Number of Eggs / Fish Size, BioFish or Jplug are you out there?

[MRoberts]

I came across the best reason for a state wide 40” limit ever.

I was looking through some back issues of Musky Hunter and ran across an article on the Wisconsin Spotted musky program. It was in the March 1996 issue. (Jlong you would find it quite interesting)

The article talks about the establishment of a Great Lakes strain musky brood stock lake. In the article they talked about how in 1995 they took eggs from two fish.

The Wisconsin brood stock was established by taking eggs from muskies found in Michigan’s Indian River betweem 1989 and 1993. The fish where raised in a Wisconsin Hatchery and in the fall of 1989 the first 1000 fish where planted in a 280 acre lake. The article said that 40 some muskies where netted in 1995 and “they where robust and had adapted well to their environment” it also stated that the “muskies where growing considerably faster than the Wisconsin average and somewhat faster than Lake St. Clair fish.”

With that back ground info. The two muskies that they where able to harvest eggs from in 1995 produced 65,400 eggs, the eggs where harvested on May 4th and May 12th by May 31st the hatchery had “15,000 actively feeding fry.” They didn’t say how many fingerlings they ended up with in the fall for stocking.

The Bombshell (at least in my mind) and the reason for me posting here is the number of eggs produced by the two skies. One was 36.5 inches long and one was 40.5. The 36.5 incher yielded 12,500 eggs, while the 40.5 incher yielded over 4 times that many 52,900.

By letting a female fish grow to 40 inches in length it has the potential to produce 4+ times the number of eggs, plus it has the extra years to spawn as it grows that extra 4 inches. It only makes sense to me to try and get the most out the fish we have.

If there is a lake or two that is so loaded with ski that the 40 inch limit is to great they can have special limits to account for that, just as they do now.

Anyway just another reason for me to be in favor of at least a 40 inch minimum.

Biofish and Jplug the reason I mentioned you guys in the title is because I know you have lots of information at your finger tips. Is there more data out there that shows the number of eggs vs. the size of the fish? Where these brood stock muskies the norm or abnormal? I know every year eggs are taken from ski all over the state, do they keep track of the number of eggs vs. the fish size. I would like to see more data on this. Can you help me out?


Nail A Pig!

Mike

Let 'em go, Let 'em Grow

[jlong]

Mike, great info buddy. I'd hate to have been the guy that had to count all those eggs (ha ha). I not only find the egg portion interesting... but the above average growth rates is also something to note.

I just wish the WDNR would stock some lakes with spotted muskies AND let us fish for them. That 280 acre lake has some HUGE fish in it... but you can't legally fish for them (althought that doesn't stop some people).

I'll say it again here.... I think Shawano Lake would be an awesome candidate for the spotted musky program in Wisconsin (see other post). We already have a broad stock lake... so now lets "make" a lake that we can legally fish for 'em. Oh yeah, and the lake should have a 40 inch minimum size limit.

jlong

[Ben Remer]

I found it interesting that a lot of the super giant fish where sterile. Such as the one caught on Georgian Bay last year. It seems the 60 plus pound fish, keep developing eggs and never lay them. Also the seem to feed on the eggs they hold. I do not totally understand the how and why, but that is where the massive girths come from. I know the tried to stock sterile salmon in the great lakes, but wouldn't it be nice to stock the sterile musky in lakes, so they all had a really good chance at getting super large. What is funny about this is, I have a friend who catches very large fish every year, and he explained this theory to me long before the Georgian Bay fish, and and I thought he was crazy. Just seems that some people are in the know when it comes to the 55plus inch...Ben Remer

[MRoberts]

Ben, I have also heard this. Apparently the energy normally used for building egg mass is used to create body mass. I have also heard this is why most big tigers are usually fatter than average.

I can hear it already though: "You might as well keep that 45# hog because it is most likely sterile and not spawning anyway." All the same people that say those big fish are at the end of there life cycle will use that as just another excuse.

Don't get me wrong if someone wants to keep a fish that’s there right. What bothers me is when they hide behind excuse like "the fish is going to die soon anyway." As Onieda Esox said when we where talking about this subject. "Don't try and play God with the fish, either keep it or release it, because that's what you want to do. Don't make excuses."


Nail A Pig!

Mike

Let 'em go, Let 'em Grow

[john skarie]

I would question the "theory" about big fish being sterile. For various reasons any size muskie, or other fish, may not drop eggs in a given year. It certainly isn't something that magically happens when a fish reaches a certain size.

