As I mentioned earlier, I think it may. Perhaps this would limit the conversion. I would think 100% dehydrated ground fish would have the best conversion of any possible feed. Perhaps higher proportions of dried fish are healthier rations.
IMHO, adding the fish instead of other acceptable cost effective protien alternatives adds no relevant value. Though it may improve conversion ... The cost of conversion cannot be improved by using fish instead of alternatives, for example. Unless one is providing all the sustenance over a full lifetime (like Richmond Mill's lake) I don't think it makes much a difference for health either. In most recreational water ... Feed is supplemental where most of the food is provided by the pond.
I would just say ... Don't take for granted that Cargill competitors use fish instead ... They may still use similar sources for some .. Or even the bulk of their feed's protein. Most producers are not talking about the proportion of ingredients. They are meeting their label requirements of protein and lipids and reserve the right to adjust formulations.
I consider the aquaculture focus of cost efficient conversion to be a great plus for Cargill. They know their customers are monitoring their feed and will go elsewhere if it under performs. Recreational users neither have the means, incentive, nor conditions in their ponds to appropriately quantify the metrics. So I see the feed as completely legit riding on the coattails of the aquaculture industry embracing it.
Last edited by jpsdad; 07/30/21 06:17 PM.
