Pond Boss Magazine
https://www.pondboss.com/images/userfiles/image/20130301193901_6_150by50orangewhyshouldsubscribejpeg.jpg
Advertisment
Newest Members
TooShort, Pizzo, oUnDOmIn, J&T Ranch, NorthCarolinaboy
17342 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums36
Topics39,045
Posts530,146
Members17,343
Most Online3,583
Jan 15th, 2020
Top Posters
esshup 25,554
ewest 20,652
Cecil Baird1 20,043
Bill Cody 13,791
Who's Online Now
14 members (RStringer, Steve_, KY_pond, optimalfishfood, J&T Ranch, wings, Quarter Acre, Bill Douglas, Shorty, BelleVegasBob, wbuffetjr, roymunson, DavidDunn, hawkeye05), 390 guests, and 378 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
AquaMax v Optimal: A sloppy test
#511985 09/25/19 09:16 PM
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,958
Likes: 65
A
OP Offline
A
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,958
Likes: 65
I have three functioning TH feeders on my BOW, spaced far apart. Sometimes I fill them with AquaMax, sometimes Optimal. Fish seem to love both about equally, so far as I can tell.

So the thought struck, why not pit one against the other? AM in one or two, Optimal in one or two. Observe fish feeding activity, and take creel surveys to see which area seems to do best. Heck, maybe even do a professional electrosurvey next fall for most reliable data!

Anybody tried this? If so, what were your results?

Last edited by anthropic; 09/25/19 09:17 PM.

8ac, full 3/16. CNBG, RES, FHM 10/15; TP 5/16; FLMB 6/16. 100 12" NLMB & 1k GSH 10/17,L, 150# TP & 70 HSB 5/18. 1k PK 11/18. 100# TP 4/19, 200# RBT 12/19, 10k TFS 3/20, 100#TP 5/20, 25 HSB & 250 F1 9/20,L,180# RBT 12/20, 206, 7k TFS,100#TP 5/21, 225



Re: AquaMax v Optimal: A sloppy test
anthropic #511987 09/25/19 09:33 PM
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,054
Likes: 12
N
Lunker
Offline
Lunker
N
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,054
Likes: 12
This will be a great experiment to compare relative weights and color of the fish caught in their respective areas. Iím going to guess that one wonít noticeably be Ďlikedí more than the other. I think what will happen is the fish that are around the AM will develop an affinity for the AM shape smell and flavor and vice versa for the Optimal. But thatís just a wild guess on my part.


Just a Pond Boss 'sponge'
Re: AquaMax v Optimal: A sloppy test
anthropic #511988 09/25/19 11:02 PM
Joined: Oct 2018
Posts: 1,399
Likes: 63
S
Offline
S
Joined: Oct 2018
Posts: 1,399
Likes: 63
I think there's a whole lot more to this than fish size and color over 1 year's time.
How about fish longevity, liver function, overall health long-term, effects of feed on water quality, etc..????
Not to be a party pooper but I feel the end goals are far more complex than what meets the eye.

Last edited by Snipe; 09/25/19 11:02 PM. Reason: spelling
Re: AquaMax v Optimal: A sloppy test
anthropic #511989 09/26/19 02:38 AM
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,174
Likes: 89
J
Offline
J
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,174
Likes: 89
Originally Posted By: anthropic
I have three functioning TH feeders on my BOW, spaced far apart. Sometimes I fill them with AquaMax, sometimes Optimal. Fish seem to love both about equally, so far as I can tell.

So the thought struck, why not pit one against the other? AM in one or two, Optimal in one or two. Observe fish feeding activity, and take creel surveys to see which area seems to do best. Heck, maybe even do a professional electrosurvey next fall for most reliable data!

Anybody tried this? If so, what were your results?


In addition to Snipe's concerns, there is the added complication that the feeders are spatially separated. The habitat and natural foods may not be equivalent at the different location. It could be that any favorable differences (particularly like those Snipe pointed out) are sourced to natural foods and not the feed at all. To be good science, there must be better control. For example:

1. Selecting equivalent numbers of equivalent sized fish.

2. Place them in cages in near proximity to limit natural food effects.

3. Feed them equivalently both in the weight of food but also in the size of pellets.

These treatment controls allow for a fairer comparison of the two feeds although even these are impractical for the multiyear and water quality effects that Snipe mentions.