As any species (people,dogs whatever) ages, fertility and ability to reproduce may lessen, or it may not be effected at all, individual specimens are different. When big fish do reproduce, they have an enourmous amount of eggs, and are putting some very good genetics back into the gene pool.

JS

[jlong]

There is no argument about a bigger fish having the potential to drop MORE eggs. The question I have is the assumption about a bigger fish having better genetics.

Do you really think that the young hatched from an egg dropped by a fish when it was 38 inches will NOT grow as large as a fish hatched from an egg dropped by the SAME adult when she was 48 inches? Same GENETICS, only the parent was more mature.

I don't buy that theory at all. An animals genetics don't change as they grow.... it is something fixed from the beginning.

Is there any data available to demonstrate such a belief that spawn from a bigger fish will produce BIGGER fish than when that same fish was younger (smaller)?

jlong

[John Skarie]

Genetics certainly don't change with age. That fish will have contributed it's genetics everytime there was a successful spawn.

As far as benefitting the gene pool, the amount of eggs a 55" fish would hold would be somewhere around 3-4 times as much as a 40" fish.

That is a big boost to the gene pool. That fish may have never succesfully spawned before, and my point is that large fish can be VERY beneficial to a lake if they can have a successful spawn.

"DEAD FISH DON'T SPAWN"

JS

[MRoberts]

I agree John “Dead Fish Don’t Spawn”. I hope I didn’t come across wrong in my above post. I don’t feel every big fish is sterile, but some of the freaks like the Malo fish and the big fish from Georgian Bay last year may have been, according to some. The fish with the huge girths compared to there length. But just because one or two where doesn’t mean they all are, it’s just a theory.

I agree about the extra eggs the big girls are carrying around. That was the point of my original post. If a 40.5 incher can have 4+ times the number of eggs as a 36.5 incher think how many eggs a 50 incher or a 55 incher could be carrying.

As another note, when they milked the two fish they also captured a number of other females that weren’t quite ripe yet. They took them to the hatchery to wait them out so they could take the eggs when they where ready. Because of some cause, they believe a difference in water chemistry the other females never ripened. The next year instead of removing the fish they placed the un-ripened females in a pen, at the brood stock lake, to harvest the eggs when they where ready. I believe that worked.

My point is that just because one year a fish may be unsuccessful at spawning doesn’t mean that the next year it wont happen. Who knows what effects these fish and there ability to spawn, that is why it is a good thing to have the season closed during the spawn. And people shouldn’t be fishing for them before the season opens.

I am also a firm believer that if you give 90% of the muskies out there the right forage and time to live they all have the potential to grow big. Genitics might get them big faster, but with time God only knows.


Nail A Pig!

Mike

Let 'em go, Let 'em Grow

[biofish]

2 fish aren't enough to look at and make generalizations for egg production. But in Becker's Fish of Wisconsin, it says" muskies from 25-53" produced 22,000-180,000 eggs."

In addition, larger fish produce proportionally more, and larger eggs. However, there becomes a point (which depends on individual fish) where, when it reaches a certain age, and length, that the quality of the eggs decline.


So Jlong- if we took the eggs of the same fish from when it was 38" + 48", the 48" may produce more eggs, but the 38" may produce more viable eggs.

Regardless of genetics + eggs production, the environmental factors affecting the eggs and fry are the most determinate ones in determining year class strength.

It's also been documented that stocked musky that show high growth rates, do not live to old age, 12 years is about the maximum age. (Becker)

As for counting eggs, we estimate either by counting the eggs in one ounce, then weigh all the eggs, or just assume that a certain # of eggs are produced/ pound of fish. But jlong, if you want to double check our accuracy, I'm sure I can find a non-paying volunteer position for you.

[John Skarie]

Well I'm not sure what documentation you are refering to, but in Mn stocked fish live well beyond twelve years. This is easily seen in the brood stock lakes we net in.

As far as viability, when netting muskies, rarely did we use females smaller than 45-48". With the occasional 50"+ being used as well. The percent of eggs that hatched per quart were not significantly different in the larger fish.

The bottom line in my opinion, big fish are very important to lake reproduction.

JS

[jlong]

John, I'm not disagreeing with you that bigger fish are an asset for reproduction in a system.

All I'm saying is the thought that spawn from a bigger fish PRODUCES bigger fish is just plain unrealistic. As biofish says, environmental conditions play a huge role in success rates of spawning and survival rates of young fish. We as fisherman are part of that environment as we directly affect the mortality rate.

I don't think we should ignore the fact that a group of younger spawners may actually contribute more than a single big mama. Second, I agree with MRoberts that ANY musky, if given the right conditions (food, life expectancy, etc.), has trophy potential.

