Pond Boss
Posted By: roadwarriorsvt Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/11/12 02:27 AM
If any Pond Boss Conferance atendees want to pose this question at the appropriate time, feel free.

My fishing club's hatchery had a spawn back in Feb/2012. The fry were fed brine shrimp, then ground krill, then ground up pellets (not Aquamax). Once all the fingerlings were pellet trained, I took 200 home to my 625 gal. tub. I've been feeding them Aquamax 500 4-5 times a day.

Here is my question. I've heard and read on this forum that it takes about 10 lbs. of forage for a bass to put on 1 lb. of weight and only 1.8 lbs. of Aquamax pellets for a bass to put on 1 lb. of weight. Another club member took bass back to his house and has been feeding then 100% live bait, mainly small talopias. His bass are 50-75% larger than my Aquamax bass! Any opinions as to why? Thanks for any info.
Posted By: esshup Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/11/12 06:16 AM
What's your water quality vs. his?
Posted By: roadwarriorsvt Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/11/12 09:09 AM
I'm not certain of his, but I have an Ultima II 4000 and a 25 watt UV sterilizer for my 600+ gallon pond and do 20-30% water changes weekly.

And thank you for taking the time to assist with my question, especially after driving 600+ miles and attending the PB Con V. I appreciate your time. Now go to the Buzzard Bar and relax!
Posted By: esshup Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/12/12 03:31 AM
Oh heck no! We got 3.5 hr of sleep, got up to hit the first conference in the morning, grabbed ran to the tournament, ran back to the hotel to change clothes and then back to the meet and greet at the convention. We bailed out at 9:00 p.m. to be back at the conference at 7:00 a.m. tomorrow. Buzzard Bar tomorrow night for sure.
Posted By: esshup Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/15/12 03:57 PM
Well I'm back home and we actually never made it to the Buzzard Bar at all.

Some things that contribute to slower growing fish are:
Stress
Poorer water quality
Higher fish density (that would be under both of the above depending on quality of filtration)
Water Temp

In talking with the Purina Rep at the Conference, he said that from Fingerling to about 2#, the FCR on LMB being fed their food is right around 1.7.
Posted By: ewest Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/15/12 04:25 PM
Pellets are good for LMB but not better for them than the real thing. One of the big reasons pellets work (for all fish that eat them) is they work both sides of the energy euqation. That is , not only are they a good source of nutrition they require no to little energy use to consume. Energy in (food) minus energy out (biological functions including energy spent to catch the prey) equuals growth. With pellets you get energy in plus reduced energy out ( both sides of the energy equation - no energy capture cost) thus good growth. In studies with BG the results were adding pellets supplementally is between 3 and 8X more efficient.

The energy capture cost is much more apparent in a pond (thus the 3-8X) than an aquarium where the prey fish are easier to catch - thus bigger growth differences show up more in the aquarium. Again while pellets are good and getting better they do not yet , on an energy in basis match a diet of properly sized natural forage for LMB. That is why it’s called supplemental feeding. Not addressing the differences in long term nutrient content between pellets and natural forage for LMB with this comment.
Posted By: Bluegillerkiller Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/15/12 08:13 PM
Was any other feed producers invited to the conference or is aquamax kinda an exclusive type deal?
Posted By: Chad Fikes Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/15/12 08:45 PM
Cargill feed was also there, they had some interesting things to say. Still would like to talk with them a little more to understand their philosophies.

I agree with ewest completely. I realize that you are raising those fish in a controlled environment but you might consider using both pellets and live forage for increased growth. When managing feed trained bass in a pond environment I never rely soley on pellets alone, I always use additional forage.

Also I would ask what is your feeding schedule, how much food are you feeding, what amount of fish are eating or not eating? etc.
Posted By: Cecil Baird1 Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/15/12 09:23 PM
Originally Posted By: esshup


In talking with the Purina Rep at the Conference, he said that from Fingerling to about 2#, the FCR on LMB being fed their food is right around 1.7.


Humbug! grin That's a best case scenario in a lab where no feed is wasted as in fish are fed exact percentages of their weight etc. after periodic weights are taken of the fish. Sorry I don't buy it for general application. wink My guess is conversion is really in the 2 range.

Great sales pitch though.

Posted By: Bill Cody Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/15/12 09:42 PM
The Purina booth and the associated presentation had two LMB one fed Gamefish Chow and one fed Aquamax for around I think 4 months. The test fish were in a cage. Aquamax fish was about 1.5" inches longer and had better body condition (Wr aka RW). I should have taken a picture of those two fish that were taxidermy mounted on a display board. Did anyone get that picture? I told Bob he should try to get them to write-up their presentation for the magazine.
Posted By: ewest Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/15/12 10:00 PM
Both Purina and Cargill were there with their experts and both sets spoke at some point in the Conf. Some very good info from both.
We are attempting to get larger scale data on results but not there yet.

