Pond Boss
Posted By: Snipe Feed trial experiment - 03/12/21 08:18 PM
I know this has been attempted by a few individuals but I'm going to run a controlled experiment of my own on feeding BG.
I have 2 6X6X10' 1/2" mesh floating cage pens I'm going to use to try and determine 2 different goals.
#1, How well do BG accept "X" and "Y" Feed when training.
#2, What is the growth rate attained on each.
The standard will be 50 northern BG in each cage, 100 fish weighed and split by weight then counted. I will sort any fish out that are smaller in average and add average size additional so all fish are started as close to equal as possible.
Feed of choice is Aquamax 500, 3/16" at 41% protein, 12% Lipid. Optimal BG at 3/16" 40% protein, 10% lipid content.
3'X6' will be used for competition force training for 2 weeks. Day 15 I will remove the baffle and continue to feed the exact same amount of each product by weight per day.
I would like to try the MVP but the numbers on Protein and lipid are far enough apart I feel that would not be apples to apples.
Mortality will be recorded as well as observations of feeding habits.
The final results will be weights total and average of 25 individual fish, followed by WR average of remaining fish.
I realize this will be somewhat inconclusive in the fact that I'm not addressing liver function, but I want to see side by side what shows up.
This will begin about the 3rd week in April until sept 10th.
It's a long ways away but I plan to set up the same feed test for SMB next spring.
Once I start I will be adding pics to this thread.
Posted By: FishinRod Re: Feed trial experiment - 03/12/21 08:46 PM
Snipe, thanks for posting your experiment.

I am sure the Pond Boss professionals understand your project design, but (if possible) can you expand on a few points during the course of your experiment, so the rest of us can follow along?

As regards question #1, does the term "accept" mean some fish will elect to eat the pellets and some will not?

Or some will "accept" on Day 1 and some will "accept" on Day 10? In that case, it could be possible that Feed X resulted in more weight gain for the fish that were early adopters (relative to Feed Y), but that the distribution of "time to acceptance" was skewed much earlier for Feed Y - therefore it is the "better" feed for overall BG weight gain. (Is that part of the hypothesis that you are testing?)

Will you also have some type of control group that is the same starting size and age distribution in a grow-out pond with only those BG plus forage? (I assume there is no way to have a control group in the floating cage pens that can still have a proxy of a "natural" diet?)

I also don't get your reference to "not addressing liver function", but that is due to my low level of personal knowledge. If it is important to understand, can you clarify for us Noobs?

Good luck on your project. It sounds like it should be a Pond Boss hot topic!
Posted By: Quarter Acre Re: Feed trial experiment - 03/12/21 10:43 PM
I look forward to it and wish I had time for these endeavors! Thanks for letting me live vicariously through you Snipe.

Originally Posted by FishinRod
...Or some will "accept" on Day 1 and some will "accept" on Day 10? In that case, it could be possible that Feed X resulted in more weight gain for the fish that were early adopters (relative to Feed Y), but that the distribution of "time to acceptance" was skewed much earlier for Feed Y - therefore it is the "better" feed for overall BG weight gain. (Is that part of the hypothesis that you are testing?)

Good Question Rod. I guess the initial attractiveness of the food would play into the weight gain especially if it were far enough apart between the two. I would be curious to know how they compare once acceptance is achieved. Maybe the initial acceptance results will direct the experiment's path.
Posted By: FishinRod Re: Feed trial experiment - 03/13/21 12:47 AM
I am just trying to figure out the exact "truths" that Snipe's diabolical experiments are designed to reveal.

Otherwise, I have no chance of following the advanced Biology course!
Posted By: Bill Cody Re: Feed trial experiment - 03/13/21 01:30 AM
EXCELLENT pellet feeding experimental plans; one for bluegill and one next year for smallmouth bass. I and many others appreciate the time and work involved. I eagerly look forward the the results. Thanks a lot for sharing the information. We here on the forum need a lot more applied research studies like this one. The results and a few pictures will make a very good well read article for Pond Boss magazine.
Posted By: CityDad Re: Feed trial experiment - 03/13/21 02:04 PM
Hi Snipe! Did you buy those pens? If so, link please?

If not what matierial did you make it with? Link please
Posted By: Snipe Re: Feed trial experiment - 03/13/21 03:23 PM
All of my Net pens are built by Duluth. They have prebuilt or will do custom any size you want. They aren't cheap but such is the case with anything high quality.
https://duluthfishnets.com/store/assorted-nets/small-mesh-net-pens/
I add the zippered lid which doubles the price but well worth fish not jumping out or IN.
Posted By: esshup Re: Feed trial experiment - 03/13/21 06:43 PM
Originally Posted by Snipe
All of my Net pens are built by Duluth. They have prebuilt or will do custom any size you want. They aren't cheap but such is the case with anything high quality.
https://duluthfishnets.com/store/assorted-nets/small-mesh-net-pens/
I add the zippered lid which doubles the price but well worth fish not jumping out or IN.


AND keeping GBH predation to a minimum.

You got the holding pens already??
Posted By: Snipe Re: Feed trial experiment - 03/13/21 07:14 PM
You got the holding pens already??

Yes.. I have about 6 of the 6X6X10's and 2 of the shallower that are only 4' deep. I've bought misc sizes of smaller one's over the years and use net coating on them. They hold up very well to abuse. But I learned quickly they really need the lid. The zipper addition is great when you lift and extract anything, no cutting ties and replacing. Very happy with them.
Posted By: FireIsHot Re: Feed trial experiment - 03/13/21 08:01 PM
Originally Posted by Snipe
Yes.. I have about 6 of the 6X6X10's and 2 of the shallower that are only 4' deep. I've bought misc sizes of smaller one's over the years and use net coating on them. They hold up very well to abuse. But I learned quickly they really need the lid. The zipper addition is great when you lift and extract anything, no cutting ties and replacing. Very happy with them.

I had one made several years ago, love it, and it's easy to store when not in use.

I went in a slightly different direction, and doubled the PVC to keep fish from jumping out. It floats on the bottom rail, and has about a 10" barrier above the water line. I have a lid, but rarely use it unless otters show up.

EDIT: I use clips to hold the net on, and that allows me to adjust the depth as needed.

[Linked Image from forums.pondboss.com]

Attached picture IMG_4651 copy.jpg
Posted By: anthropic Re: Feed trial experiment - 03/13/21 09:00 PM
Originally Posted by FishinRod
Snipe, thanks for posting your experiment.

I am sure the Pond Boss professionals understand your project design, but (if possible) can you expand on a few points during the course of your experiment, so the rest of us can follow along?

As regards question #1, does the term "accept" mean some fish will elect to eat the pellets and some will not?

Or some will "accept" on Day 1 and some will "accept" on Day 10? In that case, it could be possible that Feed X resulted in more weight gain for the fish that were early adopters (relative to Feed Y), but that the distribution of "time to acceptance" was skewed much earlier for Feed Y - therefore it is the "better" feed for overall BG weight gain. (Is that part of the hypothesis that you are testing?)

Will you also have some type of control group that is the same starting size and age distribution in a grow-out pond with only those BG plus forage? (I assume there is no way to have a control group in the floating cage pens that can still have a proxy of a "natural" diet?)

I also don't get your reference to "not addressing liver function", but that is due to my low level of personal knowledge. If it is important to understand, can you clarify for us Noobs?

Good luck on your project. It sounds like it should be a Pond Boss hot topic!

Rod, the liver function question relates to the effects of various types of feed on the liver. Some feeds grow the fish nicely, but also lead to a fatty liver that shortens life expectancy. Optimal says their fish food doesn't do this, so the BG will live an extra year or two & get even bigger.
Posted By: FishinRod Re: Feed trial experiment - 03/13/21 11:22 PM
anthropic, thanks for the clarification.

"Rod, the liver function question relates to the effects of various types of feed on the liver. Some feeds grow the fish nicely, but also lead to a fatty liver that shortens life expectancy. Optimal says their fish food doesn't do this, so the BG will live an extra year or two & get even bigger."

So you're saying that pate de foie gras of bluegill is not recommended!

I knew I was missing a simple caveat on fish feeding, but I am not yet up to that planning stage for my ponds.

P.S. I really appreciate the dedication of so many posters on Pond Boss to insert additional comments and clarifications in the threads that allow people at all levels of "pond knowledge" to follow the conversation.

