I was nodding my head at everything ... until you closed with this.

Originally Posted By: ewest

. . . but with a small (low %)amount of supplemental feeding to insure enough nutrition.


This would seem to imply that fish can't get enough nutrition without supplemental feeding.. . a notion I would certainly disagree with and that is completely unsupported by science. For one thing one can certainly imagine scenarios where the amount of supplemental feeding you might recommend is insufficient to ensure enough nutrition. Under such a scenario, we can all agree that it isn't the feed's fault. There's just too many fish.

If this is true when artificial feeds are insufficient then it is equally true when natural foods are insufficient.

It has been long known that the ultimate size of fish is independent of fertility. A pond which supports 150 lbs/acre standing weights can produce fish of equal size to a pond that supports 500 lbs/acre standing weight. I know you know this Eric but based on some things I've seen written here, some certainly don't.

One should feed to have more fish ... not bigger fish. If one wants bigger fish the results of feeding will only meet that goal in the short term.


Last edited by jpsdad; 11/06/18 10:03 AM.

It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so - Will Rogers