Perhaps the reason the DNR strips eggs from the big girls is simply because then they don't have to handle as many fish. If you can take eggs from 1 fifty incher instead five 40 inchers to get the same number of eggs... which would you dig out of the fyke net first?

jlong

[DocEsox]

Jlong....I would have to disagree with you on the thought that any musky given the right enviornmental conditions could reach trophy potential. Genetics does determine, to a large degree, what the maximum size of a particular fish may reach given optimal conditons.
Just as an infant born to a tribe of pygmies will never reach any significant height, some of the northern African people are nearly all over 7 feet tall. A fish cannot grow larger then its genetics will allow REGARDLESS of its enviornmental situation (unless someone has developed "fish steriods" we don't know about). Ideal conditions will just allow it to reach its maximum size which for some musky may only be 45" ( or it could be 60").

Unfortunately there is no way to tell from a 36" fish, or a 41" fish what it's maximum potential may be. Just because it is shorter doesn't necessarily mean it will have shorter offspring BUT there is no way to tell unless we are doing a family genealogy tree for the beasts. I believe a 45" Kawartha musky is considered a beast but the same fish on the Ottawa wouldn't even get a second glance. You take that same Kawartha fish and put it in the Ottawa and it will most likely still only reach a 45" length.

Perhaps that is why they are studying these breeding musky to see what size potential the offspring have. Another thing...I believe the male contributes to this whole process too (my wife may argue about that). Good topic...

BrianW

[John Skarie]

Jlong, I'm not sure why you don't think that a trophy fish is more apt to have the genetics to pass on to the little guys to make them have a better chance at becoming a trophy.

Genetics pretty much work the same in any species in regards to the passing of traits.

Of course this doesn't mean that the same fish doesn't have the same genetics when it spawns as a youngster, but we as fishermen don't know if that smaller fish will ever be a trophy. Obviously when you catch a trophy, you know it got there, and it could produce more.

There isn't any reason why the DNR uses one fish or another, when we netted we used everything we could get, rarely ever did we get to many females.

My experience in netting skies, and doing the hatchery work has clearly shown me that with few exceptions, big fish have viable eggs and tons of them.

Genetics does play a very big role in trophy fish, there are year classes in early 80's MN stockings that have had some phenomenal growth rates and girths. These fish were put several lakes the same year, and have resulted in the biggest (length and weight) MN fish
caught in the 1990's.

Anyway, I like this subject, it's a good debate.

JS

[jlong]

Right on DocEsox! Stripping eggs from a BIG fish adds confidence that you got a "good one" for genetics. I just have a hard time with the whole "genetic" thing altogether. There are certain things about genetics that just don't vary too much... like a male cardinal always being red or a Mallard Drake having a green head.

And in people. Some people are born with the "genetics" of a low metabolism that promotes obesity. BUT, just about anybody, if given the right conditions, can pack on the weight. Just look at the SUMO Wresters who go on strict diets to bulk up.

So, there may be situations where "genetics" are limiting a fish's potential... but other situations it may be the environment. Has there been any studies on the Kawartha's fish to prove the above example? Are the Kawartha's fish GENETICALLY inferior to the fish in the Ottowa?

With the WDNR considering a spotted musky program here in Wisconsin... I'd like to learn more about the "genetics" aspect of fish growth potential.

jlong

[Dan Klis]

Hello,

I was going to stay out of this, but as usual I was dragged into it by my frustration. The question was if a larger fish produced more eggs. This has been answered as YES. When the smaller fish produces the eggs it is unknown at that time if it has the potential to become a true trophy, but when the trophy produces the eggs it is known that it may.

But the question of genetics is a whole another one.

First: There are too many environmental factors involved to decide if a Muskie is going to reach its potential, in a biological setting. These factors are other species, fisherman, local weather and water conditions, etc.

Second: When a fish lays its eggs they have to be fertilized by a male. And there are recombination events within the egg genome at the time of fertilization. This means that just because a fish has the “big fish” gene in its genome it may not be passed on to its offspring. And only some of the population of eggs may receive this “big fish” gene, a high degree of flexibility. This gene was a dominate gene but has become a heterozygous, a non-dominant gene.

Perry Hackett-Professor of Genetics and Cell Biology, produced transgenetic Northern Pike in his lab at the University of Minnesota years ago. These fish would grow at an enormous rate and to an enormous size. These fish lines were easily maintained in the lab, but would not have the same effects when introduced into a biological setting. They could not maintain the “big fish” gene.

Environmental factors are the greatest determinant if a fish is going to get to a trophy size. Even a Muskie carries a “big fish” gene there many factors that need to occer for it to show its potential.

