Pond Boss Forums GENERAL QUESTIONS Help Does fish food make fish taste different .

We are thinking about feeding the bg in our bigger pond this year and would like to know whether the fish food affects the taste.

I haven't noticed it affecting the taste in any of the ponds that have feeders. All the ponds are feeding AquaMax 500 or 600.

I haven't noticed a difference.

As far as taste different can not be for sure, but if you are feeding CC I think it helps them keep from getting an off taste from eating something else. Or at least the ones that I have caught from my ponds do not seem to taste as strong as ones I catch from lakes.

I will have to say that they add oil to the meat though. Once I clean my fish and place them in the water bowl a sheen of oil comes to the top that I have not noticed before feeding.

Same here on the sheen of oil. I thought the CC from the pond taste better than the ones from a local river also.

Yes it does if that's all they are eating.

The fish raising industry found out through research that consumers like the idea of eating fish but don't like the taste. So, the hatchery raised catfish, tilapia, etc, from the grocery store are fed a bland feed to deliver a product that doesn't taste fishy. You can add tartar sauce or something else for flavor.

Off Flavors

Usually, fish farms "purge" their fish in clean water before processing.


I was talking (typing) to a guy who successfully raised prawns in a pond. He pre-sold them to a bunch of his friends. Harvest day arrived and people were there to sample. He said they tasted like the water smelled Asked him if he purged them first, he said no, I said to try that next time, he said there won't be a next time!

I think Dave has it right. When feed is used supplementally, as in our ponds, I don't notice a difference in taste. A steady diet of feed only might be another story.

While we're on the subject, I'm going to throw this out there, keeping in mind that "taste" is objective, and opinions vary widely from one person to another....

There are three species of fish that I have eaten, and tend to lump together under the category of "fish for folks who don't like the taste of fish".... and those would be Crappie, Rainbow trout, and Tilapia. To me, these three taste like whatever you cooked them in....not like fish. To be fair, I have never eaten a wild Tilapia, so I admit that my analysis is incomplete there. When I eat fish, I like to know that I'm eating fish...not just breading, or butter, or seasonings....I think such things should enhance the flavor of the fish, not overpower it, and to do that there needs to be a "base" of fish flavor present.

Again, that's just my take on it. For me, Bluegill is the fish of choice...not overpowering, but still tastes like......... fish?

sprkplug, I'm like you. I like to use as little "masking flavors" as possible. Maybe that's because I was raised eating the fish that I caught and my grandmother cooked.

1) They were fresh, not half dried out, sunken in eyed fish like you see in some markets.

2) She cooked them in hot oil after they were rolled in lightly salted/peppered flour. Usually they were panfish, scaled, beheaded and gutted. The crunchy tail was the best part.

When grandpa was alive, I remember him fishing for catfish in Fox Lake, using an elastic trot line and 1" squares of Ivory Soap. I really don't remember how he got the trot line in and out of the water, but I do remember him standing on shore, pulling in on it, like a VERY long rubber band. He died when I was 8 or 10.

My mom (her daughter) hates the smell of fish, and won't cook it unless it's fish sticks or something like that. If I wanted to eat fish, I had to go next door to get my fish fix.

I would think that if fish that are fed exclusively a commercial diet taste bad, then there would not be much of an aquaculture market. Sounds like a subjective thing to me.

I do know off flavor can be an issue but it has to do with other things besides feed from what I understand. Purging in fresh water for a couple of days usually gets rid of the problem.

There's also an off flavor phenomenon sometimes in catfish production ponds due to a particular type of blue green algae I believe.

https://srac.tamu.edu/index.cfm/event/getFactSheet/whichfactsheet/33/

I have read on the internet that aquamax contains chicken feathers. Does anyone know if this is true? If so, do they clean the feathers before it is made into feed?

Not sure it would be an issue as the feed is cooked at such a high temperature it kills pathogens.

Then it wouldn't matter.

Yeah, I am told that it would matter. I believe it was Lusk who told me chicken feathers are protein but the type of protein that are not digestible by fish. If there, they would be considered a filler.