I think Bob is going to put all the Power Point presentations up on the main web site.
Posted By: Bill Cody Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/16/12 12:52 AM
The main thing that I concluded about Cargill feeds after talking with the 3 reps is where or how to conveniently get the higher protein feed and not have to buy a whole pallet? similar to the problem with Silver Cup feeds. One of the Cargill reps told me that shipping cost of one bag would be close to the cost of the bag of feed. What I don't understand is the lower protein Cargill 32% (Sportsman Choice Trophy Feed) is available at Tractor Supply stores why not also stock the higher protein feed? - dumb in my opinion.
Posted By: ewest Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/16/12 01:06 AM
Same reason many Co-ops stock GFC but not AM. Some TSC also stock GFC and Cargill's SC .

If Cargill is only doing by the pallet they won't make much headway with recreational fisheries.
Posted By: Bill Cody Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/16/12 01:08 AM
Like I said above - dumb on someone's part. Why can't Cargill add one or a few bags to the shrink wrapped pallet in the delivery to Tractor Supply??. That is how I get my special order Purina high protein Amax smaller sized feeds such as 5D001, 002, 003, and 004.
Posted By: Cecil Baird1 Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/16/12 02:33 AM
Apparently they don't believe it's worth it to market to recreational pond people?
Posted By: Cecil Baird1 Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/16/12 02:36 AM
Originally Posted By: Bill Cody
The Purina booth and the associated presentation had two LMB one fed Gamefish Chow and one fed Aquamax for around I think 4 months. The test fish were in a cage. Aquamax fish was about 1.5" inches longer and had better body condition (Wr aka RW).


O.K. I stand corrected (if you are also not buying my comments on inflated conversion rates), but wouldn't the conversion rate be better for smaller fish that are gaining weight faster than larger fish?

I've had my 4 and 5 pound largemouth bass gorge on pellet after pellet but I don't think they were growing that fast anymore. At that size if they were feeding like no tomorrow, but not gaining a lot of weight their conversion had to be dismal.

How many recreation pond owners are feeding 1.5 inch bass? Most feed trained bass that are sold by suppliers to recreational pond people are bigger than that.

Posted By: esshup Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/16/12 04:15 AM
I think all of the FCR data stops at marketable sized fish and none is available for larger fish in ponds.
Posted By: Bluegillerkiller Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/16/12 05:11 AM
Where is cargill feed sold? If you wanted to buy a pallet directly from them? Their website sucks for fish feed info.. Silver cup has bar none the best customer service but their prices are just way to high even on major heavyweight orders..
Posted By: ewest Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/16/12 01:57 PM
Call Greg Grimes. He can have it sent direct to you.
Posted By: ewest Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/16/12 02:07 PM
Originally Posted By: Cecil Baird1
... but wouldn't the conversion rate be better for smaller fish that are gaining weight faster than larger fish?


Very good question - I don't know. I have never seen that addressed. If the small fish are eating more to sustain that faster rate of growth then maybe the same conversion rate. But the data I have seen is either as a % of body weight or to satiation. You could get opposite results just based on that. There is very little data on larger fish in a controlled environment. That is why we want the data from Purina and Cargill.

Posted By: djstauder Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/16/12 04:05 PM
Bill,
Are you saying you order a palette of larger size Aquamax pellets and get a few bags of smaller sized pellets on the same palette?
Posted By: Greg Grimes Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/16/12 04:46 PM
Cecil I can’t do the quote in the box thing but you wrote "Apparently they don't believe it's worth it to market to recreational pond people?"

I’m sorry but that is totally incorrect. I don't have time for all the details but here you go… both Cargill and Purina took time to speak to the masses at the conference. Nate Shawn and I were all candid with both in private meetings. Cargill cares tremendously about sport fish ponds. They forked a ton of money for the show, advertising in POndBoss etc. Both Purina and Cargill agree overall it is a small market but admit it is growing. If they read post like yours maybe they will pull out. I appreciate them showing up with reps and their nutritionist and Purina doing the same.

Cargill has a strong presence in Aquaclture for them to take the time and show they care for us is huge. It puts pressure on Purina to do the same. How many complain about not being able to get the AM product. Well we had talks to address and they might change business plan. Cargill has many options available and we can drop ship so that opens up many more opportunities to pondowners all across the country.

Yes it is pricey to ship less than 10 bags, but not their fault that is simply freight with diesel prices inflated. When you start getting 20 bags and really 40 bags it starts to be cheaper and more convenient than local feed store. Might start forming coop with neighboring pond owners. Bill the better food has to be marketed or it sits on shelves. Purina has done the marketing part well. Cargill as I said has done a good job of getting good food to those growing in aquaculture. It is evolving this is classic free enterprise and I love it someone will fill the need.

