I see you guys are discussing various fish foods and thought that I would try to help out.

Protein is used to replenish and build muscle and tissue. Protein in excess of 40% is passed by the fish. I can dig up a study if you don't believe me.

Protein digestibility is the percentage of the protein that your fish can use. Most of the protein in your fish food should come from whole fish meal (around 92% digestible protein). Fish parts meals like salmon or catfish should not be used. Fish carcasses don't have much highly digestible protein.

Fat is the form of energy that can be stored. Excessive fat or in better terms excessive energy in the fish's diet is stored in the liver. Females need fat stored in the liver to produce eggs.

Starch is a carbohydrate form of energy that cannot be stored. Starch that is not used as energy is harmlessly passed.

Sugar is a carbohydrate form of energy that cannot be stored.

The order that energy is used first to last: 1. Sugar 2. Starch 3. Fat

Fiber is also a carbohydrate. Fiber aids in digestion. Excess fiber is passed harmless into your pond.

Minerals need to be replenished as they are used. Excess minerals are passed harmlessly into your pond.

Moisture is water content.

Example:

XYZ GameFish Food Honestly this will work for any carnivore

Protein - 39%
Fat - 11%
Starch and Sugar - 27%
Fiber - 3%
Minerals - 10%
Moisture - 10%

Total Energy(fat, starch and sugar) 52
11% Fat x 2.25 = 24.75 + 27% Starch and Sugar = 51.75

In the worst case your fish might pass some starch and store all of the fat. The big advantage in my mind anyway is plenty of stored fat for females to produce a bumper crop of healthy eggs.

I hope this helps.

Good discussion topic. ""Protein in excess of 40% is passed by the fish."" Why is this true and is it always true for every protein type and fish species? Different fish species have proven to have significantly different nutrition requirements. It is true for all fish or certain species or types of fish?

Not all proteins (amino acid composition) are the same and probably some proteins have better digestibility - depending. Some proteins are highly indigestible. I think some of your comments above are schooled generalizations and are not complete truisms. A lot of them are probably "it all depends". Depends on the fish species, type or quality of food compound. and the way the food is processed which can affect the digestibility, usefulness as a nutrient and probably several other factors.

Optima fish feed has no fish meal. Right Bill?

It seems to do great for bluegills.

Hi Bill,

The test results that I mentioned was on growing out juvenile carnivores. There wasn't substantial growth difference between a 35% protein food and a 55% protein food. Note these were growing fish which are using as much protein as they ever will to build muscle and tissue. The growth difference occurred in varying levels of starch and fat. Marine fat like crude menhaden oil works best in my opinion. This was the case for a carnivore and omnivore used in testing. Honestly there is no difference in digestion between a LMB, Bluegill or carnivorous catfish.

I can post a link if you would like. I will warn you that its quite lengthy.

Whole Menhaden, Herring or Anchovy meal are great (92% - 93% digestibility). I have found that Menhaden is very highly palatable for carnivores. Parts meals even of marine sources are generally very poor quality. Fish really aren't designed to eat warm blooded protein. Extruding the food at high temperatures effects the protein very little. However it does cook away some fat and destroys naturally occurring vitamins.

I have studied fish nutrition going on seven years now on my own. Read boring studies, done my own testing and messed around with different formulas just to see how it worked out.

If above 40 percent protein is passed why do feed manufacturers continue to produce feed that is up to 50 percent protein? Was always told the higher protein levels are imperative for younger smaller fish i.e. fry and fingerlings.

Soy meal maybe?

I would like to see the ingredient list and protein etc. numbers if possible.

You guys are the pond experts. I am just trying to help out in an area that some consider me an expert. However I do not consider myself an expert as I try to learn something new every day.

Would you like me to post a link or growth numbers on the different diets?

If the protein digestibility was poor enough 50 might really be 35.

Cecil,

Protein Fat Starch
#1 55 19.4 18.8
#2 56 13.0 19.7
#3 56 8.3 21.3
#4 36 20.0 34.5
#5 35 11.0 54.0
#6 36 9.5 42.2

#1 118% increase in total length, 364% increase in weight
#2 123% increase in total length, 367% increase in weight
#3 111% increase in total length, 353% increase in weight
#4 116% increase in total length, 364% increase in weight
#5 121% increase in total length, 297% increase in weight
#6 114% increase in total length, 356% increase in weight

Diet #5 was like rubber and the fish didn't eat it well

http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00003586/00001/1j

#1 Total Energy Gain 62.4
#2 Total Energy Gain 49
#3 Total Energy Gain 40
#4 Total Energy Gain 79.5
#5 Total Energy Gain 78.8
#6 Total Energy Gain 63.6

**EDIT** Changed Numbers because I mistakenly used the wrong Table

Glad you edited the numbers. You had me really scratching my head on trying to correlate the conclusions you stated with the numbers posted!

