Big seasonal changes can occur in fish condition. The one thing I really like to see on relative weight information is the time of year. I wish my undergrad students would show as much interest and thought as you!! Of course, the grad students do show that much thought.ДЄnother generality, probably meant more for Ewest than you. The best manager may not be able to do better than you have with your pond conditions.ДЇrank - Ewest pointed me to this thread and asked me to comment. If, as Greg notes, several other people with the same age/type/genetic potential fish are doing better (as in they have a couple 5lbers)that may well be because their pond has a higher ability to produce (trophic level) which you can not achieve with your pond as is. They are not a comparison of your pond/fish against those of pond X which has a much higher trophic ability. In that regard keep in mind that RW or Kr are made against a statistical norm. I hope this helps and keep asking and I will try to answer.ДЄfter looking back at the charts and Greg's comment I should point out that we talked about fertilizer programs in Atlanta. This would include not only forage/food but water quality and the absence of serious fish stressors (harmful bacteria ,pathogens, crowding etc.). Think about it this way - the fish as assessed are a (one) reflection/indicator of pond health and ability to meet its potential. In the biological sense fish condition (some times referred to as K or Kr = relative condition) is not the end in and of its self but is one measure of a pond as a biological system. To me that means they all are getting enough to eat and the pond has all the qualities to meet their needs and allow them to reach their genetic potential. The blue dot central group are getting closer together in length and weight and are moving as a whole to a better RW status.

One fish tells you a little but a group tells a lot better story as an indicator of what is going on in the pond. I am looking at this by year class to see movements as a group. The range/average of all blue dot fish have moved up from below 100% to at or above 100%. You are now to the point where the management of the offspring becomes important (the 8-12 in. It looks like you are in good shape - keep doing what you have been and collecting data. Look for more on the subject in an upcoming PB issue. Also RW don't give the entire story on age and age classes but are still very good. Not that you have a problem but to get the entire info base you need to do seine surveys (fishing misses data at the low/young end). This is a great example of the need to age fish that Dave Willis needs to review.

I note that one of the two blue dot fast growers is 20% under weight and no info for this year. One thing to watch is for the right size food for the bigger fish.

Again it appears the entire curve is narrowing and moving higher above RW norms. One the entire range of blue dots have moved over 100% RW while the band narrows. Each year less highs and lows from the norm. The range of statistical differences are narrowing.

A good question is how big and long are the fast growers (blue points 17-18) out of the first group now - I bet in the 21in. Now to 06 early results - the points at 16 I bet are the first ones in the main group which has now moved to 16-18, the one at 10 is a next generation fish (18mth offspring) and the one at 12 is also in that group and is the top of a group that ranges from 10 -12. Then look at blue grouping - the group has moved up (though fewer as expected) to 13-15 with still a couple fast growers at 17-18. Yellow a bunch at 10-14 with a couple fast growers at 15. On chart one notice the groupings by color. I may be wrong but here is what I see and it looks very good. I use a hand held lip grip digital scale. Mine are made up of simple notes of lengths and weights - then a rolling average for all fish for the year.

Xtools grip n weigh