have a soft spot for these fish, but, they are not suited to every pond or lake. If you do an internet search on HBG you will find a vast many different, sometimes contradictory, "facts". So what's the real deal with this fish?

First, let me state that I am by no means an authority on this fish. I have been raising them for a few years, and I feel I have learned a few things, but I am always open to discovering something new. There is a vast amount of information available over at Pondboss.com concerning this fish, along with individuals far more knowledgeable than myself, willing to share information. It's worth your time to check them out.

The HBG most often encountered are a cross between a Male Bluegill (BG), and a female Green Sunfish (GSF). The first generation hatched  to these two species are referred to as first generation (F1's) HBG. The offspring of two F1 HBG are F2's, just as the offspring of two F2 HBG are F3's, and so on.

The downside most often heard concerning HBG is that their offspring will eventually fill your pond with undesireable, stunted Green sunfish (GSF). Scientifically speaking, this is impossible. A hybrid cannot produce a pure version of one of its parents. However, what can happen is that the offspring can exhibit outbreeding depression, or loss of hybrid vigor. Meaning that they could have some very undesireable qualities, sometimes common to GSF. This is usually as far as that particular argument goes, however that is not all of the story, as far as I'm concerned.

The trick, is to stock this fish with a predator species, such as largemouth bass (LMB), and use them to control, and in this case virtually eliminate any offspring produced. This is standard practice when stocking any of the BG species, whether northern or coppernose, and is used as a control measure.

Now I'll take a look at some other pro's and con's of HBG.

 

"They grow faster than native BG"..... For the first couple of years, this may be true. Mine grew at an astounding rate. Once they hit a pound in weight however, their growth slowed dramatically.

"They grow bigger than native BG".... Short answer, No. Most HBG I've seen top out at 1.5-2lbs. Native, or coppernose BG can exceed that weight with proper management.

"They are sterile, and won't take over your pond".... Well, yes and no. They can and do, reproduce, however the initial F1's are predominantly male, (some studies indicate 90-95% male,) so if you've done your homework and stocked them with a predator species, then you shouldn't have to worry about an explosion of inferior, stunted fish. This is why it is recommended not to stock HBG in the presence of another Lepomid, although I do have Redear Sunfish (RES) in with mine, and have not had any problems.

"They won't reproduce enough to feed your bass"... Very true. If you're interested in growing big Largemouths then HBG are not the fish for you.

"You have to restock with new fish periodically"... Also true. Remember, we're not allowing them to reproduce, or at least severely limiting any reproduction.

The appeal of these fish, at least for me, lies in their ability to reach a large size, (over 1 lb,) in a short time frame. The risk of stunting, when compared to native BG is greatly reduced, they are far greater fighters, pound for pound, than native or coppernose BG, and they can be aggressive. We enjoy them, and will be stocking more this Spring.

That's all for now, thanks for stopping by!

[Bruce Condello]

This is great.  I'm really enjoying this.

[Tony Livingston]

Thanks Walt.

I have a lot of questions about Wr also.  As I stated earlier, I wasn't satisfied with referring to the weight on the chart as "typical", but I did it anyway. Bruce was kind enough to help me with my adjective selection, and he suggested substituting "healthy", for "typical", and I agree wholeheartedly. I want to clarify that a fish that does not meet or exceed, that 100% figure, is not necessarily a candidate for culling. Is it 90% of the weight, or even 80%? Does the fish appear stunted? Is it just coming out of a winter period? Are there any external clues, such as injuries, or parasites that could explain the low Wr? There are other factors which should be taken into consideration besides the Wr.

While I think that Wr is a useful way to help determine the health of your fish, it is by no means the only criteria by which the fish should be judged.

 

 

[Walt Foreman]

I think your question as to whether there should be a different chart for HBG, is a good one, Tony.  By the way, thanks for converting the metric chart!  Aquamax has a relative weight chart for bluegill in ounces here:

 

http://www.aquamaxbass.com/weightchart.html

 

My guess is that both charts were drawn up based on pure-strain northern bluegill.  The 27-oz. hybrid that was caught out of a pond I manage back in August, was barely past 11" long, which would give it a Wr of 142%.  Seems almost unfair to northern-strains to judge them on the same scale as HBG - those hybrids get pretty stocky.  Maybe we should do like major-league baseball does with hitters and pitchers who have taken steroids and put asterisks by the HBG weights.

[Tony Livingston]

Photo #4.. Sorry!

[Tony Livingston]

Okay, let's talk a little bit about evaluating your fish, as far as growth rate. Most people describe a fish in terms of length, because it's an easy measurement to determine, and it's very visual. After all, most of us can readily visualize what ten inches looks like on a ruler or tape. Unfortunately, length will actually tell you very little about how well your fish are growing. For that, you need an accurate digital scale, and a relative weight chart, abbreviated as Wr, for the species of fish you are examining.

Basically, the Wr chart provides you with an amount, that a particular length fish SHOULD weigh. I really hesitate to call it a typical weight, but since I can think of no better way to describe it, that's what I'm going with. Using the chart couldn't be easier, simply measure and weigh the fish, then look at the chart to determine the "typical" weight of a fish the same length as yours. Divide the actual weight of your fish, by the weight given in the chart, and multiply by 100. That will give you the relative weight of your fish, in a percentage. Take a look at the photos.

Photo #1 is the chart, with length given in inches, ( in 1/8" increments), and weight given in ounces.

Photo #2 is a female northern strain BG. We can see that she is 8.75" long. Sounds pretty good, right? Unfortunately, I was having scale problems at the time, so I ended up back at the house to get a weight. She weighed 6.4 ozs. Time for some math.... the chart shows that a fish of her length should weigh...8.99 ozs. Divide 6.4 by 8.99, round it off and we get... .712 Multiply that by 100, and her relative weight is..... 71.2%. In other words, that fish weighed 71% of what a typical fish of her length should weigh. Not good. Puts a different spin on that 8.75" BG doesn't it?

Photo #3 is a male hybrid BG, measuring 9.5". The chart gives a weight of...11.82 ozs as typical. We can see that he actually weighed...13.5 ozs. Plug the numbers into the formula and we come up with.... 114.2% of average. That's looking better.

Photo #4 is also a male HBG, measuring 9.75" in length. The chart gives a typical weight of... 12.98 ozs. He actually weighed... 18.3 ozs. Do the math, and.... 140.9% above typical weight!! That's what we're after!

I should point out that I have questions of my own, regarding Wr. Should there be different standards, for male vs. female BG? Are HBG held to the same standards as native BG? As Bruce pointed out to me, should different geographical regions produce different results?

In the end, this is the most accurate information that I can come up with. I am actively researching it, and will modify my techniques when more accurate data is presented to me. In the meantime, think about adding a digital scale and a Wr. chart  to your BG management toolbox.