Dan Klis

I consulted Dr. Alexi Benyumov, Ph.D for this reply. He studies transgenetic Zebrafish at the PHCC.

[MRoberts]

I don’t mind that this topic has evolved into a separate issue, this is great stuff.

Dan you seem to know much about this and have some interesting connections. Is it possible that all muskies have the genes to make them giants and all it takes is environmental queues to bring it out in them.

I mean I understand that some muskies may have evolved different then others depending on other species present, and other environmental situations. I mean if a ski only needs to grow to 40 inches to be the badest mother in the lake and is able to eat anything it wants why get any bigger. But if you put that fish in a situations where it needs to be able to eat larger prey would it have the potential to grow larger or would it’s off spring develop into a larger predator.

I don’t know, am I making any since?

Nail A Pig!

Mike

Let 'em go, Let 'em Grow

[DocEsox]

Mike...I very much doubt that all muskies have the gene for largeness, latent or active. If that were the case then it should follow every female which resides in a certain area with others (i.e., the enviornmental conditions are the same) should be nearly the same in size at equivalent ages. This is not the case.

Dan...your point about egg fertilization was a touch hazy to me. There's no question about a large fish being able to pass on the gene which selects for largeness...it's not quite as random as you would make it sound. Each egg has one set of the females chromosomes and if the gene were a simple dominant genetic trait it could occur in 50% to 100% of the eggs (50% if it is only on one chromosome--100% if it is on both). Of course that is assuming simple dominance. Size could be a polygenic trait where several genes interact and then it becomes more complicated. Suffice it to say if you have eggs from a trophy sized female there is no doubt the size POTENTIAL will be there in a significant number of her progeny. If you are talking about being able to get only a limited number of breeders, obviously trophy sized fish (including large males) would give you a better KNOWN chance of producing large offspring. A smaller female may produce just as many you just can't be as sure.

Interesting point mentioned about some of the largest muskies being sterile. All animals contribute a large percentage of their yearly metabolism into reproduction. Therefore, if you have a female which simply resorbs her eggs and doesn't ever ripen then the energy expended to produce those eggs is not lost...it results in more bulk to the fish. Back in the 70's in California they produced a triploid (3 sets of chromosomes, not just two) strain of rainbow trout. It was accomplished by heat treating the eggs early in development. The trout developed virtually no sexual organs and as a result grew at a tremendous rate. They could grow them 18" at around 3 lbs in just 1 year---that is phenomenal growth. Unfortunately, they didn't live as long, didn't fight well and generally tasted like wet cardboard. It would be fascinating to know what percentage of supermusky hens are sterile. BUT even if a significant portion were, CPR would still leave these superfish to achieve even larger proportions. What fascinates me more is if the truly huge fish are genetic anomalies, falling outside the normal range???

Great topic guys,
BrianW

[Dan Klis]

Hello,

I agree with Brian. But I am extremely busy today. Will try and return to this topic tonight.

Dan

[Tim Donnelly]

A very interesting subject. I'm certainly not an expert in the "Genetics" category but do feel that ones environment plays a significant role with both growth and development. jlong's example of the Sumo wrestler. Put a human in a sedentary lifestyle environment with an abundance of available food around, along with family tradition/pressure to eat large meals and lots of them and this person may very well be on their way to chubbyville, regardless of genetics.
The goldfish in the small fish bowl theory carries atleast some weight. Bigger bowl, bigger fish or fish potential. Certainly, spawning areas, food availability, and all the other factors condusive to growing big fish are important. I know that a muskies abilty to feed efficiently, expend the minimal amount of energy to maximize food intake, is another important factor.

I remember in college, writing a paper on Northern Pike growth rates, focusing on larger northern pike. Looking at the european countries like Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Ireland, etc.. where pike grow up to and beyond 50 lbs. Studying why they get so much larger over there compared to the US. Was it genetic makeup or their environment?

[John Skarie]

I can recall females of the same age being 2-3 inches different in length, out of the same lake. This was only seen in big fish, like a 48" and a 50-51".

Some people theorize that there are shallow muskies, and deep water muskies. It would be interesting to know if there could be such a difference in growth due to how and where they live in the same body of water.

An example being Leech Lake, Walker bay fish vs. fish that live in the big shallow lake.

JS

[Oneida Esox]

I am not a biologist but I am a firm believer that any given fish in any given lake if given enough time will grow very large. Here is why I believe this.

