|
|
| A recent magazine article indicated that almost all species of fish follow the Weight = LxGxG/800 formula. Does anyone know of any references that show weights, lengths, and girths of other fish species and how well they agree with this formula?
Roy |
|
| |
|
| What is the current recommended formula then for muskies? |
|
| |
|
| I think that most people agree that the LGG/800 formula is good for most muskies, but some argue that it over predicts the weight of really huge muskies. The latest issue of Esox Angler had an article that claimed that this formula was accurate for all muskies, and in fact, most other fish species, regardless of size. The Esox Angler article had no references or data to support this statement, so I was wondering if anyone on this board had any relevant information.
Roy |
|
| |
|
| I am not sure what "Laws of Physics" govern these formulas, so I did some calculations. The form of the LGG/800 formula follows the general form for the formula for the weight of a cylinder. Since living things are mostly water, a logical choice might be to compare this formula to the predicted weight of a cylinder of water with the same length and girth. Doing these calculations shows that the LGG/800 formula predicts that a muskie has about 43% of the weight of this equivalent cylinder of water. This observation that muskies are lighter than the equivalent cylinder of water makes sense since (1) the measured muskie girth is the maximum girth and is not uniform throughout, (2) muskies do contain some air internally when weighed out of water, and (3) muskies are not circular in shape, and any shape other than a circle will have less enclosed area for a given girth. So to me, the "physics" show that the weight of a muskie for a given length and girth is still dependent on its overall shape also, and from what I have seen, there is quite a bit of variation in shape among different muskies of similar length and girth dimensions. It thus seems quite possible to me that very large muskies might tend to be less circular in cross-section and/or less uniform in girth throughout. The only real limitation that I can see based on physics is that a muskie can't exceed the weight of an equivalent cylinder, which means that it can't be much over twice the weight predicted by LGG/800. However, this limitation doesn't come into play with the record muskies since they all have lower weights than predicted by the formula. |
|
| |
|
| My largest to date would weigh about 59 by the formula. I am certain it wasn't that heavy. It was a supertanker, but was empty stomached at the time as far as I could tell. If she had eaten a pike or other large meal just before I stuck her, maybe she would have weighed that much. |
|
| |