Thanks,
Rod
Posted By: Snipe Re: Feed trial experiment - 03/14/21 05:17 AM
Not ignoring you here Rod.. I think at the end of the experiment, the resulting data will provide some answers in several areas, and at that time discussions can begin on what we see.
With this thread, I'm just laying out the plan and how i intend to proceed. Food is ordered, fish are in place at another holding facility and I have 500 3-5" BG to sort through to select 100 of the median size for this so I'm not starting with genetically fast-or-slow growers.
When I have them sorted and everything is in place, I will document with pictures and data to explain what I'm doing, and yes, my goal is to provide something everyone can understand but what I'm personally looking for might be a bit more pointed at a few very specific items that at this time it would not be beneficial for me to comment on prematurely.
Posted By: Snipe Re: Feed trial experiment - 05/21/21 01:25 AM
Update:
I said I was going to be completely transparent on this test so that's what I'm going to be.. :-))
April 20 I contacted my local Purina rep and ask him to order the feed I needed, 2 bags of MVP for my own pond use and 2 bags of AquaSport 500 for my trial experiment.
On April 29th I contacted Optimal about BG feed for the trial. A discussion was had that questioned the comparison of multi-sized particles and whether that would be apples to apples or not.
11 Days later I received custom sized Optimal BG in perfect round, 3/16" pellets-at my door step.
I have 135 BG that were hand selected and measured at a minimum of 5.25" and a max of 5.5" in a holding pen that I'm currently feeding a mix of 2 brands of pellets, neither optimal or purina. I have a separate pen setup with a divider in which 40 of the closest fish in length and weight will be placed into each side.
The problem I have here is I'm still waiting on the Purina feed exactly 30 days later-not sugar coating any part of this.
Phase 1 is complete in my mind....
Posted By: jpsdad Re: Feed trial experiment - 05/21/21 02:41 AM
Quote
On April 29th I contacted Optimal about BG feed for the trial. A discussion was had that questioned the comparison of multi-sized particles and whether that would be apples to apples or not.

11 Days later I received custom sized Optimal BG in perfect round, 3/16" pellets-at my door step.

I like the idea of larger pellets. The only problem I see is that the experiment may not actually be transparent. One vendor seems to have been given a heads up about the trial while the other has not.
Posted By: anthropic Re: Feed trial experiment - 05/21/21 02:54 AM
Originally Posted by Snipe
Update:
I said I was going to be completely transparent on this test so that's what I'm going to be.. :-))
April 20 I contacted my local Purina rep and ask him to order the feed I needed, 2 bags of MVP for my own pond use and 2 bags of AquaSport 500 for my trial experiment.
On April 29th I contacted Optimal about BG feed for the trial. A discussion was had that questioned the comparison of multi-sized particles and whether that would be apples to apples or not.
11 Days later I received custom sized Optimal BG in perfect round, 3/16" pellets-at my door step.
I have 135 BG that were hand selected and measured at a minimum of 5.25" and a max of 5.5" in a holding pen that I'm currently feeding a mix of 2 brands of pellets, neither optimal or purina. I have a separate pen setup with a divider in which 40 of the closest fish in length and weight will be placed into each side.
The problem I have here is I'm still waiting on the Purina feed exactly 30 days later-not sugar coating any part of this.
Phase 1 is complete in my mind....

I find that Aquamax MVP is readily available, but other Purina feeds often are not. Sometimes they can be ordered, but take weeks to arrive. This has been less an issue with Optimal fish food, even though it is made much farther away from me.
Posted By: Snipe Re: Feed trial experiment - 05/21/21 03:09 AM
Originally Posted by jpsdad
Quote
On April 29th I contacted Optimal about BG feed for the trial. A discussion was had that questioned the comparison of multi-sized particles and whether that would be apples to apples or not.

11 Days later I received custom sized Optimal BG in perfect round, 3/16" pellets-at my door step.

I like the idea of larger pellets. The only problem I see is that the experiment may not actually be transparent. One vendor seems to have been given a heads up about the trial while the other has not.
That's not true, I talked with a Purina Rep in March about this. I followed his instructions.
Part of the trial is getting the food. If an individual orders feed, what is the expected wait period for an everyday customer??
Posted By: jpsdad Re: Feed trial experiment - 05/21/21 03:14 AM
OK so it wasn't the local feed store but a sales rep for Purina? Good then, it just wasn't clear to me.

You've received a direct custom order from Optimal ... so what are your thoughts on the people at Purina headquarters? They are not much interested in participating in a trial?
Posted By: Snipe Re: Feed trial experiment - 05/21/21 04:10 AM
I don't believe that to be the case. I think the logistics at Purina are multi-focused and it's possible something slipped through the cracks based on a text message I received since posting this.
Posted By: jpsdad Re: Feed trial experiment - 05/21/21 09:01 AM
I am very interested in the results of the trial as are many of us Snipe. You've done very well to keep us informed and I appreciate your patience with my misunderstandings. I will mention that you are treading some deep water. It is not common in the scientific world to do comparisons of popular brands. This is probably in part due to support industry provides to science.

Were I one of the manufactures what would concern me most is the availability of my feed to the caged fish. For example, I wouldn't want any of my feed to sink through the cage and be uneaten. I would want my sample to float and be fully consumed.

I will mention a few other things.

Now I am interested in knowing whether there would be any difference in gains between the round pelleted Optimal and the standard shapes. Particularly whether shape might contribute to consumption. I am also interested in whether the round pellets may be available to public at large.

One of the things that improves FCR is the quantity of food consumed. One can easily imagine just feeding enough to maintain a weight of fish where there is an FCR of zero at no fault of the feed's potential for conversion. So the SGR (specific growth rate) provided by any feed is a function also of the feed consumed daily as a ratio of fish weight. Given that we normally only supplement feed to fish that are primarily feeding on pond organisms, it is important that weights fed to each treatment are identical. For someone growing fish commercially at densities dependent on feed, if fish will satiate after eating more of particular feed, that can result in more gain and better FCR due to greater specific consumption of feed which improves efficiency. For commercial production, this effect would be important but doesn't not affect the results of limited feeding provided that lack a palatability doesn't result in unconsumed feed. Fish that were prior fed one feed may find that feed more palatable but unless this prevents the feed (the feed not prior fed) from being eaten the specific consumption would still be same when equal weights of feed are fed.

Pellet sizes are important I think. Eric has mentioned research of an optimum ratio of gape to pellet affecting consumption of pellets. But as long as each feed is fully consumed then the relative difference in pellet size should not be a big factor. (How much energy does it take to catch and swallow a pellet?)

I'll mention that you also need a control. This would be a cage where an otherwise identical treatment fish are kept and not fed. A cage will provide structure that will attract shelter seeking pond organisms (eg BNM and FHM and other organisms). These will be food for the caged fish. To have a really good sense of the effect of feed, one needs to subtract the natural contributions of pond organisms. It may surprise you that unfed caged TP can grow remarkably to weights large enough to harvest. It requires rich water and some level of flow through but you get the idea. Good science requires adequate experimental control.

Placement of cages could have impacts on the supply of pond organisms. Two factors I think will impact this particularly. I think the prevailing wind will concentrate pond organisms on the downwind sides. Placement of the control between the other two cages might also compromise the controls results if there is not adequate space between the cages. There may be some unwanted effect of cage placement after you have made your best effort. It goes with the territory.

I will close by saying this. I would be more interested in the manufactures being transparent about the ingredients in the formulation than in whether one feed produces more gain than the other in this trial. I get the whole proprietary trade secrets thingy ... so wouldn't even ask .. however. Personally, I will not let the results influence my decisions about feed independently of other considerations. I think both are good feeds and will produce comparable gains provided the consumption is equal. I also value cost/benefit, convenience, service, friendliness, and other factors so these are also very important attributes that are also important to me.
Posted By: Snipe Re: Feed trial experiment - 05/21/21 02:17 PM
Of the 135 fish held now, I went through a LOT of fish to get those at the size I wanted. The remaining 55 fish "are" the control fish.. 40 of those will be separated and put in a 3rd pen, a very large pen, to allow more natural volume access.