I know that muskies are not deer but in the area where I grew up deer hunting we have seen a DRAMATIC change in the size of the deers racks and the overall age structure of the entire herd. The change has come for one reason and one reason only. The deer are older when they are harvested. When I first started deer hunting some 20 years ago 95% of the bucks harvested were 1 1/2 years old and carried scrub racks. That has completely changed, now the average age of the bucks harvested is 2 1/2 and the racks are much larger.

Did the genetics change, no. We are still hunting the same deer. Has the food or woods changed, no. In fact with the decline in farming some say the quality of food has even declined somewhat. The only thing that has changed is the age at which the bucks are harvested. It has been proven time and time again that whitetail bucks in captivity and in the wild will produce enormous racks if given time, regardless of genes, how old their sire was, environmental conditions, food etc.

I also believe that muskies are prgrammed to grow large and they will if given time. I don't believe that comparing people to muskies is a fair comparison, humans are far more complex than a fish is.

I maybe way off base here, but it does make for some interesting conversation. God bless.

Oneida

[DocEsox]

OE...your observations about the deer explain the exact reason the bucks are larger now...they are older before they are harvested. This is purely an enviornmental consideration and has nothing to do with the absolute potential size for the deer...which is governed in a large degree by genetics. When everyone talks about supermusky they are talking potential records. Although your deer may be larger are people breaking age old rack size records? All animals will get larger if given more time and good enviornmental conditions. However the absolute size an animal may reach is determined by genetics. IF given IDEAL enviornmental conditions and time not all musky will reach record proportions....only a limited number will. Many will just not have the capacity to do so. I am talking under absolutely ideal circumstances. Enviornment dictates how well an animal develops but only within the confines of its genetic boundaries.

I could get a geneticist on to explain this but most of us wouldn't understand what he is saying. I majored in zoology (animal study) with a minor in biochemistry and genetics. Granted, that was many years ago.

YOU CAN IMPROVE YOUR ENVIORNMENT BUT YOU CANNOT IMPROVE YOUR GENETICS!

Fun Topic Boys,
BrianW

PS: BTW who can tell me what my what the embryology statement: "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" means? It was my cell biology professors' favorite phrase.

[john skarie]

Doc;

I had a professor that stated the same thing occasionally, but I can't put my finger on the exact meaning, I'm going to have to dig in the cranial archives for awhile on that one.

You didn't attend Bemidji State U by any chance?

JS

[jlong]

Hey Doc, I think we may have different goals.

When I speak of a "trophy" musky, I am referring to something bigger than today's "average" fish. I think it would be unrealistic to try and establish stocking methods geared towards producing fish with WORLD RECORD POTENTIAL.

I think what Oneida is trying to say is that if we let a musky grow longer... it obviously will be bigger. He isn't saying that if you took a lake and made it catch and release only that in a few years someone would catch a world record.

Genetics (or a freak) may be needed to produce a RECORD book fish... but for the most part, I feel the majority of fish in our waters all have "trophy" potential.

For argument sake, lets just say "tropy" status is achieved at 30# and RECORD status is 60#. Two DRASTICALLY different endpoints. I don't think genetics is a BIG player for a fish to reach 30#... but 60# will take a lot more of the moons and galaxies to line up just right to make one of those.

jlong

[MRoberts]

Jason, your posted exactly what I was thinking when I read Docs post.

I'll give you a big second that.

Nail a Pig!

Mike

[Oneida Esox]

Jason, you must have read my mind, because that was the response I had in my head.

Doc, Jason is right in that I am not talking about growing world record muskies, nor were world record deer the concern when "we" started to manage the deer herd. All we wanted was chances at some larger racked deer and that is what we have. (and for what it is worth, the age old whitetail records are being broken and challenged every year!) I think that is all anyone is after in the musky fishing realm also. Let's face it would you rather see the majority of fish caught in a season 34-39 inches or would you rather see then 40-49??? Again, neat topic. God bless.

Oneida

[Ben Remer]

With Deer, it is a whole different ball game. They will get larger as they age, but there are two keys to managing deer 1. selective harvest, and the other is the buck to doe ratio. When not properly managed, and you have a large population of does the genes are watered down. Ideally the dominant buck will breed most of the females, but with too many does there is no competion and inferior males breed. Also something to keep in mind is ones idea of a trophy. Back in the midwest a mid forty inch fish is big. Fishing out east now, they consider anything under 48 a shaker. I know in IL, they where looking at a way to limit the amount of male musky in lakes. Apparently the ratio is important to fish as well. Also how much does the male genetics play in the fish world or are the females eggs all that count? I am enjoying this topic as I have a lot of interest in it. I personally believe it is very hard to have a "healthy" numbers lake. Hope eveyone's fall is going well...Ben