The link you posted is interesting but I'm not sure whether it is applicable to say a BG or LMB. There has been a lot of data posted in PBF threads regarding different nutrition requirements vs species. For example, CC do very well on 30% protein grain based pellets with little to no benefit shown by going with a higher protein fish meal based pellet.

You mentioned that you are considered an expert on fish nutrition by some folks. Can you fill us in on that a little. We can always use more pros here at PBF!

Do amino acids and trace minerals have much to do with fish food or does it not matter?

What about palatability? What is used to help minimize "pick and spit"?

You said that there is no difference in digestion between LMB, BG and carnivorous catfish. Are there differences in nutritional requirements for each of those 3 species?

I know several professional fish nutritionists and fish physiologists who will disagree with several of your generalizations depending on which fish specie you are referring to and the nutritional needs of that specie. No doubt some of what you are saying is true but IMO it does not apply to all species and sizes of fish. I think nutrition requirements especially protein changes as the fish ages. A lot is yet to be learned about fish nutrition and the long term needs for each species for good health of each specie of fish.

I also will ask the same question as posed by Cecil: why do they make noticeably higher protein foods for fish fry and fingerlings? Is it just to make more money from uneducated fish growers?

I'm not trying to be contradictory, just asking questions and expressing some of what I've learned so far about fish nutrition.

One has to be careful to not wholeheartedly believe everything that is in print. Go to some professional meetings where research is presented and listen to the critical comments about the scientific methods used by some researchers. Faulty scientific method can lead to faulty biased conclusions that are put into print.

My apology for the error.

What happens differently once that pellet goes down the fish's gullet than any other species like it? If you have a different food for every fish in the pond you can sell a lots more food.

The trick with pond fish seems to be getting them to eat the pellet. You can train a fish in an aquarium to eat a wheat pellet if thats all you give them for a period of time. Bluegill are easy subjects as the naturally feed on top. How does anyone know shellcrackers wouldn't eat the same if sinking?

I do the formulas for Paradigm Fish Food. Paradigm is a fish food for aquarium hobbyist's. Our goal was to make fish food without excessive fat being stored in the fish's liver. We decided to gradually lower the energy in our test diets for carnivore, omnivore and herbivore. After a period of lowering the energy it worked as the fish which had been breeding very well stopped. That was at 28 to 29 points of energy. We raised the energy back up to 30 to 31 points of energy and all the fish started breeding again.

What I offer this board is an unbiased opinion as I have nothing to sell. This board was very kind to me a year or so back when I was trying to help a friend with his predator stunted pond.

Amino acids determine protein digestibility so yes they are crucial. Minerals may not be needed because of what they eat naturally but is a nice hedge to insure they are getting all they need.

Fish meal, Fish Oil and I have heard Hydrolyzed Fish along with salt are all good. Shrimp meal is better than all listed above but the protein digestibility is so poor I wouldn't recommend it.

Once the pellet goes down the gullet a carnivore is a carnivore is a carnivore.

If your friends want to come on and discuss fish nutrition I welcome them. I would love for someone to tell me why a LMB and SMB need different foods. Oh but LMB eat bluegill and SMB eat crayfish. Its true they have adopted different hunting styles because of the habitat in which they are comfortable. Once the food goes down the gullet its all the same. At the end of the day it all comes down to biology. A food containing 40% P 11% F AND 20% Starch will grow them so close to the same rate that you won't notice the difference.

I don't object to raising protein to 50% for fry and juvies. The length of time that they are fed this food is so short that no harm is done. A diet high in protein and marine fat will produce fantastic growth rates. However the study that I posted and several others have shown very little difference in growth between 35% P and 55% P. My guess is the optimal protein percentage for growth is 40 - 45 percent.

If it were one study showing 35% protein worked as well as 55% protein food that might have a leg to stand on.

They are arguing because the studies in question are not in their best financial interest. Industry studies tend to favor the result of the client paying for the study. That's why studies done at universities hold more credibility. The study I linked was done for fish farmers in South Florida. They were losing abnormal percentages of their stock and didn't know why. They provided the fish and U of F did the study. They got the result they wanted on the 35% protein food but still had no idea why their fish were dying.

Can you imagine me going too one of these seminars and saying what I am saying here? What can I possibly gain from coming on here and telling you lies or half truths? Who benefits from a different fish food for every fish under the sun? It for sure ain't me.

You seem to think that I have read a few studies and formed some half-baked opinions. I can assure you that I have spent countless hours studying fish nutrition, fish studies and done testing on my own. All I can do is tell you what I have learned.

To clarify on a different food for every fish. Its an easy sell. I bought it for many years. If it were true wouldn't LMB food be made from bluegill and HSB food be made from shad. In reality it is providing enough protein to maintain and grow tissue and muscle mass and enough energy (fat and starch) to make them plump.

Ideally a food for carnivores should look like this: 40% P 7% F and 20% Starch. Unfortunately this causes problems. Moisture content over 10% has a good chance of growing mold. Getting over 5% fiber without using exotic ingredients is impossible. Minerals seem to max out at around 10%. So where is the remaining 8%? As you can see its not easy limiting protein, starch and fat and make a formula work.