Just as an aside. Were I feeding, I would favor a feed that produced lower RW fish of equivalent or greater gain. By this I mean that I would be more interested in producing lengthy frames than girth and I might even prefer a feed that produced less weight gain particularly when the length attribute is favorable and the relative cost/gain remains reasonable.

Last edited by jpsdad; 09/26/19 03:01 AM.

Common sense is not so common - Voltaire

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


Re: AquaMax v Optimal: A sloppy test
anthropic #511991 09/26/19 05:45 AM
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,657
Likes: 45
T
Offline
T
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,657
Likes: 45
I have 3 TH feeders and I have used Cargills, Optimal and Aquamax MVP. I now use the MVP because I have easy access to it and I no longer have to store fish food. Mice really like that stuff. What I have seen is one feeder holds more of the larger sized bg. I am sure it is because of waters depth and it's next to a larger sunken sweetgum tree. All of the feeders keep some large bg but the one mentioned keeps more of them around. My point is location of the feeders have a lot to do with the sized fish that hang around them. While hand feeding the hsb and feed trained lmb yesterday at the same feeder I was thinking there are a lot of big BG hanging out here. I am not sure how big the largest ones are but I think they are the largest bg I have ever seen with the exception of some I have herd about here.


Do not judge me by the politicians in my City, State or Federal Government.


Tracy
Re: AquaMax v Optimal: A sloppy test
Snipe #512000 09/26/19 07:18 AM
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,958
Likes: 65
A
OP Offline
A
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,958
Likes: 65
Originally Posted By: Snipe
I think there's a whole lot more to this than fish size and color over 1 year's time.
How about fish longevity, liver function, overall health long-term, effects of feed on water quality, etc..????
Not to be a party pooper but I feel the end goals are far more complex than what meets the eye.


You're right, Snipe. I am taking a shortcut due to lack of time & money to really do this properly, hence the "sloppy test". May prove absolutely nothing, but should be interesting anyhow.


8ac, full 3/16. CNBG, RES, FHM 10/15; TP 5/16; FLMB 6/16. 100 12" NLMB & 1k GSH 10/17,L, 150# TP & 70 HSB 5/18. 1k PK 11/18. 100# TP 4/19, 200# RBT 12/19, 10k TFS 3/20, 100#TP 5/20, 25 HSB & 250 F1 9/20,L,180# RBT 12/20, 206, 7k TFS,100#TP 5/21, 225



Re: AquaMax v Optimal: A sloppy test
anthropic #512002 09/26/19 07:33 AM
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,958
Likes: 65
A
OP Offline
A
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,958
Likes: 65
tracy, jpsdad, and NEDOC, thanks for the input. Location really does matter, especially cover near the feeder. Weeds & sunken brush around dock make that feeder the most successful in generating CNBG growth and attracting LMB, HSB and even a few TP. Also, as it is easy to access, that's where I usually hand throw larger feed once or twice a week.

Knowing the peculiarities of my feeder locales is important to my assessment of the results. One is on the dock, one is at the corner of the dam, and one is near a large spawning area.

I have not yet gotten any AM MVP from the local Purina store, just AM Sportsfish chow. Hopefully they will order MVP if I ask, as it is much more comparable to Optimal BG feed. AM is considerably cheaper, roughly 20-25 percent less per lb.

Last edited by anthropic; 09/26/19 07:36 AM.

8ac, full 3/16. CNBG, RES, FHM 10/15; TP 5/16; FLMB 6/16. 100 12" NLMB & 1k GSH 10/17,L, 150# TP & 70 HSB 5/18. 1k PK 11/18. 100# TP 4/19, 200# RBT 12/19, 10k TFS 3/20, 100#TP 5/20, 25 HSB & 250 F1 9/20,L,180# RBT 12/20, 206, 7k TFS,100#TP 5/21, 225



Re: AquaMax v Optimal: A sloppy test
anthropic #512004 09/26/19 08:02 AM
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,203
Likes: 57
Online Content
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,203
Likes: 57
I am currently testing a variety of foods from Optimal at my pond which makes me think alot about the variables involved. It's pretty mind boggling.