Also, Optimal BG is available to the public through another supplier in the std 3/16" size vs the varied length.
Posted By: Bill Cody Re: Feed trial experiment - 05/21/21 04:13 PM
Snipe - Have you reconnected with the sales rep about the delay in receiving the food? Also Bob Lusk is an influence with Purina. Let him know about the hold up in receiving the pellets. Strings should be pulled by someone associated with Purina. Some of the Purina reputation is at stake with this feeding trial. We will see if they really care about reputation and marketing influence. I will also send this thread to Lusk.
Posted By: Bob Lusk Re: Feed trial experiment - 05/21/21 05:23 PM
Boys, I'm connecting big dogs with Purina with Kenny to solve this right away. I doubt it's a supply issue as much as a dealer issue, but we'll find out.
Posted By: RStringer Re: Feed trial experiment - 05/21/21 05:29 PM
As Snipe pointed out that's also part of the experiment. It makes it more real world type of trail. If getting the food delayed is what a normal customer has to deal they need to fix that part of it. Not having some inside source give them a heads up. Not trying to poke at ya at all. But I dont think you're going to call in favors for everyone.
Posted By: lmoore Re: Feed trial experiment - 05/21/21 06:21 PM
Hard to draw any conclusion from 1 instance, for all we know, Purina ships faster than Optimal 99/100 times. I don't think that's the case, but just saying we really aren't getting useful data by waiting to see how long this one instance of delay lasts. If Bob can pull a few strings, let's get to the good stuff!
Posted By: optimalfishfood Re: Feed trial experiment - 05/21/21 07:16 PM
This is Dustin from Optimal and I just wanted to put my two cents out there. First and foremost, I’ve always been interested in fish food. Many of our “competitors” these days are actually feed companies (and nutritionists) I looked-up to growing up and ultimately paved the way for what I do today. Optimal is really focused on creating the best diets we can while still trying to keep the costs reasonable. There are a lot of pieces that go into how well a feed works. Individual components like ingredients, formulations, equipment, water quality, or even pellet shapes can all have dramatic impacts on feed performance. We run many different trials in our labs, and we mostly avoid comparing our feeds to others on the market. There is enough fish to feed for all of the feed companies to have a place. Our goal is to facilitate marketplace growth, provide easy access to quality feeds, and advance our understanding of fish nutrition.

As we keep growing and facing new challenges with sourcing the ingredients for our feeds, it is important to us that we get feedback from our customers. We are very excited to support any community or academic trials that will drive the evolution of fish nutrition. We have even tried a few of our own open trials….which I still need to compile and share on this forum when I can find some time.

There are some great questions and observations already and I think the best thing for me to do is keep quiet and remove any bias I can. I, like many others, am excited to watch this thread.

Jpsdad’s last paragraph is pretty spot on. Regardless of formulations and IP, basic commodity ingredients can vary dramatically between manufacturers and even between lots from the same manufacturer. We do not use low-cost formulations. Our formulations only change if we discover something in our labs that improve the diet. I’ve learned there will always be some variances in every batch or lot of feed even if the formulations stay exactly the same. As we grow our goal is to minimize those variances the best we can.

Every pond is unique, management styles vary, and people use their ponds in different ways. Find the feed that works for you and grow some memories.

-Dustin
Posted By: anthropic Re: Feed trial experiment - 05/21/21 08:38 PM
Originally Posted by lmoore
Hard to draw any conclusion from 1 instance, for all we know, Purina ships faster than Optimal 99/100 times. I don't think that's the case, but just saying we really aren't getting useful data by waiting to see how long this one instance of delay lasts. If Bob can pull a few strings, let's get to the good stuff!

I've got two Purina dealers nearby which always have Aquamax MVP available, even during the worst of the pandemic. Optimal, on the other hand, generally takes 3 to 6 days to arrive.

However, the timing advantage flips when it comes to starter feeds or other non-standard formulations. Whether this is purely an artifact of the labor shortage (for some strange reason lots of people prefer to stay at home when that pays more than work) and will pass in time I don't really know.
Posted By: teehjaeh57 Re: Feed trial experiment - 05/21/21 09:23 PM
Optimal = unsurpassed customer service. Their presence on the forum serves as a testament. Thanks for all you do, Dustin.
Posted By: RStringer Re: Feed trial experiment - 05/21/21 09:58 PM
I can only speak on the Optimal. I put an order in one evening and it was at my door the next day while I was at work. Wife sent me a picture at lunch time with a big box with a fish on it sayin wht is this. Prolly thinkin I ordered some fish.
Posted By: Dave Davidson1 Re: Feed trial experiment - 05/22/21 11:46 AM
I got some “bad” feed from Optimal last year. Some of it was in stuck together clumps and stopped up the feeder. I called and left a message. Dustin called me, asked for the “codes” on the bags to identify the source.

Bottom line is that 3 bags were replaced this year from a problem last year. I doubt that I would have gotten that service from the large feed makers.

I have no idea whether one feed is superior to another. Over the many years of doing this I’ve tried a lot of them. I’ll stay with Optimal due to the customer service I got and the concern Dustin showed about the product.
Posted By: Theo Gallus Re: Feed trial experiment - 05/22/21 12:51 PM
Originally Posted by Dave Davidson1
Bottom line is that 3 bags were replaced this year from a problem last year. I doubt that I would have gotten that service from the large feed makers.
I would from our Purina dealer. I've never had a problem with Aquamax, but we've had moldy or buggy bags of Purina horse feed replace a few times over the last 30 years, no problem.

As always, YMMV.
Posted By: jpsdad Re: Feed trial experiment - 05/22/21 03:17 PM
Snipe,

I've attached a SS that you may find useful for scheduling feeding and estimating feed weights. I recommend that you follow a schedule like this for both treatments even during the feed training. If one feed is adopted more rapidly, it should still show up as better growth in that treatment even while the feed rates can still be demonstrated to be the same.

One thing I am interested to understand is the variation of growth within treatments. Will the variation be more in on treatment than the other.

Male BG have been demonstrated to twice the growth of females. Gonadal development (ie production of eggs) can severely tax growth. One needs to understand the distribution of sexes in all treatments at least by the end of the trial. It would be better to have a sense going in to equalize treatments then at the end of the trial verify the ids where visual determination would be more reliable. Dissection is preferable but I do not think necessary given the age of the fish in the trial.

Attached File
FEED SCHEDULE.xlsx  (195 downloads)
Posted By: Snipe Re: Feed trial experiment - 05/22/21 10:12 PM
Here's a few of the questions that have come to mind over time about several aspects of supplemental feeding and a good part of why I'm doing this.
One thought I wonder about is if we provide feed at a certain amount, there are many variables that need to be considered.
1. Do we feed until fish stop consuming? If so, what if they WANT to consume more of one feed than another.
2. If we go by % of body weight, again, how do we know they won't eat more (or less) of one brand than the other?
What I intend to record is how much do the fish want of each brand, then at the end I will determine what that percentage is and see what total growth actually was for that amount of food. I am expecting similar results from both but there are other parts to the feed besides protein and fat-how does that volume affect growth? I don't think we have anything but assumptions on that.
What if we get done and find that 30lbs of one feed converts to the same gain as 35lbs of the other??
I have a lot of questions and that's why I'm doing this.
Posted By: Bill Cody Re: Feed trial experiment - 05/23/21 02:15 AM
Quote
what if they WANT to consume more of one feed than another.

Numerous feed studies feed the pellets to satiation. If the fish want to eat more of one brand (flavor) than another then on one hand the best tasting food should hopefully create more weight gain. Isn't weight gain one purpose of the study? If we are feeding a food that the fish do not prefer to eat then what good is that food and if they are eating less wouldn't that produce less weight gain as a result mainly of flavor? Doesn't usually eating more produce more weight gain?

However if the purpose of the study is to measure the weight gain per pound of eaten pellets then that purpose should also be able to be calculated when weights of food eaten or fed are recorded.

As noted above and if it is correct, males gain more weight (size) per year than females. jpsdad - Male BG have been demonstrated to twice the growth of females. I question at least a part of this and I would like to read that/those articles. Are there references to this regarding "TWICE" the growth of females. Was this growth per early years to a certain size?, total life span growth?, or in terms of annual growth rates?, or growth to maturity?.