Typically this would be remedied like this: 40% P 7% F 28% Starch 5% Fiber 10% Minerals or Ash and 10% moisture. The problem with this solution is excess energy.

I will try to come up with a formula that limits starch and raises either minerals or fiber.

**EDIT** Fish with short digestive tracts like carnivores can only extract so much starch before it is passed.

I have found PB to be very accommodating to a great many viewpoints and ideas. But there are a great many professionals here, who do this stuff for a living. And while home grown results are welcome, verification via education and documentation might be required in order to effect productive dialogue and discussion.

Me, I am a trusting person until they break that trust. Carry on.

Tracy

I believe there is a optimum fish food for each fish species "group" for us pond owners, not necessarily each individual fish species. i.e. one food is best for BG, another food is best for Pumpkinseeds, etc. While there might be food available for each species in a monoculture, that is not what we have in our ponds.

Is a bass different than a BG in it's nutritional needs for optimal growth and longevity? I believe so. I don't believe that there is enough of a difference between LMB and SMB to warrant a different food in a pond setting. Even if there was, how does a pond owner get the correct food into the correct species of fish if both species of fish are in the pond, and they are approximately the same size?

In a pond setting, where there isn't a monoculture of fish, getting the correct fish food formula into the stomachs of the correct fish is the quandary.

I could see fish food for pond owners broken down into a couple of "groups".

Fry/fingerling food. BUT how to get it to them in a pond setting; in a place where they won't be hammered by the predators in the pond? Will enough of the pond owners buy the food to make it commercially viable to produce? Since fry/fingerling fish need a different formula, i.e. a "hotter" food, it requires different ingredients, and that makes the food more expensive to produce. Will pond owners be willing to dig deeper into their pockets to buy the food?

Sunfish food. For the "sunfish" in the pond, that are used either as primary goal of the pond owner "I want to grow a 3 pound Bluegill" or as forage fish for the LMB in the pond where the pond owners goals is to grow trophy LMB.

Bass food For the largemouth bass in the pond, a food to give them more food without having to expend a lot of energy chasing down live fish in the pond. Would it work as a food for other species of bass in the pond? I think so. Especially for SMB or spotted bass. Would it work for HSB? I think so, but I am not sure because I don't know what the physiological differences are (nutrition wise) between LMB/SMB and HSB.

Then you have the quandary of just supplementally feeding the fish in the pond, or making the decision to feed enough food to make it the primary food source of the fish in the pond. If that route is taken, then I believe the pond owner has to either have fish species that have minimal or no recruitment, or make a concerted effort to remove the majority of YOY in the pond to keep the biomass in check.

I think the food for fish in ponds is more representative of food formulated for aquarium fish vs. aquaculture fish. In aquariums you want fish to be in that tank for more than 9-18 months, where in an aquaculture setting the fish get to meet Mr. Fillet Knife in a relatively short amount of time.

What about my YP?!? ;-)
Just kidding. With all the different types of fish I have in there, and really not being interested in growing trophy, but tasty fish.. And only having one feeder, which I visit weekly at best, I think I'll look for a good all around feed, and be content with the results.

Patience grasshopper!

We're working on a line of fish food for the pondmeister that will allow you to mix different sized food for the different species in your pond, and at the same time making it of the correct size that a standard Texas Hunter fish feeder can throw it. The pond owner might have to adjust their spin plate to throw the largest pelleted food, but they wouldn't have to buy a special feeder.

Hey PondBoss

I genuinely appreciate what you and the other pond management professionals do here.

I am sure that you realize the cost and effort that goes into the life cycle study for one fish.

I have no grand delusions that my findings will turn the pond fish food world on its ear. The studies that I have done were for my benefit. However my findings are not limited to aquarium fish.

You hit the key words. Its a balance between excellent growth and excess stored fat shortening the life of the fish.

Lets look at this in terms of goals.

Trophy Bluegill Pond
Here you need to limit excess energy (fat an starch) in your feed so they will have the best chance to grow to their maximum size.

Ideal Diet - 40% Protein 6% F 20% Starch

Trophy LMB Pond
In this case there is no need in limiting energy. Its simply more likely the bluegill will burn out faster. Excess fat leads to larger spawns also.

Ideal Diet - 40% Protein 6% F 35% Starch

Feed the Family Pond
The more energy the better!

Ideal Diet - 40% Protein 6% F 35% Starch

Do you like this approach better?

There is a lot to fish nutrition and much to be learned. There are hundreds of studies on various species. There is a huge difference between what a herbivore an omnivore and a carnivore need in nutrition. That is why we did the presentation on fish nutrition at the PB conv.

Interesting discussion. The example you provide is for BG in three different scenarios, correct? I find it interesting that your hypothetical diets hold lipids at 6%. I would expect to see maybe twice that.