Thus far, all the experimental food samples have all been approximately 4-5 mm round pellets and have mostly yielded less enthusiasm compared to the control feed (Opt BG pond feed - 4.5 mm by varying lengths). I certainly do not know the ingredient differences, but it seems that size and shape MAY be a big factor. I say this without anything more than limited visual observations, but it would appear that the HSB tend to prefer the larger bits of the BG feed and when it is switched to the experimental feeds of smaller sizes...it takes the HSB a little longer to actively start feeding.

I know JPS mentioned size of pellets already...I'm just throwing in my recent observations regarding the same.


Fish on!,
Noel
Re: AquaMax v Optimal: A sloppy test
anthropic #512005 09/26/19 08:47 AM
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,203
Likes: 57
Online Content
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,203
Likes: 57
For a DIY experiment, I would be tempted to switch the feeds back and forth every few days over the course of a full season and observe and record the activity. You would have to establish a 1-10 scale, up front, knowing that you can maintain some consistency. I think this approach would allow the fish to become accustomed to both feed's differences and performing the tests over the course of a summer might allow environmental changes to be averaged out. In the end you would have a number rating for both feeds based on enthusiasm alone.

Not very scientific, but you could establish whether the fish like Prime Rib or Filet Mignon.


Fish on!,
Noel
Re: AquaMax v Optimal: A sloppy test
anthropic #512010 09/26/19 11:10 AM
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,791
Likes: 53
B
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
B
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,791
Likes: 53
Study design and methods will depend on one goals of the study. What hypothesis or question are we trying to prove or answer. 'anthropic' does have the qualifier of "sloppy test" in his title. However all the suggestions provided are very helpful for those interested in comparing two brands of fish food.


Keep This Forum Viable, Read Pond Boss Magazine -
America's Journal of Pond Management
Re: AquaMax v Optimal: A sloppy test
anthropic #512014 09/26/19 11:32 AM
Joined: Oct 2018
Posts: 1,399
Likes: 63
S
Offline
S
Joined: Oct 2018
Posts: 1,399
Likes: 63
Originally Posted By: anthropic
Originally Posted By: Snipe
I think there's a whole lot more to this than fish size and color over 1 year's time.
How about fish longevity, liver function, overall health long-term, effects of feed on water quality, etc..????
Not to be a party pooper but I feel the end goals are far more complex than what meets the eye.


You're right, Snipe. I am taking a shortcut due to lack of time & money to really do this properly, hence the "sloppy test". May prove absolutely nothing, but should be interesting anyhow.


I didn't mean to deter you from trying this.. I had my own intent of what I would expect while typing that out.
There's always something to learn on anything we do and yes, it'll be interesting.
My thought was if one feed grows fish to 12" in one year, the other grows them to 10", etc., my question would be will fish 1 die in 3 yrs and fish 2 lives 7 and grows twice the size??
We don't know unless we try different things so continue on!
My foot fits quite well in my mouth. :-))

Re: AquaMax v Optimal: A sloppy test
anthropic #512017 09/26/19 12:24 PM
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 887
Likes: 3
B
Offline
B
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 887
Likes: 3
I too have fed several types of both Optimal and Aquamax. As far as activity I couldn't tell a difference. I have switched from using Optimal to MVP. I can't tell any difference other than cost are a lot less. These feeds are really hard to compare because there are so many variables.


1.8 acre pond with CNBG, RES, HSB, and LMB
Trophy Hunter feeder.
Re: AquaMax v Optimal: A sloppy test
anthropic #512026 09/26/19 02:02 PM
Joined: Nov 2017
Posts: 196
Likes: 3
Offline
Joined: Nov 2017
Posts: 196
Likes: 3
Looking at the labeling of both those feeds, there is a lot of nitrogen and phosphorous in both, especially the Aquamax.


2.5 acres, 87' Deep, Previously a Quarry
Re: AquaMax v Optimal: A sloppy test
Joey Quarry #512032 09/26/19 03:04 PM
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,958
Likes: 65
A
OP Offline
A
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,958
Likes: 65
Joey, that's a good point. Uneaten feed becomes fertilizer, which can be a good or bad thing, depending on your BOW. But it's an expensive way to fertilize!

Last edited by anthropic; 09/26/19 03:04 PM.