Then at the end of the study I would try to visually determine number of males and females in each group in case there is a questionable point regarding sex ration of each group. More of one sex than the other might or could slightly skew the results.
Posted By: jpsdad Re: Feed trial experiment - 05/23/21 02:41 AM
I stand by my recommendation ... that is ... if the trial is intended to benefit forum members. It is nonsensical to feed fish in a recreational pond to satiation. Nobody here does it. Everyone feeds fish a small proportion of what they are capable of eating. Usually only 1 to 2 lbs per surface acre ... sometimes less ... sometimes a little more. I'm not suggesting to you to starve the fish. Geez. The feed rate that I inoculated the SS with provides 61 lbs of feed to a starting weight of 4.36 lbs of fish over the course of 120 days. Let's put that into perspective. If you tried to do that in a 1 acre pond with standing weight of 150 lbs of bluegill you would feed 52 bags of feed for gods sake.

If you feed the fish to satiation you may discover which feed they will consume more of but you won't compare the feeds in terms of nutritional quality unless you feed both treatments the same quantity of feed ... every day ... making no exceptions. Truth is, the trial prove nothing about what members can expect from typical feeding regimens. The fish are caged will be fed an astronomically higher proportion of feed than they would ever get in any members pond.

Bump. I'll respond to your questions.

1. Do we feed until fish stop consuming? If so, what if they WANT to consume more of one feed than another.

I think, as I mentioned before, that this would lead to better FCR. There is much evidence supporting this effect. It takes so much to maintain ... the rest can go to gain. This improves FCR. As I mentioned before ... this is important for commercial production because it increases production for marginally lower costs. But it makes no difference in a recreational pond where a member is feeding below satiation. You will skew FCR in the favor of the most palatable feed


2. If we go by % of body weight, again, how do we know they won't eat more (or less) of one brand than the other?


We don't. But it doesn't matter. No one feeds that much anyway.
Posted By: jpsdad Re: Feed trial experiment - 05/23/21 02:50 AM
Originally Posted by Bill Cody
Quote
what if they WANT to consume more of one feed than another.

As noted above and if it is correct, males gain more weight (size) per year than females. jpsdad - Male BG have been demonstrated to twice the growth of females. I question at least a part of this and I would like to read that/those articles. ...

When I read a paper ... I am always making comparisons. I like to understand them by ratios and percentages and such. I'll digitize a graph if I have to get numbers, solve functions, and such. You can find the paper here.
Posted By: Snipe Re: Feed trial experiment - 05/23/21 04:31 AM
In the beginning, in my effort to create a plan on how to go about this, my Reg 1 bio suggested I sit down with one of our hatchery managers and spend some time figuring out what it is I'm looking for.
The answer became less clear the longer we talked. The document linked above was part of one subject we discussed. The question to me was "do you want to grow food fish or sport fish?" This was 2 months ago as we were starting WAE egg take.
I was advised that any feed trial of this type that's going to be done in a cage is going to answer some questions and likely raise even more.
For the purpose I had in mind, it falls into the sport fish location and the questions came up about "what if" concerning how it would be treated. That's when it became apparent that more than one trial would be needed to answer some of the other questions, but let's back up.. I have 50+ control fish that will be receiving no special treatment other than they are only sharing a 100,000 gallon grow out pond with a couple of pounds of FHM.
2 very obvious things are going to happen here. One is 50+ control fish will be able to spawn. 80 test subjects will not.
Now, for whatever reason, when we sorted and measured every fish, we also noted sex. We are very heavily skewed in the male direction-had it been the other way, I'd be fine with that also. Consideration has already been given to sex on growth rates AND to how it may affect the spawning control fish.
What I wanted to save as a final report is being brought up before the test begins, so I've no choice but to explain this part now.
We have weighed and measured both the males and females in each group including the remaining control fish.
What I haven't shared yet-but will now-is the majority of my fish are northern strain BG. The kicker is I added 10 CNBG (5M-5F) to each group that have spent 19 years growing in nasty cold central KS winter conditions and prosper well NORTH of I-70 where they've been stocked in the last 4 years.
When the trial is over at the end of the growing season, these fish aren't done yet. I'm planning fin clip on RH pectoral of Purina fed, LH pectoral of Optimal fed and they will be put into grow out pond with control fish. I plan to see this through long term and what effects this has in 3 years.
I have a plan in place that will give some insight to several questions and may open the door to more questions ahead, but I'm not going to speculate on what the correct way to do this is because that ALL DEPENDS on what the goal is.
I'm using part of a plan that includes input from 3 of our state hatchery techs, parts of what I believe will be beneficial to pond owners, and some bits and pieces from research done in the past that I believe will benefit all in the end.
In the end, I'm sacrificing 100,000 gal grow out pond, a lot of time and effort trying to put this together so whatever it is I come up with, I hope it is of some use to everyone.
Posted By: anthropic Re: Feed trial experiment - 05/23/21 06:51 AM
I applaud your efforts, Snipe! Lots of time invested in this, but results will be of great interest to pondmeisters.

By the way, if it is true that male BG outgrow females, that's the exact opposite of LMB. Yet they are very closely related. Wonder why that trait switched?
Posted By: jpsdad Re: Feed trial experiment - 05/23/21 09:37 AM
OK. So I will close by saying a couple things. It is clear that my suggestion of equal treatment of the feeds is unwanted. It's not part of the vision you have for this experiment. Even though I don't understand why, I respect that. I was trying to suggest things I thought would provide sufficient control to draw valid conclusions about a trial between two feeds. I guess the control fish won't be caged either. I am now convinced that no reliable conclusions can or will be drawn at all. Don't take statement the wrong way. It's only a matter of scientific integrity. One needs adequate control to draw any conclusions about cause and effect. If the controls are not there, it's wasted as an experiment and it becomes an anecdote.

There are ways to draw more insight from the experiment that pertain to palatability and feed adoption without compromising control. Satiation is not defined by "how much they WANT to eat", It is the food they will consume in a given period of time. How much the WANT isn't a term or property I can wrap my head around. You could measure the time it takes to eat a given quantity of feed. If fish are inclined to eat more of one within a given time period than another, they will eat equal treatments of feed in less time. But if you want perform the trial giving the feeds unequal treatment, I will not stand in your way.
Posted By: Snipe Re: Feed trial experiment - 05/23/21 06:40 PM
jpsdad, the above info that I have posted is some of the questions that arose from Professional hatchery techs and one of our managers while discussing the best way to conduct this in a manner it will be most useful to pond fish growers.
The fish will receive exactly the same amount of feed by weight each day, 6 days a week. To let the cat out of the bag to clarify what I wanted to add in the final report was that day 7 the weight doubles every week-only every 7th day-that's a planned part of the trial, and will be recorded as we go.
I will welcome criticism after my final report-I hope everyone tears it apart. Then we will learn from that.
If anyone has the time, the pond, money, fish and other equipment to try this, please feel free.
Posted By: jpsdad Re: Feed trial experiment - 05/24/21 08:53 AM
Originally Posted by Snipe
jpsdad, the above info that I have posted is some of the questions that arose from Professional hatchery techs and one of our managers while discussing the best way to conduct this in a manner it will be most useful to pond fish growers.

The fish will receive exactly the same amount of feed by weight each day, 6 days a week
.

Thank you.

Quote
To let the cat out of the bag to clarify what I wanted to add in the final report was that day 7 the weight doubles every week-only every 7th day-that's a planned part of the trial, and will be recorded as we go.

I am confused. The weight of feed doubles every 7 days? Your hatchery techs and managers agree with that plan?

Quote
I will welcome criticism after my final report-I hope everyone tears it apart.

I have no intention of tearing it apart. I wanted to discuss the experiment before it happened so that it can appropriately be a trial between two feeds. It would have been very discourteous of me to have waited until the end of the experiment to voice concerns and engage a discussion. I think if I chose that path... you would have preferred that I had not ... but rather you would have preferred me to be transparent about my concerns even though I knew it would be taken the wrong way by you and others.
Posted By: Snipe Re: Feed trial experiment - 05/24/21 07:38 PM
No problem here, jpsdad. Let me clarify the feed doubling on every 7th day. If I'm feeding 16oz of feed each day, 1-6, on day 7 they get 32oz each. My intent is to see if they are simply still hungry. My goal was instead of assuming the actual weight gain each week, on day 7 by feeding double the normal amount I "should" begin to see that completely disappear at which point I will increase the daily amount going forward the next 6 days. Hope that clears that up, and yes, this is how the hatchery determines feed requirements and was a suggestion that I do the same.