Some good things are coming from both companies as well as further testing with different feeds. It is all good info Cecil so please don’t be so negative.
Posted By: Bill Cody Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/16/12 06:07 PM
I was meaning to say that at my local purina supplier, they will order any special size of Aquamax that I ask for. I don't have to order/buy any other feed besides that one bag. They evidently get the 1bag special order in with their regular Purina shipment which is maybe every 1 to 2 weeks. When I order it never takes more than 2 weeks to get it. I'm not sure, but the Purina shipments to my dealer in Napoleon OH (based in WauseonOH they have 4 branch feed stores) probably include a mixed lot of various types of feeds from the Richmond IN production plant. I can check on this information from my dealer if someone wants specfic info as to how one dealer does it to get one special order bag of fish food. The AM with higher protein content will be more expensive. The smaller sized 50%+ protein feeds have been about $45-50 for me. If you want answers to specific question provide me the question/s.
Posted By: ewest Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/16/12 07:54 PM
Bill that is exactly my situation/results as well.
Posted By: Greg Grimes Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/16/12 08:18 PM
Bill any feed store in the country can do this. Question is will they and for what charge. It is inconsistent and when recommending Purina dealers across country been met with we can not get it for 4 or more weeks etc. etc.
Posted By: Bob Lusk Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/16/12 08:52 PM
Guess I better chime in here, since I have some inside information that other people don't have.
First, I was thrilled to see the private meetings going on at the conference, as well as both the talks given by each company's representatives.
The top marketing people were there as was nutritionists. Purina had five people there. Cargill had three.
Here's some background.
Purina decided, under the guidance of Dr. Mark Griffin, about 2004-05, to focus more on the sport fish market. Their approach has been to improve their products and figure out how to make a feed that grows big fish in a healthy way. Dr. Griffin worked on that personally. I had the pleasure to be able to test some of those feeds along the way. His first target was feed-trained bass. Silver Cup owned that commercial market (still does)at the hatcheries. But, we needed a product to use with recreational fishing ponds. AquaMax 600 was refined and AquaMax Largemouth was born. Griffin actually tried to replicate the same nutrition a rainbow trout yields when he designed AquaMax Largemouth. I helped test it, he tweaked it and put it on the market. Purina's biggest problem is getting the best feed in the hands of the consumer. Mark Griffin took another job and Darren Simon, from Griffin's team, was put in charge of the AquaMax products. After a downturn in the economy, Simon was laid off, in August 2010. At that point, the AquaMax product line was bounced around the different business groups inside Purina. The consequences were terrible. Customer service deteriorated, dealers weren't informed about the product and end users like us couldn't get our hands on the products. Finally, AquaMax, this past August, was handed over to the Wildlife Business within Purina, which makes absolute sense. Hopefully, they'll run with it.
From a personal standpoint, I've seen these feeds grow giant bluegills, over 3 pounds so far, bass up to 8 pounds and increase the standing crop of species of fish tremendously. As far as the conversion rates, based on my data in small ponds, the conversion is more like 1.3 to 1. For those of you who manage fisheries and ponds for a living, this will make sense. For those with aquaculture backgrounds, it won't make quite as much sense. Some AquaMax is actually used twice. It's used once when the fish eats it and then again when those at the bottom of the food chain eat it the second time. In a fish population that reproduces, I've seen outstanding conversion rates and numbers of fish increase significantly in ponds fed AquaMax compared to fish fed grain-based diets.

Regarding Cargill, I was invited to their research farm in Elk River, Minnesota about a year ago and took them up on the invitation. Their main mission has been focused on aquaculture, since they bought an extrusion plant in Louisiana. With David Hines' guidance and Ryan Lane's nutrition background, they've decided to make a play into the sportfish business. Their company model is more along the lines of "least cost" feed formulations by researching different protein sources, making them the most digestible for the animals and then being competitive in the marketplace. So, they have several products available on the market and are developing data to use in that marketplace. They've started by using fish farms to gain some data that they plan to bring to the recreational sport fish market. So, bottom line, they are trying to prove how good their feed is.

I love competition. I've been in Purina's camp for a long, long time, since 1995. I've been just as frustated as anyone over the last two years because of the "limbo" of AquaMax feeds. It was almost like that product was the red-headed stepchild.

I was a little bit nervous about both companies coming to Pond Boss V, but the more I thought about it, the bigger the benefit I see from it. When competition happens, the consumers benefit. Best feeds, best prices and best distribution.

I can't wait to see what happens next.
Posted By: Bluegillerkiller Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/16/12 09:08 PM
Good info Bob and much appreciated..
Posted By: Bluegillerkiller Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/16/12 09:12 PM
Originally Posted By: ewest
Call Greg Grimes. He can have it sent direct to you.