Dave,

I think Kenc's concern was if it was cleaned before it was added to the feed as when he said,



Sounds like you're right but all the feed manufacturers add feather meal don't they? I see one supplier of feather meal advertises it as 80 percent protein. I'm thinking that ground up feathers, but could be wrong.

I've got a friend who researches fish feed at Purdue University, Dr. Paul Brown. I'd be curious to see what he thinks of adding feather meal. I'll post it here.

We have a friend that grows chickens for Tyson. By the time they are ready to be killed, they don't have room to turn around hardly and are standing in 3 plus in. of poop. Their bottom feathers are really soiled so I wondered if this would this would affect the taste. It does work wonders in a garden.

Here's what I got from Dr. Paul Brown of Purdue University who's main thing is the research of fish feeds:

When poultry, primarily chickens, are processed, there are two feed ingredients that result from the waste. Individual processors may or may not combine various fractions of the waste, but the basic 2 feed ingredients that can be dried, ground and sold as feed ingredients are poultry by-product meal and feather meal. PBP is generally considered a better quality ingredient, but feather meal has been used in a wide variety of diets for aquatic animals. Feather meal is a high protein ingredient, containing a high concentration of sulfur amino acids, methionine and cystine. Digestibility of feather meal is typically lower than other feed ingredients, often in the 60-70% range. Thus, feather meal is commonly used as a source of sulfur amino acids, not as a filler. Feather meal is typically a safe ingredient. It must pass all FDA/USDA rules and regs for use in animal feeds. I am not aware of any ill health effects caused by feather meal in animal feeds. If the question is about using feather meal as the sole nutrient input, I could not support that recommendation. But then, no single ingredient should be used as the only source of nutrients."

It may be safe but is it really beneficial?

Dave it is my understanding that protein in fish feed is the highest cost ingredient,so imo it is beneficial from a price aspect along with taking away from the need to use fish meal.

NOAA had a really good article on aquaculture and feed a while back that explained the pressure the industry is putting on fish caught and processed into fish meal.Essentially it is a finite resource like all others and the aquaculture industry demands far exceed the sustainable supply.

I really should have saved the article,it really put things into perspective for a hobbyist like myself.

Yeah but my point is that I have always heard that feather protein is indigestible by fish. In other words, if that is right, it is a scam.

IMO there is a big difference in taste collor and texture in the flesh of a wild salmon/trout vs a farmed.
Also the farmed contains only 30-50 % of the healthy Omega3 fat, and I'm not talking about a poorly farmed Salmonid.
It dosen't mean it taste bad but surly different.
I hardly eat any other farm raised species living seaside you get wild caught, but wild caught salmon are far between, and hard to come by unless you catch it your selfe around here.(now days)

Suplemental feeding in "natural" ponds, are different than intensive feeding in chages/pens/raceways a diverse (natural) diet gives the natural variation on the fish.

cheers

From my research I feel it varies by species as to what they can digest or utilize from the feather meal.I found studies that said digestibility was pretty much nothing on up to 60-70% from the Dr. Cecil quoted.

It is sort of like the PB phrase"it all depends"

Each study was with different fish under totally different conditions.

If it is used as the sole source of protein,then I agree 100% with you in it being a scam................but I also feel it has it's place in formulations for some fish.

60 to 70 percent digestible vs. other proteins is not indigestible.

Food for thought (no pun intended): There are no specific species diets for bluegills, yellow, perch, and largemouth bass. Many fish farmers that are rearing these species intensively for the food market are complaining about the problems they are having with the feeds on the market that are basically trout diets. They're seeing fatty livers, poor dress out, and even poor growth performance.

Personally I've seen shorter life spans on largemouths in a high density pond fed almost exclusively an artificial diet. They are also more stressed in the winter.

Ponds with lower densities of fish where these species can and do get other natural feed may be different.

Recently in our north central aquaculture region (NCRAC) there has been a call for papers for some intense university study with these three species and issues with artificial feed.

Cecil, I don't understand your response to my post. Can you take this further?

Thanks