On a different note, I have always wondered how manufactured food stacks up against natural forage. For example, we know LMB love to eat trout and grow exceptionally well on that diet. Obviously, pellets require less energy to catch. Have you run across any info in your studies that breaks down different natural forages into the categories of protein, fat and starch?

Fish haven't changed. Mans opinion has. Please give me an example of what you consider unknown in fish nutrition.

I have not said there isn't a difference between carnivores, omnivores and herbivores.

Do you have something in print from the convention?

Its all about the energy source. Starch is cheaper than fat. However fat is much more palatable. Fat has roughly 2.25 times as much energy as starch.

The feed the family diet could be for various species.

I have done a little on bluegill and shad. I will see if I can find what little I have.

Good discussion. Fish Food has a lot of good ideas to share. Thanks. I like the breakdown of optimum ingredients for the several pond fish categories of Big BG, Mainly LMBass, and Feed the Family/Community. Hybrid striped bass and yellow perch are sometimes thought to require slightly different ingredients for optimum growth AND longevity. I have been told that YP are best suited for a diet similar to salt water fish. Fish Food do you have any literature about this?


Longevity after fast growth to adulthood is a new concern for the sport fish pond enthusiasts. Do you know of any specific literature on this topic??

I came up with a feed for the Trophy Bluegill Pond.

Ingredients: Whole Fish Meal, Wheat Flour, Corn Bran and Lysine to complete the wheat's amino acid profile.

Protein 40% Fat 7% Starch 20% Fiber 16% Ash 7% and Moisture 10%

They would take well to this diet.

For fun I will work on a diet similar excluding fish meal.

If you exclude fish meal can you substitute other forms of animal protein with supplemental vitamins & minerals rather than plant protein with equal or better results.??

It is good to have participation from one that is well read and experienced with fish nutrition. Your suggestions will help others that are seeking to find the best fish food for their goals or objectives. Again, thanks for the valuable input.

Thank You for your interest!

Do HSB take pellets well? They are a lot of fun to catch! Again it would depend on the pond owners goals. For good growth and a good life expectancy for these fish the Trophy Bluegill diet would work well. If you want off the chart growth the other diet would work best.

Unfortunately I don't know of any published literature on the subject. That's the main reason I talk about it. As I mentioned earlier life cycle studies would be very costly and time consuming. Many would have to be done due to varying genetics. The cost and scale required to get valid information is simply overwhelming.

Lot's of the PBF members pellet feed HSB and grow some monsters!

Thanks for the response. For lb for lb fight they are monsters. I grew up on Lake Martin a 40k acre impoundment in central Alabama. Back in the 80's they stocked HSB. It was a lot of fun catching them around pier lights at night. However after a few years there was a notable drop in the shad population. They were not stocked again.

I came up with a grain based feed for the Trophy Bluegill Pond.

Ingredients: Soy Meal, Corn Bran and coat with Hydrolyzed Fish

Protein 35% Fat 2% Starch 31% Fiber 18% Ash 4% and Moisture 10%

Grain with a fish candy coating if you will.

Not sure how well they would eat this food. The Hydrolyzed fish should help with that. The cost on this food should be excellent.

Fish are not meant to eat mammal protein. With that said all the other parts meals that I am aware of are off the table.

The protein digestibility is off the charts at 95%. Whole fish meal is only 92-93 percent digestible.

I am ok with the protein at 35% for adults. If you look at the study I linked 35% protein grew juvies at the same rate as 55% protein.

One problem I see is availability....We have to go with what's available in the market place.....

I have no doubt some of your thoughts are "spot on" but there is no way to validate they are in a pond full of fish.

What I would suggest is take my thoughts and apply them to what is out there. If you want to post some labels I will be glad to give my opinion on what they would be best suited for.

I am not reinventing the wheel but simply rounding it a bit.

The thing that is key for all foods is protein digestibility.

Meeting you pond goals would involve energy (fat and starch) levels.

It ain't rocket surgery.

I am sure there are some good feed the family foods out there now.

Here's a relatively recent thread you might enjoy.

http://forums.pondboss.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=428745&page=1

When I get a chance I will post a pic of the tag from the chow I am feeding my CC.

Found this study interesting:

http://www.scielo.cl/pdf/lajar/v42n1/art08.pdf

That was interesting and somewhat enlightening. It would appear Mr. West has a good understanding of this topic.

Here is some info on nutrition and food value


https://srac.tamu.edu/index.cfm/getFactSheet/whichfactsheet/223/

http://forums.pondboss.com/ubbthreads.ph...true#Post261632

This may help a little - http://forums.pondboss.com/ubbthreads.ph...true#Post278697



Overall ranges of nutrients for all collections

were as follows: moisture, 69.7-84.9% (N = 52);

ash, 12.0-32.5% (N = 49); protein, 45.4-79.1%

(N = 55); fat, 3.3-31.5% (N = 39); and gross energy,

3.92-6.06 kcal.g • (N = 57). Results for ash,

protein, fat, and gross energy are and will be expressed

on a dry-weight basis unless otherwise

specified.