I've talked with Greg a little on this.. I was asking more on the reasoning if a person wanted to pick up a couple pallets them self from the factory to avoid shipping cost.. And save money
Posted By: ewest Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/17/12 12:38 AM
Good question.
Posted By: Cecil Baird1 Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/17/12 03:49 AM
Originally Posted By: Bob Lusk
Guess I better chime in here, since I have some inside information that other people don't have.
First, I was thrilled to see the private meetings going on at the conference, as well as both the talks given by each company's representatives.
The top marketing people were there as was nutritionists. Purina had five people there. Cargill had three.
Here's some background.
Purina decided, under the guidance of Dr. Mark Griffin, about 2004-05, to focus more on the sport fish market. Their approach has been to improve their products and figure out how to make a feed that grows big fish in a healthy way. Dr. Griffin worked on that personally. I had the pleasure to be able to test some of those feeds along the way. His first target was feed-trained bass. Silver Cup owned that commercial market (still does)at the hatcheries. But, we needed a product to use with recreational fishing ponds. AquaMax 600 was refined and AquaMax Largemouth was born. Griffin actually tried to replicate the same nutrition a rainbow trout yields when he designed AquaMax Largemouth. I helped test it, he tweaked it and put it on the market. Purina's biggest problem is getting the best feed in the hands of the consumer. Mark Griffin took another job and Darren Simon, from Griffin's team, was put in charge of the AquaMax products. After a downturn in the economy, Simon was laid off, in August 2010. At that point, the AquaMax product line was bounced around the different business groups inside Purina. The consequences were terrible. Customer service deteriorated, dealers weren't informed about the product and end users like us couldn't get our hands on the products. Finally, AquaMax, this past August, was handed over to the Wildlife Business within Purina, which makes absolute sense. Hopefully, they'll run with it.
From a personal standpoint, I've seen these feeds grow giant bluegills, over 3 pounds so far, bass up to 8 pounds and increase the standing crop of species of fish tremendously. As far as the conversion rates, based on my data in small ponds, the conversion is more like 1.3 to 1. For those of you who manage fisheries and ponds for a living, this will make sense. For those with aquaculture backgrounds, it won't make quite as much sense. Some AquaMax is actually used twice. It's used once when the fish eats it and then again when those at the bottom of the food chain eat it the second time. In a fish population that reproduces, I've seen outstanding conversion rates and numbers of fish increase significantly in ponds fed AquaMax compared to fish fed grain-based diets.

Regarding Cargill, I was invited to their research farm in Elk River, Minnesota about a year ago and took them up on the invitation. Their main mission has been focused on aquaculture, since they bought an extrusion plant in Louisiana. With David Hines' guidance and Ryan Lane's nutrition background, they've decided to make a play into the sportfish business. Their company model is more along the lines of "least cost" feed formulations by researching different protein sources, making them the most digestible for the animals and then being competitive in the marketplace. So, they have several products available on the market and are developing data to use in that marketplace. They've started by using fish farms to gain some data that they plan to bring to the recreational sport fish market. So, bottom line, they are trying to prove how good their feed is.

I love competition. I've been in Purina's camp for a long, long time, since 1995. I've been just as frustated as anyone over the last two years because of the "limbo" of AquaMax feeds. It was almost like that product was the red-headed stepchild.

I was a little bit nervous about both companies coming to Pond Boss V, but the more I thought about it, the bigger the benefit I see from it. When competition happens, the consumers benefit. Best feeds, best prices and best distribution.

I can't wait to see what happens next.


Please Bob no offense meant but I'm skeptical fish that haven't been selected for fast growth as trout have (for over 100 years) can have a conversion rate as low as 1.3, and haven't seen anything that good in any aquaculture data I have access to. Additionally the secondary use "at the bottom of the food chain" to calculate a feed conversion rate has never been sited in any literature I have ever seen. It makes sense but isn't practical in calculating feed conversion rates.

How would you know what the conversion rate in a pond is if you don't do weekly inventories of weight gains of the fish? I don't see how that would be possible in recreational pond setting. Sure you could sample and make an extrapolation but I see lots of flaws in that as in getting a biased sample. Fishing would produce the most aggressive and largest fish which would potentially have the best conversion factor.

I prefer to see the data and would want to see them peer reviewed and with a control. Then I would want to see the results duplicated. I'm not saying a feed manufacturer would fabricate the data, but I could see some clever manipulation of the stats for a sales pitch. Companies do it all the time.

In the aquaculture industry I'm a big part of (president of my state association) we are just beginning to selectively breed yellow perch, bluegills, and largemouth bass. I haven't seen any data that shows less than a 2:1 conversion rate. If anyone can show me some I'd be happy to look at it. And I'd like to buy any of the above species that do!

As you know conversion rates are not just about growing big fish, which I've done so on Aquamax myself, and continue to do so. It's about how much feed it takes to gain that weight.

Additionally in our research we're still seeing a lots of problems with a one size fits all diet that is based on a trout diet. We're seeing largemouth bass with dress out weights that are lower than optimum due to excessive fatty tissue, and some, if they are kept long enough, with fatty livers. We're also seeing much shorter lifespans for pellet fed bass vs. their live feed counterparts.

Aquamax may have come out with a special largemouth bass diet, but there still are no diets specifically for bluegill, yellow perch and trout other than rainbows.

Still a lot way to go on diets.

