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#Post261632This 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