The clupeids examined during the present study

appear to be intermediate in nutritional value in

comparison with other forage fishes. Mean fat percentage

of Dorosoma spp. (24.2%) exceeded that

ofLepomis spp. (15.2%) and fathead minnows Pimephales

promelas (19.1%), but was less than that

of mosquitofish Gambusia affinis (25.8%) and

golden shiners Notemigonus crysoleucas (34.8%)

(Davis and Boyd 1978). Bluegills Lepomis macrochirus

had lower caloric contents (1.06 kcal-g-•

on a wet-weight basis) than gizzard and threadfin

shad (1.17 kcal-g • on a wet-weight basis) (Minton

and McLean 1982); preliminary data collected

for the present study also showed Lepomis spp. to

he lower in caloric content than the clupeids. The

primary reason for the lower energy content of

Lepomis spp. is probably a higher ash content,

rather than a lower fat content. Mean ash content

of Lepomis spp. was 23.8%; the mean for Dorosoma

spp. was 16.1% (Davis and Boyd 1978).

Scales ofLepomis spp. are larger and thicker than

those of Dorosoma spp., and their skeletal structure

may be more substantial. Scales are about 30-

35% ash on a dry-weight basis (Lagler et al. 1977

Mr. West I want to apologize for my snarky comments earlier. My focus is on the basics of fish nutrition and explaining it in layman's terms so folks not familiar with the subject can understand it.

I think my initial primer was too confusing for most. No offense intended but most published studies and research papers are beyond the understanding of most.

Do you say Go Aggies?

**EDIT** I do have a question that I would like answered. What percentage of starch can be used by a carnivore with its relatively short digestive tract?

Basic Fish Nutrition Take 2

Let me try to explain the basics of fish nutrition in a way that everyone can understand.

Protein

Proper levels of protein are needed to grow muscle and tissue. Protein will never make your fish fat. Ever.

Protein digestibility is simply the percentage of protein that the fish can actually turn into muscle and tissue. Whole fish meal and soy meal are examples of ingredients with a very good protein digestibility percentage.

Energy

Energy is used to swim, chase prey etc.. Excess energy is stored in the liver and around the fish's internal organs. When fat is stored around the internal organs you would call it a fat fish. Their is nothing wrong with fat fish who will end up on the table or in another fish's gut. One the other hand if your goal is longevity you want a normal amount of fat stored in the fish's liver.

So how do they get fat?

For my purposes here I will treat sugar and starch as one.

The uptake of starch occurs in the fish's digestive tract. Starch is not stored. If the fish's energy requirements (swimming etc ) are not met by its starch intake then fat is used for energy. If the fish's energy requirements (swimming etc ) are met then excess starch is passed. In this case the energy from fat is stored in the fish's liver.

Is that a fair explanation Mr. West?

Fish Food glad you are here. I appreciate the comments and will address them in a new post. I am not a Mr. to anyone but well mannered kids 6 years old and under so no one here uses Mr. with anyone. We are all just PB family.

I usually start at an even more basic approach - food intake (all types) - food used (energy from the sun in one form or fashion) = growth or weight loss.

My name is Clay. What is yours?

by ewest
Eric or ewest will work .

This is a great thread that discusses fish food basics, nutrition, and food types.

http://prntscr.com/9mo8eo

Aquamax SportFish 500

Protein 41% - The use of chicken by-product meal as the second ingredient and pork blood concerns me as far as protein digestibility goes. I can't find any protein digestibility percentages on chicken by-product meal because it varies from batch to batch.

Fat 12% - Generic animal fat is cause for concern. All fat is not created equal. A whopping 27 points (12 x 2.25 = 27) of energy from fat. Remember my extensive studies show that 30 to 31 points of energy is adequate to maintain healthy fish. In the U of F study after 8 weeks of feeding a diet of 40 points of energy the fish's livers were already 28% covered in fat.

Starch and Sugar - 22% ASSUMED (this is what was left after deducting the others) It takes a minimum of 15% starch to hold the food together.

Fiber - 4%

Ash/Minerals - 11%

Moisture - 10% ASSUMED Much over 10% will lead to the food growing mold.

27 points of energy from fat + 22 points of energy from starch = 49 points of energy. This way too much. I can't see how a fish fed exclusively on this diet can live to its normal life expectancy.

The diet would need to be cut down to around 31 points of energy to insure normal life expectancy. Making these formulas really is a balancing act.

What I would suggest:

Whole Menhaden Meal 38%
Soy Meal 29%
Corn Bran 24%
Wheat Flour 9%
Lysine may be needed to complete the Wheat Flour amino acid profile

Protein Digestibility 88%

30 Points of Energy

Protein 40%
Fat 5%
Starch 19%
Fiber 19%
Ash 7%
Moisture 10%

At 38% whole fish meal they should eat this food really well.

A little fiber passed into your pond won't hurt a thing. If you ask me it beats the hell out of chicken heads and feet and pork blood.