If someone truly is committed to a diet for sport fish and optimum results for those species, they need produce feeds for specific species.
Posted By: Bob Lusk Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/17/12 11:08 AM
Cecil,
No offense taken.
I'm in the business of providing results, not peer reviewed papers. My clients pay me based on what I know and what I can do.
I've got 8 ponds on my property that have different purposes. During my span with Dr. Griffin, I've proven four times that the AquaMax 500 diets convert feed into bluegills at 1.3-1 rate. I've done it in two small, .1 acre ponds, fed and monitored every day. We started with with 25 pounds of adult bluegills March 1 and fed them until Thanksgiving, when we drained the pond, weighed, sorted and counted the fish. Did that two years in a row with each pond. We started with 55 to 75 fish. We ended with slightly different amounts each time, somewhat due to predators (great blue herons love small ponds loaded with bluegills) and one fish kill (because I didn't pay attention to water quality). Each pond is filled with well water and has a drain. The best we did was the second year when we harvested 238 pounds of bluegill from one pond. Of those fish, the 55 original bluegills were each captured and weighed a total of 62.5 pounds. First spawn bluegills weighed about 120 pounds. There were more than 8,000 of those. Second spawn fish weighed about 35 pounds. There were 5,000 of those. Third spawn fish remained and they were less than 2" long.
We fed 6 bags of AquaMax 500 to this pond. Not for a minute do I believe the newly hatched fish ate this fish food. Never saw one come to the feeder. The water stayed green from mid-April until harvest and we didn't add a drop of fertilizer.
I didn't make this stuff up.
We sacrificed a few fish for their livers and body content.
I sold the remaining fish, reported the data to Mark Griffin and we moved forward.
Regarding the AquaMax Largemouth, when Griffin first created it, we fed it to largemouth bass in Richmond Mill Lake. I sent him several fish early on because I was concerned about their livers and body fat content. We both agreed there was too much fat and the fish weren't a natural color. Griffin tweaked the feed, sent another load and we fed it. He reduced the amount of fat, added more fish meal, changed the starches a little bit, changed the vitamin package and it made a huge difference.
We knew how many fish we started with, weighed and measured a significant sample of individuals and had a starting weight. We know how much we've fed and what the growth rates have been. I've electrofished the lake three times and anglers keep good records. Where we do get a little lost on this lake is that, due to its size, we have no idea what the attrition is. We can go by growth rates of bass without the ability to harvest, weigh and measure every fish in the lake.
What we do know is how much the landowner has paid for the feed, how much feed we've fed and what the growth rates are consistently. From that, we extrapolate feed conversion rates. As the fish have grown larger, the conversion rates seems to be dropping. I'll shock the lake in November and gather the latest round of data.
I wish I had a way to do more scientific research, but it doesn't pay well in the private sector.
So, no offense to you and none taken here. I know what I've seen and I know what my clients like and I've seen what works right now. I'd love to see the feed companies offer more data.
Posted By: FireIsHot Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/17/12 12:05 PM
Originally Posted By: Bob Lusk

Regarding the AquaMax Largemouth, when Griffin first created it, we fed it to largemouth bass in Richmond Mill Lake. I sent him several fish early on because I was concerned about their livers and body fat content. We both agreed there was too much fat and the fish weren't a natural color. Griffin tweaked the feed, sent another load and we fed it. He reduced the amount of fat, added more fish meal, changed the starches a little bit, changed the vitamin package and it made a huge difference.


Bob, this is exactly the info I was waiting for. I, like many, primarily feed forage fish. My goal is to get those fish through the first year, with a size large enough to survive smaller LMB attacks. I have no doubt that live forage is probably "better" long term, but that's not my immediate goal. I would assume that all retail fisheries feel the same way.

If I put 1000 1" CNBG in my lake, I'll lose them as quickly as 1000 1" FHM. I need those CNBG to get to the 2-4" inch range as quickly as I can, and supplemental feeding does that for me. Long term, the CNBG will survive in greater numbers, revert to live forage, and the purpose of the feeding to begin with has been accomplished for me. Many babies are feed formula until they're able to adapt to solid foods. It provides the nutrition that baby initially needs, but you wouldn't feed the same formula to a teenager.

I usually try to only feed Purina Aquamax, and if they're aware of the concerns, and are working on the mixes, then I think I've made the right choice. Rightly or wrongly, If I get the size I need as quickly as possible, then I'm fine with a slightly fatty CNBG liver. If the formula's are tweaked, and become even better for the fish long term, than that's a bonus for me.
Posted By: ewest Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/17/12 02:11 PM
The ins and outs of Supplemental Feeding. Now if we could get the others to give the info/data like Bob did we would be way ahead. Time to pressure Purina and Cargill to give us the data in a blind manner (no names or sources revealed) and we are off to the races.

Cecil I have seen some of the peer reviewed papers and agree those are the best source. Problem is the tests don't cover what we need (longer term results with supplemental feeding). At this point I will take any data I can get and sift through it all watching for sales puffery. There are some of us (like you) that can spot the noise and weed it out based on the scientific processes.