EDIT: The reason for doubling on day 7 is because of logistics raising a massive quantity of fish and the fact it's impractical to weigh the fish to determine % of body weight to feed, so I believe it's more of a short-cut than science.
Posted By: FireIsHot Re: Feed trial experiment - 05/24/21 09:14 PM
Originally Posted by Snipe
...I will welcome criticism after my final report-I hope everyone tears it apart. Then we will learn from that.
If anyone has the time, the pond, money, fish and other equipment to try this, please feel free.

Snipe, I can promise you that those that have actually spent hours in the water rearing targeted fish for whatever reason will not criticize any part of your experiment. In fact, those same people will learn from you. You've been very open, and have shared this whole event with all of us, and I for one can't wait to see the results. I've had complete failures, and epic successes, but nothing as linear and controlled as your project. The results should be able speak for themselves.

Good luck, and thank you for your posts.
Posted By: jpsdad Re: Feed trial experiment - 05/25/21 12:06 AM
Originally Posted by Snipe
No problem here, jpsdad. Let me clarify the feed doubling on every 7th day. If I'm feeding 16oz of feed each day, 1-6, on day 7 they get 32oz each. My intent is to see if they are simply still hungry. My goal was instead of assuming the actual weight gain each week, on day 7 by feeding double the normal amount I "should" begin to see that completely disappear at which point I will increase the daily amount going forward the next 6 days. Hope that clears that up, and yes, this is how the hatchery determines feed requirements and was a suggestion that I do the same.

EDIT: The reason for doubling on day 7 is because of logistics raising a massive quantity of fish and the fact it's impractical to weigh the fish to determine % of body weight to feed, so I believe it's more of a short-cut than science.

OK so I am totally good with using a 7 day cycle for increasing feed. The part I was questioning was the doubling part. You won't be able to do it long because the fish won't double in weight each week. The fish will fill up on a proportion of their body weight and this proportion will likely decline a little as they grow bigger. You can imagine that if a fish doubled in weight every week it would be 256 times its original weight in only 8 weeks. So doubling would not be sustainable. I think you would like to feed the fish near satiation if possible and this is the knowledge you will be seeking as a plan of doubling each week. I'd like to offer some ideas for doing that.

First, I would define satiation. Specifically, how much time do they get to complete their meal? Is it 5 minutes, 10 minutes, or something else? Once you know this there is possibly a training period.

So here I recommend starting with a proportion of the fish weight that you feel confident they will consume within the time of the defined satiation time. Time the completion of the meal for each treatment. If the time is less than 75% of the satiation time (whichever takes the most time) then calculate the increase that may make up the difference to 75%. So if the slowest group takes 5 minutes and you allow 10 minutes then increase the following day by 50%. Time again ... etc By the end of the first week, your measurement on the 6th day will be very close to 75% satiation time allowed. If I were comparing two feeds, I would probably not try to accomplish any greater satiation than 80% time allowed in the slowest group of fish. But each week if you time on the 6th day, you would have a good sense of how much you can increase the feed without exceeding the satiation window and without wasting any feed.

The time it takes to complete a feeding is an interesting metric but it may not be without bias. On thought comes to mind. If one treatment always feeds first, then the other treatment may get hyped up waiting for you to stop timing the flurry of activity in the other cage. The treatment that eats last may be ramped up and in a more competitive state waiting its turn. So if that second to get feed is always the same cage of fish, it is possible to introduce bias to their times of consumption. Alternating would remove any possibility of bias in the data as they would each get their respective turns to be first and second. It would be interesting to understand if such would have an effect where possibly they take turns being the fastest to finish. These are just some things to chew on.
Posted By: Snipe Re: Feed trial experiment - 05/25/21 02:25 AM
If one treatment always feeds first, then the other treatment may get hyped up waiting for you to stop timing the flurry of activity in the other cage. The treatment that eats last may be ramped up and in a more competitive state waiting its turn.

Well...you found one of my training secrets there. Discovered by accident actually. Very good point, and it DOES matter.
If my PVC pipe brackets work as planned, both will be fed at the same time to eliminate this because I tried to train SMB and YP in one of these cages with a divider and one day I noticed after throwing feed to the SMB, the YP were hitting the surface but there was no feed there. It was 10-12 days into it when this happened so I did finish by alternating the feeding. The SMB would occasionally hit the surface but only seldom, the YP went nuts though.
Posted By: esshup Re: Feed trial experiment - 05/25/21 05:22 AM
The other thing about feeding the fish, is that if they are removed from the cage. weighed and measured, and returned, then they most likely will not resume feeding right away. Any stressors on the fish will suppress the feeding, and potentially skew the test.
Posted By: jpsdad Re: Feed trial experiment - 05/25/21 11:27 AM
Originally Posted by Snipe
If one treatment always feeds first, then the other treatment may get hyped up waiting for you to stop timing the flurry of activity in the other cage. The treatment that eats last may be ramped up and in a more competitive state waiting its turn.

Well...you found one of my training secrets there. Discovered by accident actually. Very good point, and it DOES matter.
If my PVC pipe brackets work as planned, both will be fed at the same time to eliminate this because I tried to train SMB and YP in one of these cages with a divider and one day I noticed after throwing feed to the SMB, the YP were hitting the surface but there was no feed there. It was 10-12 days into it when this happened so I did finish by alternating the feeding. The SMB would occasionally hit the surface but only seldom, the YP went nuts though.

Interesting experience you have noted. I am glad this became part of the conversation.

Quote
The other thing about feeding the fish, is that if they are removed from the cage. weighed and measured, and returned, then they most likely will not resume feeding right away. Any stressors on the fish will suppress the feeding, and potentially skew the test.

I agree with this. There is nothing wrong with waiting until the end to get weights and lengths or doing the measurements on 30 day intervals or some other broader interval than 1 week. This is an advantage of using a feed schedule that anticipates growth with previously modeled factors or is guided by feed consumption times.

As much as one would like to maximize growth, because we are comparing feeds, this should not be the priority. If we treat feeding rates equally using equivalent samples of fish then we will arrive at a more genuine understanding of comparative nutrition.

Because the control will not be equivalently caged, we will not get an accurate picture of absolute nutrition received. If we try to attribute all of the gain to feed we may well be giving credit that belongs to pond food organisms to the feeds. We should reserve that there is uncertainty as to whether the separate cages have the same opportunities for natural foods ... unfortunately two cages cannot occupy the same real estate at the same time.
Posted By: Snipe Re: Feed trial experiment - 05/25/21 03:36 PM
The control fish was a big topic with techs on how to handle that and everyone felt or agreed, it would be best to let them roam free because if caged they may be limited to what would otherwise be naturally available so there is some variability in how to "read" that. It might be one variable that we can't put a value on.
Posted By: jpsdad Re: Feed trial experiment - 05/25/21 10:44 PM
I think the best way to read the control is to subtract the control's gain from the gain of the two treatments. This will give a true conversion of the feed. But the problem is that you have lots of minnows in the pond that the free roaming fish can slaughter. It may be possible that the fish that roam free will outgain both of your cages. To isolate the effect of the feed's contribution ... one has to limit the control's access to pond food organisms in the same way the fed fish will be limited. This can only happen if the control fish are caged ... equal in number and weight ... in the same sized cage. If control fish are caged and do not gain ... then you have evidence that ALL of the gain -could- be attributable to feed. There is still time if you have fish in the right size and number.

Even so, some residual bias due to wastes possibly attracting pond food organisms could remain. In other words, feeding may attract natural foods preferentially to the fed cages relative to the control cage but this would be a whole different experiment smile We can only speculate whether there is any effect
Posted By: teehjaeh57 Re: Feed trial experiment - 05/27/21 04:28 AM
Can’t wait for your results, Kenny. I’m grateful for your willingness to provide your intel!
Posted By: Snipe Re: Feed trial experiment - 06/07/21 04:18 AM
Spent the last 8 days in Florida but back to work..
Feed received and ready to start a re-sort.
I'm guessing a couple of days I should be close and ready to start this..
Net pen is back in water, I've found if I "season" the net with Algae, I have near zero fungus issues.
Posted By: FishinRod Re: Feed trial experiment - 06/07/21 05:37 PM
Originally Posted by Snipe
Net pen is back in water, I've found if I "season" the net with Algae, I have near zero fungus issues.