In the aquarium fish food world this is very inexpensive. In the pond fish food world maybe not. However I have learned with higher protein digestibility you can feed less and get equal or more out of it than lower quality feed.

ewest, Bill Cody, as always I am impressed once again. Clay, from what I have read here, you know your fish food. And good luck with your Tiger bass females and your pond.

Tracy

North American Journal of Aquaculture 77: pages 178–185, 2015 American Fisheries Society 2015, received July 26, 2014; accepted October 6, 2014.

Performance of Cage-Raised, Overwintered Hybrid Striped Bass Fed Fish Meal- or Soybean-Based Diets by Waldemar Rossi Jr., Joseph R. Tomasso and Delbert M. Gatlin III

Abstract

We conducted a 26-week study to evaluate the performance of cage-raised hybrid Striped Bass (female White Bass Morone chrysops × male Striped Bass M. saxatilis) fed fish meal (FM) and soybean (SOY; soybean meal + soy protein concentrate) based diets. A FM reference diet was formulated to contain crude protein (CP) at 450 g/kg, lipid at 120 g/kg, and an estimated digestible energy level of 13 MJ/kg. Two test diets (SOY and SOY+GBA) were formulated to replace 70% of the CP in the reference diet with SBM in the absence or presence of GroBiotic-A (GBA), a yeast-based prebiotic, at 20 g/kg. The other 12% of dietary FM in the reference diet was replaced with SPC in the test diets, further reducing FMinclusion to 70 g/kg. Each diet was fed to quadruplicate groups of 40 advanced juvenile hybrid Striped Bass (initial weight ∼ 54 g/fish) stocked into each of twelve 1-m3 floating cages, which were equally divided into four 0.05-ha, rubber-lined ponds according to a randomized complete block design. Caged fish in each pond were fed one of the randomly assigned diets to apparent satiation once daily. After 26 weeks of feeding, results showed that (1) the overall growth performance, survival, and feed efficiency of the fish were unaffected by diet; (2) the intraperitoneal fat ratio was significantly lower in fish that received the SOY-based diets; and (3) plasma glucose and lysozyme activity were significantly lower in fish that were fed the SOY-based diets, whereas plasma osmolality, hematocrit, neutrophil oxidative radical production (nitroblue tetrazolium test), and extracellular superoxide anion production of head-kidney macrophages were unaffected by diet. We conclude that low-FM, SOY-based diets can support adequate performance and normal physiological responses of hybrid Striped Bass during overwintering.


Keep in mind that HSB are able to use carbs while most predator fish can not do so. Further they are able to use plant based protein better than other predator fish.

This study in my opinion had an agenda. Soy Meal > Fish Meal. However useful information can usually be gleaned from any study.

Do you have a study that shows that a carnivorous species couldn't utilize starch?

Was the ingredient makeup of each diet reported?

Was the fish meal used whole fish meal? Is whole fish meal ever used in aquaculture?

I did some testing on piscivore's in this area. They consistently used up to 20% starch without passing any.

The 100% protein digestibility of soy meal can't be beat. However the 2% oil/fat needs to be limited because it has the wrong type of fats for fish.

At 92% - 93% digestibility whole fish meal is excellent. However without cutting the fat it could lead to health problems as noted.

Here are a few points from the PB presentation.

The immense variety of cultured finfish species hampers efforts to simplify production industry wide. Approximately 170 taxa are currently cultured, including carnivores, herbivores, planktivores, and omnivores, each posing its own set of nutritional demands .

Fish meal has proven to be an excellent dietary protein source for finfish, leading to its description as an ‘‘ideal protein.’’ The ideal protein concept is based on the premise that if the amino acid profile of the feed mimics the whole-body amino acid profile of the animal being fed, protein utilization and growth should be maximized

Lipids, fatty acids, and their derivatives play a role in virtually every physiological process that occurs and for this reason dietary lipid composition and content represent a massive sector of overall nutrition. Nowhere is this more true than in finfish nutrition where lipid can exceed protein in the body composition of finfish, a testament to the physiological and energetic importance of this nutrient class (Tocher2003). Aside from physiological importance, lipids are indispensable energy sources, especially for finfish, which are not well-adapted to carbohydrate utilization.

Dietary protein and energy must be kept in proper balance because a deficiency or excess of dietary energy can reduce growth rates. Fish fed diets deficient in energy will metabolize more expensive dietary protein to meet energy requirements. Excess dietary energy can decrease protein intake and suppress growth.

finfish do not require carbohydrates in their diet, … complex carbohydrates cannot be digested and utilized efficiently by most finfish species. A general dichotomy exists in the carbohydrate digestive ability of warmwater omnivores and herbivores versus the inability of coolwater and coldwater carnivores, which lack the appropriate function necessary for digestion of carbohydrates.

 For this reason, diets fed to these fish rarely contain more than 20% complex carbohydrate

Conversely, warmwater omnivores or herbivores (e.g., channel catfish, tilapia, common carp, and white sturgeon) adapt well to diets containing as much as 40% dietary carbohydrate .