My opinion is with supplemental feeding results vary a lot due to the nature and amount of natural forage the fish get. Very difficult to control that factor in any study. How much is natural and how much is due to supplemental feeding varies by pond. But any info is better than no info so we try to gather and learn as much as possible.
Posted By: teehjaeh57 Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/17/12 02:29 PM
I wish Purina or Cargill would perform a side by side test, but why wait - we should try this on our own. Two cages, same qty, size and species, and provide Cargill and AM diet for 6-8 months and extrapolate the data pertinent to us such as WR. We could take it a step further and investigate the physiological effects as described above [general health of fish, fatty tissue, liver condition, etc.]. Condello has RAS set up in his basement as we speak....
Posted By: Bluegillerkiller Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/17/12 04:50 PM
I'm doing this next year TJ.. I will be doing 25 BG on AM500 25 on Cargill (not sure what model) Also I plan to do the same with HSB..
Posted By: Cecil Baird1 Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/17/12 05:04 PM
Sounds fair enough Bob. And I do respect your knowledge.
Posted By: teehjaeh57 Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/18/12 01:19 AM
Originally Posted By: Bluegillerkiller
I'm doing this next year TJ.. I will be doing 25 BG on AM500 25 on Cargill (not sure what model) Also I plan to do the same with HSB..


Good idea, I am open to it also. Why not perform the research ourselves to benefit the forum? Sounds simple enough, provided we carefully document the process.
Posted By: Bill Cody Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/18/12 01:35 AM
Cargill mentioned in the Pro Meeting that they had some test data but it was confidential since the fish farm did the study. Eric suggested that they blend the data with other data thus making it available for public release. I mentioned that process to Cargill. I'm not sure how well it was received.
Posted By: sprkplug Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/18/12 01:56 AM
I think it would be great to have three cages, and include a comparable Silver Cup formula also. Provided of course that someone can manage to obtain all three feeds......
Posted By: ewest Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/18/12 02:21 AM
sprkplug if the 3 companies found out one or more of us were doing that they all might refuse to sell us food. wink Seems like none of them want a head to head test. shocked
Posted By: sprkplug Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/18/12 02:30 AM
Originally Posted By: ewest
sprkplug if the 3 companies found out one or more of us were doing that they all might refuse to sell us food. wink Seems like none of them want a head to head test. shocked


Indeed, it does make you wonder......
Posted By: teehjaeh57 Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/18/12 02:35 AM
Sounds like just the challenge we need to provide motivation for launching the project! Any expert volunteers who can analyze the phisiological effects of the pellet diets [fatty tissue, liver condition, etc.]?
Posted By: Bluegillerkiller Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/18/12 03:59 AM
I really have no interest in silver cup due to plant location/price just not feasible.. I've talked with them a few times verynice people and easy to talk too and get info from
Posted By: roadwarriorsvt Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/19/12 06:25 AM
This testing of the different feeds is something I'm doing. I'll be the first to say it is far from scientific though. My hatchery uses Silver Cup trout food, mainly because that is what our DLNR provides us. The hatchery fish are raised indoors, under lights 24/7 using open water systems. I took 200 of these fingerlings, 3 1/4" - 4" and am feeding them Aquamax 500 at Bob's direction. I run a closed system outdoors so there are too many variables to call it scientific. None the less, it will be interesting to see which set of fish grew the largest.

I appreciate all the information that has been shared in this thread. Good knowledge for all.
Posted By: Cecil Baird1 Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/21/12 10:18 PM
I just got a bag of 5D06 of Aquamax I'm not that crazy about. Something new. It's larger than the regular 5D06 by a third, which is not small enough for some of the bluegills in the cage. I was told by one of my BOD members it was probably milled at their Macon, GA plant which has a different die size.

Now I'll have to buy a another bag for the two high schools but there's no guarantee I will get the normal size.

I may just have to drive 2 hours in the future to get several months worth of Silver cup. I'm just not happy with Purina Mills this year.
Posted By: esshup Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/21/12 11:36 PM
Cecil:

Look hard at the label. If it's a different mix of ingredients, then it was mfg. in Georgia. Both labels were posted in a previous thread.

My supplier has the Richmond, IN feed. LMK if you need any - she carries 400, 500, 600 and LMB in stock.
Posted By: sprkplug Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/22/12 12:40 AM
Originally Posted By: Cecil Baird1
I just got a bag of 5D06 of Aquamax I'm not that crazy about. Something new. It's larger than the regular 5D06 by a third, which is not small enough for some of the bluegills in the cage. I was told by one of my BOD members it was probably milled at their Macon, GA plant which has a different die size.

Now I'll have to buy a another bag for the two high schools but there's no guarantee I will get the normal size.

I may just have to drive 2 hours in the future to get several months worth of Silver cup. I'm just not happy with Purina Mills this year.


In addition to being larger, you'll also find that it smells different, hydrates different, might be a different color, and probably has more "dust" in the bag. Different formulation out of the Macon plant. Macon Mississippi, by the way.

My fish don't eat it as well either.
Posted By: ewest Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/22/12 01:28 AM
It should be a one time event as per Bob via Purina sources (see earlier thread http://forums.pondboss.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=305520&page=7 ). The bags I got 2 weeks ago are normal.
Posted By: sprkplug Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/22/12 11:28 AM
That's what Purina told me also....production would shift back to Richmond, and the original formulation. Thankfully, It looks like I won't be needing any more AQ until the spring, so I should be good to go when April gets here.
Posted By: Greg Grimes Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/22/12 09:33 PM
Guys Purina addressed this at the conference and confirmed it was a one time deal and back to being milled at Richmond now. BTW several of us had planned to test a couple of Cargill feeds come spring time. We will of course share those results. We will attempt to make it as scientific as possible.
Posted By: Bluegillerkiller Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/22/12 11:59 PM
I'm one of these planned experimenters and I'd be glad to get some guidance or pointers I was thinking of starting a thread on it..
Posted By: RydforLyf Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/23/12 12:05 PM
Any idea what the cut off date is/was? Last night I opened a bag of the Macon stuff that was dated 9/16, I think. I was hoping for the smaller pellets.