The feed trial hasn't even started - and I have already learned something important from a Pond Boss person documenting their experiences!
Posted By: jpsdad Re: Feed trial experiment - 06/09/21 03:43 AM
+1 on FishingRod's comment.

Snipe, when you sort ... could you give us a lesson on how to sex adolescent BG? I would like to learn how to sex 5" BG when they are not yet demonstrating the full adult phenotype of the sexes.
Posted By: Snipe Re: Feed trial experiment - 06/09/21 04:43 AM
jpsdad, I will get some pics.. I've got about 31 sorted today, I should be close tomorrow..
I had an "unplanned" forage die-off last night that is about to kill me just thinking about it and that took a good portion of my time cleaning that up today. I seined my forage pond after pumping most water out and had around 45-55lbs of Red shiner, BNM and some FHM I put in a 700 gal tank with an aeration system and had a valve fail sometime in the night..95%-97% loss..makes me sick as hell.
Posted By: Heppy Re: Feed trial experiment - 06/09/21 05:07 AM
Snipe,
I’m sorry to hear about that. That definitely sucks and makes you sick to your stomach but be thankful that it didn’t happen in October and you had to wait 6 months to try again. I’m just trying to turn lemons into lemonade.
Posted By: anthropic Re: Feed trial experiment - 06/09/21 05:08 AM
Nothing worse than being greeted with a fish kill. So sorry to hear about it, hope it doesn't throw off your plans too much.
Posted By: jpsdad Re: Feed trial experiment - 06/09/21 01:34 PM
I am very saddened hear about the loss of your forage, Snipe. You've got a lot to on plate to work out so take care of business first, everything else can wait.
Posted By: Snipe Re: Feed trial experiment - 07/05/21 04:40 AM
Time for an update. Going to keep things simple because this has been kicking my butt for various reasons..
After all fish were measured and weighed, I ended up using 40 per side.
Average weight= 54.78g
Average length= 141.1mm
WR average total= 99.477%
I weighed many fish in many combinations to get as close as possible in each side per weight.
Left=2191.6g, Right 2190.4
Left fed Purina Aquamax 500
Right fed Optimal BG
Both sides fed 3% of Total weight at start=2.2oz per side of each feed.
Day 11 I pulled, measured 10 fish from each and weighed the total in a bucket with 20lbs of water.
Purina side (left)=2449.2g
Optimal side (right)= 2408.8g, = 40.4 diff, minus original skew of 1.2g on left = total gain of
Purina= 257.8
Optimal= 218.4
39.4g advantage to Purina at 11 days= 1.6% better weight gain.
I am NOT going to pull and weigh every 10 days-this was incredibly stressful to the fish (and me)..
I'm going 30 days before I pull again which will be 22 July, 2021.
Personal notes at this time-- No real difference was noted on how fast fish began to feed. Some days fish fed much more aggressively than others but both sides reacted very much the same. Note- I expected some mortality after handling fish but have yet to note any morts.
The bottom line right now is this is just the beginning and I'm sure there are small errors that add up, so don't read too much into this just yet, as 10-11 days doesn't mean much to me at this point.
I chose not to post a bunch of pics right now because this whole deal has been way more time consuming than I had previously planned for, but I'm keeping up the best i can so we all can get "something" out of this without too many open variables to contend with.
I will add I went to 2.6oz/day on feed after weighing to stay ahead of the curve and they still consume total in less than 30 seconds at each of 3 feedings (.87g per event).
Posted By: Snipe Re: Feed trial experiment - 07/06/21 04:25 AM
jpsdad, where you at?? I need some input on feed rates. :-))
Posted By: jpsdad Re: Feed trial experiment - 07/06/21 01:16 PM
OK. So I know some may think the FCR is very high and should have been lower. However, the FCR is excellent and demonstrates that both feeds are of very good quality. We can arrive at this understanding by comparing the feed to dried fish using the assumption that dried fish converts as well as its equivalent wet weight.

It's been commonly said that annual maintenance of a predator is 5 lbs forage for every pound of predator. The equivalent dry weight of 5 lbs BG (BG have moisture content of 80%) would then be 1 lb per year per pound of predator. So we can imagine that 1 lb of feed made from 100% BG would be able to sustain 1 lb of predator. Let's also assume that BG require the same maintenance. It is also commonly said that forage consumed above maintenance converts at 10 lbs Forage to 1 lb gain of predator. Converting to dry weight BG, then 2 lbs of dried BG converts to 1 lb gain. Let's assume this conversion also applies to BG as well and so let's feed a hypothetical group of BG a hypothetical feed made from 100% dried BG at the rate fed thus far in the trial working with this conversion and maintenance.

Below is a spreadsheet where predicted growth is calculated from the feed consumed exceeding the maintenance. The FCR is the dry weight equivalent of 10 lbs wet BG/1 LB wet predator (2 lbs Dry BG/1 LB wet predator). So an FCR of 2, based on the assumption of feed made from 100% dried fish. The maintenance rate is 1 lb/lb fish/150 day growing season or 0.677 % of body weight per day. The feed rate is 2.2 ounces which is 2.847% of the initial weight of the treatments. The feed rate is fixed for the first 10 days beginning day 1 and ending day 11. So the first thing I want you to notice is just how close this prediction is to actual results thus far. The predicted gain is only off by 3 grams (1.26%). So it is clear that if dry fish will convert equally with respect to the wet weight equivalent, both feeds in the trial convert comparably relative to 100% dried fish.

[Linked Image from forums.pondboss.com]

In the next SS I adjusted the FCR until the prediction matches Snipes results so far. This really doesn't change the FCR that much (~1%) so its pretty remarkable that we could predict the outcome of 10 days of feeding this closely with such arcane principles of 5 lbs maintenance per year and 10 lbs forage to 1 lb gain. Its also remarkable that the feeds slightly out performed the assumptions of dried fish as feed.

[Linked Image from forums.pondboss.com]

To be sure, dried fish may convert better than its wet weight equivalent. I don't know, but if it does, or if the conversion of wet weight forage is better than assumed then gross conversion in cages lower than a Gross FCR=2 could be obtained. Please keep in mind that the limit is very close to 2 for any fish that converts wet BG at 10 to 1.

Attached picture FCR 2.jpg
Attached picture FCR MATCH.jpg
Attached File
FEED SCHEDULE 3% SFR.xlsx  (94 downloads)
Posted By: Snipe Re: Feed trial experiment - 08/02/21 05:05 AM
Hello to all that may be following this. Sat, July 31, I fed the BG their last meal of this trial, This am, Aug 1st, I started with the hardest part, yet most enjoyable job I know of- weighing and measuring.
Let me start by saying I had intensions of running this another 30 days but as it worked out, I've had algal growth darn near close off the 1" mesh cage- 3 times during the last 25 days! I'll explain the details of how I handled that later...
I have to say a BIG THANK YOU to both PURINA and OPTIMAL for providing the goods to go as far as we could with this. I believe a big thank you is also in order for PondBoss for bringing us all to the same table to share with everyone, whether we give or take that information, I can't think of any better place than right here to do that, so Thank You to BOB LUSK and crew for giving us a place to do this!
Now, I cheated a bit on this by pulling 1 fish from each side every 3rd day to see if a pattern developed or if any major changes were occurring during this to confirm the calculations that jpsdad helped with on this and I will say that on day 20 it became obvious that the weights and lengths I was coming up with was not a fluke-on EITHER side. After weighing a few fish on the 9th day after starting the 3 day weigh, I started to think I had recorded or miscalculated something so I thought, Snipe, this is going to show up in the end and I'll get the full picture so here we go....
LH-Purina AM 500, 40 day total weight = 5,052grams, Average length = 177mm, Ave weight = 126.3g, WR = 107.93%
RH-Optimal BG, 40 day total weight = 5,288grams, Average length = 179mm, Ave weight =132.2g, WR = 108.84%
Fish had a range of 98-118% WR, really, in both sides which leads me to believe some fish are just programmed differently even within the same species.