Although vitamins and minerals are required in minute amounts compared with protein, lipid, and so forth, they are critically important, … Every micronutrient has a deficiency disease associated with it, the effects of which are sometimes irreversible or fatal. For a few vitamins and most minerals, excess can be equally detrimental, resulting in toxicity.


Abstract from 1 study

Reviews in Fisheries Science
Volume 11, Issue 4, 2003

Dietary Carbohydrate Utilization by

DOI:
10.1080/10641260390260884
David A. J. Stonea
pages 337-369
• Published online: 24 Jun 2010
Abstract
Aquaculture production is forecast to nearly double by the year 2010. Increased production can only be sustained with a concomitant increase in the production of aquafeeds. Presently, the protein source of choice in most aquafeeds is fish meal. Global fish meal production has remained relatively static over the past two decades, and there is no evidence to suggest that it will increase in the future. Therefore, alternative protein sources to fish meal will have to be found. Plant protein sources have been identified to have the greatest potential to replace fish meal protein. However, plant ingredients contain significant quantities of carbohydrates. The ability of fish to utilize dietary carbohydrates as energy sources to spare protein for growth varies, both among and within species. This review discusses the variability of carbohydrate utilization by fish commonly produced by aquaculture. Factors that affect carbohydrate utilization as an energy source to spare protein are carbohydrate origin, inclusion content, physical state, and molecular complexity. There appears to be potential for the use of supplemental enzymes to enhance carbohydrate utilization; however, care must be exercised with the use of such products as some of the breakdown products, particularly from nonstarch polysaccharides, such as galactose and xylose, are not tolerated by most fish if digested. The increased availability of these monomers may be detrimental to fish growth performance and health. Warmwater omnivorous fish have a greater potential to utilize dietary carbohydrate as an energy source to spare protein, than do coldwater and carnivorous species which utilize dietary carbohydrate poorly or not at all. This will place restrictions on the use of plant protein sources, which contain significant quantities of. carbohydrate in diets for coldwater and carnivorous fish. Consequently, the production costs of diets for warmwater omnivorous species will be cheaper than for coldwater and carnivorous species. This may have implications in the future for the selection of suitable species of fish to provide protein for human consumption.

Now we are getting somewhere.

Since this is a pond forum lets look at pond fish. Bass, Panfish, Catfish, Walleye and Tilapia come to mind. These are all warm water species. The only cold water species that I can think of is trout.

Bass, Panfish, and Walleye are carnivores.

Pond Catfish are omnivores.

Pond Tilapia are herbivores.

If we are talking about whole fish meal I agree.

What seems a standard 40% protein in carnivorous diets is adequate in my opinion. Its important to limit lipids (fat) if longevity is a goal. For a long time I agreed with you that carnivores couldn't use starch as an energy source. I used egg whites as a binder for this very reason. After some spirited discussion on the subject I had to test it. I fed a diet containing 20% starch certain it would fail. Using iodine as a reagent I tested the water and nothing. I was shocked at these findings. In fact warm water carnivorous species can use starch as energy.

Any of you that keep fish in tanks can test this. Take some water from the tank that you have been feeding a carnivorous fish food that contains starch, add iodine and see for yourself. If you see purple specs or the water turns purple starch is present.

Starch in excess of 25% - 30% will lead to health issues if any fat/lipids are contained in the food.

I agree for the pond owner it is a good hedge to feed a food with vitamins but have to as how do fish in ponds not getting vitamins in food survive?

Is an 20% inclusion rate of starch in the food the same as utilize dietary carbohydrates poorly?

IIRC Hydrolyzed chicken feathers are considered as "poultry by products" by some pellet manufacturers

Good fertilizer ... Would you want to eat a fish fed this stuff?

I have seen it in tropical fish food for far too long. At least you don't eat them.

There are others
YP are cool water fish and are carnivores as ars Esox
HSB are warm water/ cool water carnivores but can use carbs better
Then there are all the forage fish like GS ,Shads , chubsuckers etc

One point to keep in mind is that the vast majority of ponds that are fed are not like aquariums because the ponds are only engaged in supplemental feeding with the fish geting a large % of their diet from natural sources.

Can you lump YP & Esox in with trout?
HSB & SB are warm water fish that tolerate cooler water better than the others.
The forage fish in ponds are primarily warm water fish.

True so its even more crucial aquarium fish get a good diet. Carnivores get very little if any starch naturally. However that doesn't mean they can't use it. I have come to believe the ability to use starch is a survival mechanism.

IMHO Folks stocking forage up north to feed their WE, SMB, NP.... might disagree

I don't consider any of those fish warm water but that's how they are classified.

For sake of discussion and from above: ""Good fertilizer ... Would you want to eat a fish fed this stuff (Originally Posted By: Fish Food
.... If you ask me it beats the hell out of chicken heads and feet
...... and by BillD :IIRC Hydrolyzed chicken feathers are considered as "poultry by products" by some pellet manufacturers).