-RFL
Posted By: Cecil Baird1 Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/23/12 04:23 PM
Don't count on anyone from Purina Mills to tell you. Direct communication with their customer base here is nonexistent.
Posted By: esshup Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/23/12 04:51 PM
Cecil, my supplier has the "Richmond plant" food. LMK if you need some.
Posted By: Cecil Baird1 Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/23/12 06:05 PM
Scott,

I'll need a bag from you in the next couple of weeks. I can't feed the bluegills in the two high schools the over sized alleged 5D06, and I sure don't want to take a chance on buying another bag of over sized feed I can't use! Jeeze you'd think their two plants could at least use the same die!

BTW I'm getting 7 to 9 inch male brooks from Nelski as soon as I get a copy of his last three health inspections and get them to Randy Lang of the INDNR with my Trout Importation permit application. He's selling the bigger ones to someone else. I believe we had some miscommunication as it was my understanding he was supposed to contact ME.

Not a big deal as I have to grow them out to trophy size anyway and the smaller ones adapt better in the pond. It also gives me a little more time to clean up the trout pond.

I've got the Aquaculture and Fish Hauler's permits but need the trout importation permit on top of that from the DNR. I'd need a fourth permit from BOAH if the trout were on the VHS list! Four permits to get fish. Crazy huh?

I thought I got a trout importation permit this spring but I was mistaken.

Posted By: esshup Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/23/12 06:27 PM
LMK if you need other than AM500 food and I'll make sure I get it.

The importation permitting paperwork with the state could be an easier and quicker process, that's for sure! Randy is wearing too many hats (thru no fault of his own) and that bogs down the process. Him having to check two different offices for paperwork doesn't help matters either. He works out of one office, but the permit applications are sent to a different city.
Posted By: Cecil Baird1 Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/23/12 06:41 PM
We had both Dr. Strssser of BOAH and Randy Lang of the INDNR for a Q & A session at at our fall aquaculture meeting Saturday. Good people just doing their job but the permit process can be frustrating.

At least they don't have an agenda like some other states. Some state agencies have an adversarial relationship with those they have a charge over. Indiana does not.
Posted By: mpc Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/25/12 01:51 PM
Hi All read the posts in this thread and I found a study that address feed(s). I did not understand all of it,but in the end even with the flaws that occured,it appeared the study showed why the fatty livers happen and why it is a problem when growing Trophy CNBG, and other sportsfish maybe.
It takes a while to read and if you care not to read the control data and so many detail, the conclusions seem to me to not be biased.
The real points I gleened from this ONE study, although others were referenced, is that Fat, ammount of fat, as well as type of fat, is important. As well, the study, to me, suppoted the facts/idea that a plant based feed can be made to mimic, for the most part, a fish meal diet.The plant based being cheaper to support the studys reason for the research in the first place.
All that said a extra $100.00/yr bucks(4 or 5 bags of feed) to me does not really matter, but to a fish farm, it is a big deal.
One thing that confused me until the end of the study was the two systems studied ie. the 10% cull and replace and the or study group no fish pulled,with the conclusions that maybe the dominance of the larger fish (hierarchy) to taking more feed,bla bla bla.
It appeared to me that their findings that the end total weight of each group was the same, was facinating. They found the larger fish culled were mostly,if not all males, which changes the ratio of male/female in the 10% cull group, and indicated to me that females CNBG do not grow as fast as the males. I think I want to keep a high % male CNBG in my pond to get the trophy size. Did I get it wrong?

Here is the link to the study and I hope to read some thought from others when you have the time: https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/8874/research.pdf
Posted By: esshup Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/25/12 02:31 PM
Originally Posted By: mpc
They found the larger fish culled were mostly,if not all males, which changes the ratio of male/female in the 10% cull group, and indicated to me that females CNBG do not grow as fast as the males. I think I want to keep a high % male CNBG in my pond to get the trophy size. Did I get it wrong?


Nope, you got it right. Having a larger % of Males also reduces the number of YOY produced yearly.
Posted By: ewest Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 10/25/12 02:37 PM
MPC said " As well, the study, to me, suppoted the facts/idea that a plant based feed can be made to mimic, for the most part, a fish meal diet."

MPC that is exactly what they want you to think. That was the purpose of the study.

Here is my reply from the first thread

That is a gold mine of info not seen before wrt BG. It will take a few days to get through it. The study is very well done. Much thanks for the heads up.