Here's where I am still shocked at both brands... Purina, 1.53 to 1 FCR, Optimal, 1.42 to 1...!!!!!!! I've been over this figure a hundred times and in this case, I'm going to assume they were utilizing something else available in the pond system because the trial was performed "in the pond"..

There is NO LOSER here.. it's very clear that both feeds produced exceptional in my mind, I would have never guessed it would be so close!
Note on male vs Female- I had 5 northern males and 5 CNBG in each cage. Both feeds show the same results-in this case-that males achieved an ave of 2mm more length but less weight than a female of the same length. I have to assume this would be different at different times of the year, interesting none the less and I have to also assume that upon achieving a larger size this would possibly skew the other direction. I can note that the CNBG were starting to add more length and weight than the NBG were.
I have many, many, many pictures and tons of little tid bits I'd like to share-and will- but I was excited to at the least get the numbers up so we can start the discussion if anyone cares to comment or ask questions!
I should also add on Friday I had 1 mort on the Purina side that I'm sure had nothing to do with Brand X or Y. I did not skew the numbers to exclude that fish as it was the only loss so I added the average X1 to total.
Posted By: jpsdad Re: Feed trial experiment - 08/02/21 12:22 PM
I am still up for a lesson on determining the sex of 5" BG smile

I am a bit disappointed the trial couldn't grow longer. Based on the conversion and gain less than 12 lbs of feed was fed to each treatment ... just hoped we may have gone through most of the individual bags at different rates of feeding before it ended. The conversion was exceptional and I do think you are correct that pond organisms played a partial role in the conversion you logged. Anyways, thank you for doing this Ken.
Posted By: Snipe Re: Feed trial experiment - 08/02/21 05:08 PM
I do understand disappointment in Trial length, but moving fish every 8-9 days into different cages so I could spray cage with Hydrogen peroxide (30%) to cut algal growth was producing what "I thought" to be too much of a stress factor. There is always a lesson to learn on everything we do and hind-sight is 20/20. If I do it again, I will set it up in my FHM pond as the nutrient load is less there but there will be more incidental FHM additions to the fish in trial.
I've found it hard to find time to get on here and post lately, and I've probably bit off more than I should have but I'm a one man show trying to babysit 2.5" SMB (feed training 5,000) and transferring 3-5lbs of FHM every day to YP, general upkeep and a new building going up.
I will get to the point of documenting the pics and other information involved with this in a short period of time.
jpsdad, appreciate your help on this with base-line numbers to use, and I did adjust as I felt needed for reasons I believe were relevant to maximize growth.
Posted By: ewest Re: Feed trial experiment - 08/02/21 06:37 PM
Snipe where did the fish go after weighing ? Nice work !
Posted By: Bill Cody Re: Feed trial experiment - 08/03/21 02:10 AM
Very good work. Snipe I have discovered if one or two small tilapia are in the cage with the test fish, so far the tilapia have kept the cage clean. Maybe numerous tilapia outside the cage also help clean the cage.
Posted By: jpsdad Re: Feed trial experiment - 08/03/21 02:19 AM
You did ALL the work. I didn't add much but happy to hear what little I did was helpful.
Posted By: Snipe Re: Feed trial experiment - 08/03/21 03:44 AM
Originally Posted by ewest
Snipe where did the fish go after weighing ? Nice work !
I have a separate BG pond ewest, I fin clipped LH pec on Purina fish and RH pec on Optimal fish. I know they grow back but it always leaves a ridge that in my past experience, has been easy to identify.
Posted By: Snipe Re: Feed trial experiment - 08/03/21 03:48 AM
Originally Posted by Bill Cody
Very good work. Snipe I have discovered if one or two small tilapia are in the cage with the test fish, so far the tilapia have kept the cage clean. Maybe numerous tilapia outside the cage also help clean the cage.
Bill, I have 3000+/- Tilapia in another pond and that would likely be a good answer and I wish I would have thought of that. If nothing else it would have extended the time between clog-ups!
Posted By: Snipe Re: Feed trial experiment - 08/03/21 04:11 AM
Originally Posted by jpsdad
You did ALL the work. I didn't add much but happy to hear what little I did was helpful.
No... I didn't do it all. Your figures that you took the time to put together were extremely useful in me making a determination of whether I was feeding what I should-without having to stress fish by handling more than needed. I upped the rate to feed what I felt would be close to 3% or slightly above on the last of every 3rd day at that rate. I appreciate that, it was actually very accurate in the increase percentage over-all. Thank you for that.
Posted By: jpsdad Re: Feed trial experiment - 08/03/21 04:25 AM
I just mean that spending a couple of hours lending a hand isn't all that much in the grander scheme of feeding three times a day and all the rest. You are most welcome of course, I am glad I could contribute in the way I did. Still it was as they say in Spanish "de nada" (which is how they say "your welcome it was no problem").
Posted By: esshup Re: Feed trial experiment - 08/03/21 01:37 PM
Originally Posted by Bill Cody
Very good work. Snipe I have discovered if one or two small tilapia are in the cage with the test fish, so far the tilapia have kept the cage clean. Maybe numerous tilapia outside the cage also help clean the cage.

Snipe/Bill:

I do the exact same thing, put a couple Tilapia in the cage (4' cube) and they keep the cage clean of algae all summer long.
Posted By: ewest Re: Feed trial experiment - 08/03/21 03:43 PM
Will be interesting to see the future results on the test fish. cool
Posted By: anthropic Re: Feed trial experiment - 08/03/21 10:21 PM
It is beyond the scope of this experiment, but would be very interesting to see if the type of feed makes a difference in overall fish health. For example, tolerance for low DO, temperature extremes (high or low), longevity (and ultimate max size), fecundity, etc.

I fed Optimal in my forage pond and, surprisingly, my CNBG survived the Great Freeze. Maybe they'd have done the same with MVP, not sure. Pretty sure a cheap feed would have been fatal.
Posted By: ewest Re: Feed trial experiment - 08/03/21 10:45 PM
jpsdad not sure how to make those comparisons. It is a matter of energetics and you have to count energy expended. On feed trials on fish (not fish food) there is a huge difference as those that I have seen use live fish so the energy expended to capture is a negative. It is significant amount also. On fish food trials there is little to no energy output. I will find the study that provides that feeding can be between 4 -8 times more efficient in BG because there is no energy output.

Couple of threads
https://forums.pondboss.com/ubbthre...ds=energetics&Search=true#Post278746

More from another thread - this is 2011 data and fish food and what we know about feeding has changed a lot since then.

natural food is better for fish over the long term

pellets (the right type) are 4 + times more efficient than natural food because the fish does not have to expend energy to catch it

lack of food is the single biggest limiting factor in fish growth and condition

From my presentation at PB IV � Fish Nutrition � Applied Science to Small Waters

Bioenergetics is the subject of a field of biochemistry that concerns energy flow and transformation through living systems.

Growth, development and metabolism are some of the central phenomena in the study of biological organisms. The role of energy is fundamental to such biological processes. The ability to harness energy from a variety of metabolic pathways is a property of all living organisms. Life is dependent on energy transformations; living organisms survive because of exchange of energy within and without.

Living organisms obtain energy from organic and inorganic materials. For example, lithotrophs can oxidize minerals . In photosynthesis, autotrophs can produce ATP using light energy. Heterotrophs (including fish) must consume organic compounds. These are mostly carbohydrates, fats, and proteins. The amount of energy actually obtained by the organism is lower than the amount present in the food; there are losses in digestion, metabolism, and thermogenesis.

Energy Budget ---- Inputs = Outputs + Growth


Because fish growth often is limited by food availability, supplemental feeding is a logical tool to improve the condition of fish in small impoundments as the energy cost for bluegill to feed on pellets is small relative to the high caloric intake, which can be 4-5 times greater than those fed natural foods (Schalles and Wissing 1976). Substantial increases in the standing stock of bluegill in ponds that receive pellet feed have been recorded (Schmittou 1969) and, in lakes, pellet feeding has been found to increase the number of large bluegills (Nail and Powell 1975).

These results indicate that total fish production and production of bluegill were each increased approximately 75 to 80% by supplemental feeding in 19 months after stocking (Schmittou 1967)

Previous studies demonstrated that feed in excess of 10 pounds per acre per day in bluegill ponds was not utilized. Some accumulated and decomposed, thus depleting the supply of dissolved oxygen which resulted in fish kills (Schmittou 1967) .

the rate of growth of sunfish can be increased by short-circuiting the food cycle, thereby producing harvestable size sunfish in a shorter period of time than would occur under natural conditions (Carnes 1966).

