The following is the record of fish caught, showing a total of 216, weighing 482 lb. 1 oz., and averaging nearly 2¼ lb.
| 1913. | 6 trout, weighing 8 lb.; average 1⅓ lb.; largest 2 lb.; smallest ½ lb. |
| 1914. | 19, weighing 29 lb.; average slightly over 1½ lb.; largest 2½ lb.; smallest ¾ lb. |
| 1915. | 14, weighing 29 lb. 11 oz.; average just over 2 lb.; largest 3½ lb.; smallest 1 lb. 1 oz. |
| 1916. | 20, weighing 58 lb. 9 oz.; average nearly 3 lb.; largest 4 lb. 7 oz.; smallest 2 lb. |
| 1917. | 18, weighing 58 lb. 11 oz.; average about 3¼ lb.; largest 4 lb. 10 oz.; smallest 2 lb. |
| 1918. | 44, weighing 98 lb. 5 oz.; average nearly 2¼ lb.; largest 6 lb.; smallest ¾ lb. |
| 1919. | 13, weighing 28 lb. 4. oz.; average over 2 lb.; largest 4¼ lb.; smallest 1 lb. |
| 1920. | 20, weighing 59 lb. 6 oz.; average very nearly 3 lb.; largest 7½ lb.; smallest 1 lb. 2 oz. |
| 1921. | 30, weighing 48 lb. 13 oz.; average about 1⅝ lb.; largest 4¾ lb.; smallest ¾ lb. |
| 1922. | 32, weighing 73 lb. 6 oz.; average slightly over 2¼ lb.; largest 5 lb. 2 oz.; smallest 1 lb. |
The exact weights of the 20, 18, 20, and 32 fish caught respectively in 1916, 1917, 1920, and 1922 (in which years the highest average was reached) were as follows:
| 1916. | 1917. | 1920. | 1922. | ||||
| lb. | oz. | lb. | oz. | lb. | oz. | lb. | oz. |
| 4 | 7 | 4 | 10 | 7 | 8 | 5 | 2 |
| 4 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 10 | 5 | 1 |
| 3 | 13 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 8 | 4 | 8 |
| 3 | 10 | 3 | 14 | 4 | 7 | 4 | 4 |
| 3 | 9 | 3 | 14 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 |
| 3 | 6 | 3 | 10 | 3 | 10 | 3 | 4 |
| 3 | 1 | 3 | 9 | 3 | 10 | 3 | 4 |
| 3 | 0 | 3 | 8 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 |
| 3 | 0 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 9 | 2 | 12 |
| 3 | 0 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 8 | 2 | 8 |
| 2 | 12 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 12 | 2 | 4 |
| 2 | 12 | 3 | ½ | 1 | 10 | 2 | 2 |
| 2 | 9 | 2 | 13 | 1 | 10 | 2 | 1 |
| 2 | 8 | 2 | 8 | 1 | 10 | 2 | 0 |
| 2 | 8 | 2 | 8 | 1 | 8 | 2 | 0 |
| 2 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 8 | 2 | 0 |
| 2 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 8 | 3 of 1 | 12 |
| 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 7 of 1 | 8 |
| 2 | 0 | ∙ | ∙ | 1 | 4 | 5 of 1 | 4 |
| 2 | 0 | ∙ | ∙ | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
The fish caught have been remarkable not only for their weight but also for their extraordinary beauty and condition. Those of us who have seen them have seen many trout in our time, but have never seen trout to compare with those caught during the first four or five years after we began fishing the loch. Several of these, which we measured, were as much in girth as in length from the gills to the point of the tail where the flesh ends. They had small heads and were most beautifully coloured. Their flesh was in colour a deep red—no doubt due to the pigment in the fresh-water shrimps which, as I have said, abound in the loch.
It is an interesting fact that, although the loch was very little fished by ladies, they secured the two largest fish, one of 7½ lb., which took over three-quarters of an hour to land and gave splendid sport, the other 6 lb. The former was a most extraordinary fish. It was 22 inches in length, 16 inches in length from the gills to the point where the flesh ends at the tail, and 16 inches in girth. There is, however, no doubt that, with the exception of this particular fish, the fish caught during the last four or five years, whilst in excellent condition and comparing very favourably with the ordinary large brown trout caught elsewhere, have not been so extraordinary in their girth as in the first few years after the loch was stocked.
These experiments show the correctness of the opinion expressed by one of the most experienced of writers on the subject of trout culture, Mr. P. D. Malloch, who says in his well-known work on the Life History and Habits of the Salmon, Sea-trout, Trout and other Fresh-water Fish[31] (p. 186): “When a farmer rents a piece of land for grazing he knows how many sheep or cattle it will pasture, and that if he puts on more than the proper number they will not grow. He also knows that if he introduce too few they will become fat and too lazy to eat up all the pasture, and he will thus lose part of the money paid for the pasture land. If the proprietor or the tenant of a loch would consider the matter in the same way as the farmer, he would obtain full value out of his lochs, be saved a deal of grumbling, and find life more pleasant.” The same writer also says (p. 157): “Many naturalists maintain that there are different species of trout in the British Islands—Loch Leven trout, Gillaroo trout, tidal trout, and many others—but from a close study of all these trout for the last forty years, I have come to the conclusion that there is only one species of trout in Great Britain, and that in the different varieties the differences are caused by the nature of the water in which they are found and by the food they eat.” Thus, as would be expected, there is no apparent difference between the so-called Loch Leven trout which were put into the loch from the hatcheries and the little trout from my own burns. Numbers of these splendid trout running up to 5, 6, and 7 lb. must be the brothers and sisters of the little fingerlings of the same age in the burns. The best authorities are apparently agreed[32] that the average life of trout is about ten years (although there are authenticated instances in which they have lived for a much longer period), that they reach their prime in six or seven years, that they remain in their prime for a few years longer, and then begin to lose condition and weight as old age creeps on. Those of the trout put into the loch in 1910 and 1911 which I have described as of fair size were about three to the lb., some rather larger and could not then have had many years to live. Those from the burns were probably of different ages, but it is highly likely that in 1913 and 1914, when the yearlings from the hatcheries were put into the loch, there were very few of such other trout as were still there that could live more than three or four years longer.
So far there has been little indication that any of the trout caught have been cannibals—probably because they can obtain plenty of other food, and since their transfer to the loch have not been in the hungry condition in which they certainly were when they lived in the burns. On one occasion we found when carrying some of the little brown trout from one of the burns to the loch that one of the captives on the journey in the small can in which they were being carried had caught and succeeded in half swallowing another little trout half its own size.
Both Mr. Malloch (see pp. 130-132 of his work mentioned above) and Mr. Hamish Stuart (The Book of the Sea-Trout,[33] p. 240) agree that the young of the sea-trout, if confined in a loch, grow rapidly if the feeding be good, and are as silvery as sea-trout that are fresh run.
My experience in regard to the young of the sea-trout put into this loch confirms this view, as I have caught sea-trout up to nearly 2 lb. in the loch, which are in no way distinguishable from the ordinary fresh-run sea-trout. It is curious, however, that so far no sea-trout larger than 2 lb. have been caught in this loch.