If you read it keep in mind its purposes - to find an alternative to fish meal for young BG in closed systems. It is not about supp feeding in ponds for years but about aquaculture of BG to harvest size for food. Here is one key point made ... Diets based on fish meal protein are more likely to meet amino acid requirements of fishes (Gatlin et al. 2007). ]


The study provides in its methods - Finally, bluegills were provided a commercial feed (Aquamax-Grower-400, Purina 45 % crude protein, 16 % crude fat) for two consecutive days. … Feeding bluegills the commercial diet between test diets was done to avoid nutrient deficiencies that might arise due to the use of a single-ingredient test feed.

I think the use of this method speaks volumes about critical protein based amino acids and fish meal. Its needed in predator fish including BG and there is no current info that disputes this for supp feeding. We ask both Cargill and Purina at the PB conference if they were saying FM could be replaced by other products at this point for supp feeding and not a one of them even suggested yes. I have ask several other PhD fish nutritionists the same question and they said no. We simply don’t have the evidence that such a replacement will work – that is why the feed industry is supporting several of this type study. It is a hot topic right now and we do need the info. Keep in mind they are talking about farmed fish for food not supp feeding for recreational fisheries. There is a huge difference. More later as I digest the study.

There is an entire area of this study on social behavior of BG and its effect on growth. See Bruce's work for years on this subject and the Neff studies on BG. All are discussed here on PB. Fascinating info.
Posted By: Cecil Baird1 Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 11/02/12 12:28 AM
When I ordered another bag of 5D06 from my supplier but said I didn't want the larger pellets from Macon she asked me to bring a sample in as her rep said nothing about it. I brought in a few of the older smaller 5D06 and the newer larger 5D06 in zip lock bags. In the bags it was clear there was definitely a size differential.

Anyway she told me all the Aquamax is now made in Macon according to her rep and Richmond, Indiana may just be a distribution point now.

Anyone else hear this?
Posted By: ewest Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 11/02/12 12:36 AM
No and the guy in charge of making the stuff said just the opposite.
Posted By: esshup Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 11/02/12 12:43 AM
Cecil, I need to buy some food in the next few days. Want me to grab a bag of 500 for ya?
Posted By: Cecil Baird1 Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 11/02/12 01:20 AM
Originally Posted By: ewest
No and the guy in charge of making the stuff said just the opposite.


Good to hear!
Posted By: Cecil Baird1 Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 11/02/12 01:20 AM
Originally Posted By: esshup
Cecil, I need to buy some food in the next few days. Want me to grab a bag of 500 for ya?


No I need a bag of 06 that is normal size. LOL!
Posted By: esshup Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 11/02/12 02:30 AM
I'll call you when I have it and I'll measure a couple of pellets for ya.
Posted By: Cecil Baird1 Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 11/02/12 11:49 AM
Originally Posted By: esshup
I'll call you when I have it and I'll measure a couple of pellets for ya.


I should get it from my supplier but haven't heard yet. If you've already ordered it I'll take though.

The Macon stuff has Macon on the bag seam with the lot number etc.
Posted By: esshup Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 11/02/12 01:37 PM
Cecil, I don't have to order, they stock it. Bar MM Feed, Culver, Indiana 574-842-3374. If you call in the middle of the day talk to Connie. Mornings and afternoons she's driving a school bus. Nice people.
Posted By: mpc Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 11/05/12 12:59 AM
Hi ewest, I get what you are saying and hope one day we will have the very best feed for each species of fish we want to raize.Until that time,if fish meal is not taken away from us who only have recreational ponds, I think I will trust those here,like you who have vast knowledge as well as feed experiance. I do enjoy the studies(parts I can understand) and the conclusions.
What they do for the lay person(me),is let me know that there is research and the feed composition is not just trial and error only.Also that companies Like Purina and others do more that just copy-cat and charge more for the name,like one hears and reads often. Thanks for your response.
Posted By: mpc Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 11/05/12 01:18 AM
Hi All, here is another link to another study that kinda explains why fish meal makes our feed cost more and why there is less of it as well. I hope we will be able to comtinue to be able to have fish meal feeds with the plant based products for those who need a budget alternative.
http://fao.org/docrep/012/i1140e/i1140e.htm Click on the blue pdf. in the upper right hand corner.
Posted By: ewest Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 11/05/12 01:25 AM
All I see is nothing there -- ? No pdf I can see.
Posted By: esshup Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 11/05/12 03:23 AM
All I got was:

Page not found
The page you are looking for has either been moved or no longer exists. Please use the search box to find the information you are looking for or consult one of the links on the left.
Posted By: FireIsHot Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 11/05/12 03:29 AM
I believe what mpc was referring can be found under publications on the left side menu. Just a guess. I'm on my phone or I'd repost the link.


EDIT: fyi, it's a big download.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i2727e/i2727e.pdf
Posted By: ewest Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 11/05/12 03:11 PM
Thanks - the info starts on about pg 170.
Posted By: mpc Re: Aquamax vs.Live Forage - 11/06/12 11:47 PM
Sorry about the link guys. My computer got a virus and I will be out for a few day(wife let me borrow hers for a few min.). I must have put something in a a little wrong on the http, but I cannot fix it right now.
Thanks for the helpful link fireishot, it is part of the report I am reading.
© Pond Boss Forum