The pellet size should be approximately 20-30% of the size of the fish species mouth gape. Feeding too small a pellet results in inefficient feeding because more energy is used in finding and eating more pellets. Conversely, pellets that are too large will depress feeding and, in the extreme, cause choking. Select the largest sized feed the fish will actively eat. Addition of supplemental pelleted feed did not contribute to the rate of growth of young shad, but did increase the growth and spawning frequency of adults.
Posted By: jpsdad Re: Feed trial experiment - 08/04/21 04:54 AM
Quote
On fish food trials there is little to no energy output. I will find the study that provides that feeding can be between 4 -8 times more efficient in BG because there is no energy output.


I will respectfully disagree. Sorry but we have to have the freedom to disagree.

The truth is that the assumptions (Swingle's theory and widely held wet weight conversion) very nearly predicted the outcome of the first 10 days. Even Snipe will tell you that assumptions demonstrated predictive ability. To be sure, Snipe isn't saying that the feed converted at 1.47ish in the absence of pond organisms. In fact there must have been a very substantial proportion of consumption attributable to pond organisms and he explained the results in that very way. Snipe isn't new to this and he would not lead us to think that feed converted all on its own at 1.47ish. Snipe told me that the best he had seen with YP that were feed-trained before the testing was about 2.2 to 1. He said that it was in clean water tanks without the normal eco system present but feed rates were much higher than 3%, like 7-8%, with Optimal Jr.

You want to see something really cool?

Let's try to predict the FCR of Snipe's YP at an 8% feed rate using what was realized in first 10 days of this trial using optimal. As a starting place lets assume 0.667 % maintenance solve for the intrinsic FCR. Below this is displayed in the spreadsheet where an FCR of 2.158 is the solution intrinsic conversion (Intrinsic FCR) above maintenance that is consistent with 0.667% maintenance and the growth of Snipe's BG fed Optimal feed with a GROSS FCR of 2.85. These assumptions if true would grow the BG to the weight Snipe observed.

[Linked Image]

Of course true intrinsic FCR depends on the true intrinsic maintenance rate because they are variables of the function that models the observed growth. You see, assuming different values of SMR (specific maintenance rate) makes you solve for different values of intrinsic FCR. True values can only be obtained by feeding over different periods different rates of feed. Only by doing this can the values of maintenance of intrinsic FCR be obtained. These properties, intrinsic to the feed/species combination, are true only if they are the same at any reasonable SFR (specific feeding rate). SFR is merely the proportion of fish weight that is fed every day and so clearly there is a limit how high that can be. For example fish can't eat two times there weight in feed. Ideally to solve for these intrinsic properties we constrain the solution to a feed/species combination. That said, lets firmly press our tongues to cheek and just see how closely we can predict the FCR of Snipe's YP at an 8% feed rate.

[Linked Image]


So starting with Swingle's principles, an assumption of 0.667% maintenance rate, and the first 10 days growth of Snipe's BG we predict that at 8% of body weight daily that Optimal feed has a GROSS FCR of 2.35. To be sure, this is not exact. Not that far off from Snipe's best of 2.2 with YP but not exact. Far off is going from an FCR of 2.85 in the first 10 days to an FCR of 1.42 in the following 30. Like Snipe said, that doesn't make sense unless the fish ate something other than feed in the latter part of trial. So if you don't bat an eye at the FCR going from 2.85 to 1.42 during the trial than you should be absolutely astonished that we could predict an FCR within .15 using the assumption of 0.667 maintenance and the principles Swingle left us. "A fish must consume maintenance to maintain its weight ... it may convert consumption above the maintenance into growth". Eloquent and it fits what scientist call a physical law. It can be expressed as an equation and it can be tested against evidence.

We failed by 0.15 to predict the FCR of Snipe's YP. This may be because YP convert differently than BG. Or because the assumption of 0.667% for maintenance is wrong. But for now, lets assume YP convert Optimal equivalently and that we need to adjust the maintenance so that the maintenance and intrinsic FCR are equal for both treatments. I got very lucky and with a single guess for maintenance at 0.8% I found the Intrinsic FCR to be 2.019 where at an 8% feed rate the FCR is 2.24.


[Linked Image]

Now that is down right close ... still I would much rather do that with the same species than mixing and matching BG and YP. Anyways, it tells us that it takes a little less than 1% of a fish's body weight of Optimal to maintain its weight. It also tells us that Optimal converts "somewhere around 2" (give or take a little) for the feed fed above maintenance. This means that in a pond, for fish that are growing anyway, the direct conversion of the feed is ~ 2 to 1. There is an additional manuring effect where the fish manure from eating the feed further stimulates the food chain providing additional natural foods. To imagine this effect think of third world countries where producers very effectively grow fish soley by stimulating the food chain with animal excrement. Yes when you feed your fish ... you are adding animal excrement to your pond ... it is just that the fish are eating the feed first. This is how FCRs can be below 2 in pond settings. Pond foods provide the maintenance and a proportion of the growth. The feed is converted at the optimum rate and receives credit for all maintenance and growth.

Another thing. Don't be persuaded that Optimal outperforms Purina from the results of this experiment. As Snipe mentioned, the reason for such low FCR is that the fish were eating supplemental pond organisms. Because of this we can derive no valid conclusions about the intrinsic properties of the feed (maintenance and intrinsic FCR are those properties). Except, perhaps in the early going when Purina outperformed. The conversion made then implies strongly that the food the fish were eating was limited to feed. Based on that alone, I lean to Purina though by my calculation the FCRs are comparable. Because pond organisms played such a large role ... I would lean that the Optimal cage occupied better real estate which had the effect of providing the BG more pond organisms to eat.

But back to conversion of feed being 4 to 8 times more efficient. This isn't supported by real world conversions of feed to fish flesh. The analysis above using 70+ year old principles leaves no doubt that it simply can't be the case. This is because the acquisition of food is evidently only a small proportion of the metabolic consumption each day and it probably can be ignored. In other words, an easy meal doesn't actually add all that much. Furthermore, comparisons of efficiency are only valid when the dry weight consumptions are equivalent. There are lots of ways to twist facts into something that is not true at all. What I love about Swingle's principles of maintenance and growth is that they form a natural law that has proven to be fundamental to the energy budget of fish maintenance and growth. The variables of the function (FCR and SFR) represent intrinsic properties of a feed/species combination. This is what makes science beautiful to me. It removes the anecdotal mumbo jumbo of three bug eyed BG grown on three different feeds and it instructs you not put that in your mouth and swallow. Science uses simple principles that have mathematical relationships such that theory becomes testable in the real world and a highly sharp tool for control and planning that have real world application to the economics of growing fish. Science weeds out false claims and it creates a firm platform by which to expand knowledge. But for sure ... some will say Optimal converts at 1.42 referencing this anecdote even after Snipe warned us that this isn't the case because the fish ate supplemental pond organisms in addition to the feed. And that saddens me because its just an example of picking what one wants to believe (or for some what they want to sell) as opposed to getting to the fundamental knowledge of the feed/species combination. The former is BS while the latter is something you can apply in the real world as so many fish producers already do.

Attached picture Optimal 1st 10 days.jpg
Attached picture YP Estimate of FCR @ 8%.jpg
Attached picture Good Fit 8%.jpg
Attached File
FEED-SCHEDULE-8%-SFR.xlsx  (100 downloads)
Posted By: FireIsHot Re: Feed trial experiment - 08/05/21 09:35 PM
Kenny, thanks again for doing all of this. Strong work.

My number crunching days are over with, so what I took from all this is that we're splitting hairs when dealing with premium fish foods. Maybe fish isolated in vats would show more separation, but not necessarily in real life situations. Every pond is different(water makeup, vegetation, fish density, etc.), and so is the gape friendly forage that's available to them. It all depends.
Posted By: Snakebite Re: Feed trial experiment - 08/06/21 02:08 PM
Thanks for the effort behind a study like this. There are many factors that skew and hurt a study, but I`m glad this was for the most part a success. I am in the process of a smaller scale effort involving different minnow species and different feeds in tanks.
© Pond Boss Forum