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't most all stuff (foods) injested and then digested by heterotrophs (consumers) first converted (digestion) to the basic "building blocks" of nutrients that are then reassembled by that heterotrophic consumer for growth and function? So regardless of the food stuff eaten isn't the final meat (protein-animal) basically the same for each species? Granted some food stuff and chemicals can be absorbed directly and thus flavors the meat but isn't the meat of each specie essentially the same chemical consistence (amino acids, etc). Animal fats commonly will have flavors from fat soluble chemcials, etc. I think even some chemicals flvors that are consumed are passed and while in the animal's system will cause flavors - odors. Garlic is probably one example. Off flavors in fish are another example that will be short term in fish exposed to those chemicals.

As far as protein it all depends on the amino acid profile.

For example shrimp protein is 70% digestible. Shrimp meal consisting of heads and shells protein is only 20% digestible. Shrimp meal is highly palatable but 80% of the protein is waste.

Protein digestibility percentages aren't available for most other parts meals.

As for fat fish do well on fat high in omega 3 and to a lesser degree omega 6.

Is this what you were looking for?

That is not really my point. But your explanation does create more questions.

I will use protein as an example. Original point was - Is not all injested then digested protein broken down into the basic amino acids and then those basic amino acids reassembled as new protein into the new organism; all controlled by that organism's physiological processes (ultimately DNA?)?

You new comment created this question - what makes a protein undigestable? Is it a coating on that protein or inability of the consumer's digestive fluids to separate the protein into the basic amino acids?

Hair is evidently not digestible by cats which is why they cough up hair balls??? However some organisms can apparently digest hair such as birds of prey and maybe bass or foxes who eat mice? Birds and some predators can digest bird feathers but fish can't normally digest feathers until the feathers are first processed???

I have found a mass of hair and bones hocked up by an owl. I don't think hair can be digested.

I don't know about feathers.

Yes I agree.

FWIW My understanding is the process of hydrolyzing (effectively pressure cooking) converts the feather protein from undigestible to digestible.

Lack of a complete or even near complete amino acid profile in the protein of the ingredient being ingested. It all gets broken down but all of the building blocks if you will are there to put it back together in a form the animal can use.

Eric may be have a better or more complete answer.

That makes sense. Still disgusting.

As far as protein it all depends on the amino acid profile.

For example shrimp protein is 70% digestible.

----------------------------------------------------------

This is one advantage of the forage pond strategy utilizing tilapia and freshwater prawns. They not only help each other grow -- TP don't eat the shrimp, while the shrimp do eat TP waste -- but the shrimp are dumb, slow moving, and highly digestible. They'll be eaten first, most of the TP later when the water cools and they get very slulgish.

Esshup quote from PB presentation: "ideal protein.’’ The ideal protein concept is based on the premise that if the amino acid profile of the feed mimics the whole-body amino acid profile of the animal being fed, protein utilization and growth should be maximized."

Why the people in Fiji were healthier back before cannabalism was outlawed (Formally Cannibal Islands).

More seriously (slightly), so a herbivore has the same requirements as a fish eater? Or is that just one of those premise that sounded so logical and good everyone figured it had to be true? What if the premise is wrong?

Fish Food says in response to feather meal in fish food:
"Good fertilizer ... Would you want to eat a fish fed this stuff?"

I'm not convinced that something being eaten by another animal that we find repulsive to eat should be criteria for rejecting eating that animal (or feeding that food). When I was a kid we always ran a few head of hogs behind the cows to eat the corn the cows "passed through". Poultry manure can be fed as part of a balanced feed in a cattle feeding ration. Yet the hogs and cattle tasted fine even though they ate feces. And look at lobster and shrimp. They are the "cockroaches of the sea" (eating goodness knows what off the sea floor) and people lick their chops for them (not me, by the way. My motto is "save a shrimp, kill a cow".

A little research revealed the following:

Herbivore - A raw 100g tilapia filet contains 20% protein 2% fat w/ a 130 amino acid score

http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/finfish-and-shellfish-products/9243/2

Omnivore - A raw 100g Channel Catfish filet contains 16% protein 8% fat w/ a 148 amino acid score

http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/finfish-and-shellfish-products/4256/2

Carnivore - A raw 100g Bass filet contains 19% protein 4% fat w/ a 148 amino acid score

http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/finfish-and-shellfish-products/4029/2

I can find nothing that shows that fish requiring higher protein diets themselves have more protein. The herbivore had more protein with a lower amino acid score. Go figure??

In my mind at least Carnivores require around 40% protein in their diet, Omnivores around 35% and Herbivores over 30%.

My best guess is the carnivores have to replenish more muscle mass and tissue from their hunting activities and therefore need more protein to grow. Plants don't run away!

It all depends on amino acids present disgusting or not.

From what I have noticed all part meals are not equal. For example the protein digestibility of internal organs is much better than say chicken feet.

I like "surf and turf"