8ac, full 3/16. CNBG, RES, FHM 10/15; TP 5/16; FLMB 6/16. 100 12" NLMB & 1k GSH 10/17,L, 150# TP & 70 HSB 5/18. 1k PK 11/18. 100# TP 4/19, 200# RBT 12/19, 10k TFS 3/20, 100#TP 5/20, 25 HSB & 250 F1 9/20,L,180# RBT 12/20, 206, 7k TFS,100#TP 5/21, 225



Re: AquaMax v Optimal: A sloppy test
Quarter Acre #512034 09/26/19 03:11 PM
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,958
Likes: 65
A
OP Offline
A
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,958
Likes: 65
Originally Posted By: Quarter Acre
I am currently testing a variety of foods from Optimal at my pond which makes me think alot about the variables involved. It's pretty mind boggling.

Thus far, all the experimental food samples have all been approximately 4-5 mm round pellets and have mostly yielded less enthusiasm compared to the control feed (Opt BG pond feed - 4.5 mm by varying lengths). I certainly do not know the ingredient differences, but it seems that size and shape MAY be a big factor. I say this without anything more than limited visual observations, but it would appear that the HSB tend to prefer the larger bits of the BG feed and when it is switched to the experimental feeds of smaller sizes...it takes the HSB a little longer to actively start feeding.

I know JPS mentioned size of pellets already...I'm just throwing in my recent observations regarding the same.


Noel, that's been my observation as well. Really big CNBG will take LMB size feed with enthusiasm, as do LMB and HSB. Giant hand thrown 1 inch feed drives HSB and LMB berserk, so much so that I fear they will bruise each other from collisions. Big CNBG will try the 1 inch feed, but mostly can't fit it in their mouth.


8ac, full 3/16. CNBG, RES, FHM 10/15; TP 5/16; FLMB 6/16. 100 12" NLMB & 1k GSH 10/17,L, 150# TP & 70 HSB 5/18. 1k PK 11/18. 100# TP 4/19, 200# RBT 12/19, 10k TFS 3/20, 100#TP 5/20, 25 HSB & 250 F1 9/20,L,180# RBT 12/20, 206, 7k TFS,100#TP 5/21, 225



Re: AquaMax v Optimal: A sloppy test
anthropic #512119 09/28/19 06:18 AM
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,657
Likes: 45
T
Offline
T
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,657
Likes: 45
I have caught 3 lmb that were blind in one eye. I think it's due to feeding the large pellets to the feed trained lmb and hsb who attack the Purina lmb feed so aggressively. I removed these blind lmb from the pond because I felt like they would or might be slow growing even though all of them were in the 3 lb range and 16" fish. RW were good. I now throw the pellets out more to spread the feeding fish apart from each other. Not sure if it will make any difference because they feed so aggressively.

Last edited by TGW1; 09/28/19 06:23 AM.

Do not judge me by the politicians in my City, State or Federal Government.


Tracy
Re: AquaMax v Optimal: A sloppy test
TGW1 #512126 09/28/19 07:38 AM
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,958
Likes: 65
A
OP Offline
A
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,958
Likes: 65
That's really interesting, Tracy. I try to spread out the big hand thrown feed too, though not sure it reduces the frequency & violence of collisions.

Wonder if there's been any studies on how to minimize this problem? I get the impression that it is worse now with HSB in my pond, though I love having them!


8ac, full 3/16. CNBG, RES, FHM 10/15; TP 5/16; FLMB 6/16. 100 12" NLMB & 1k GSH 10/17,L, 150# TP & 70 HSB 5/18. 1k PK 11/18. 100# TP 4/19, 200# RBT 12/19, 10k TFS 3/20, 100#TP 5/20, 25 HSB & 250 F1 9/20,L,180# RBT 12/20, 206, 7k TFS,100#TP 5/21, 225



Re: AquaMax v Optimal: A sloppy test
anthropic #512130 09/28/19 09:57 AM
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,791
Likes: 53
B
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
B
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,791
Likes: 53
Last year Optimal offered PB members the chance to do some feeding trials and comparisons using Optimal Fish food. Hopefully those members that took advantage of this offer now have some results to report. Hopefully Optimal will also report the results. I would like to see Optimal provide a list of PB members that agreed to participate and the design of each participants study.

Last edited by Bill Cody; 09/28/19 09:59 AM.

Keep This Forum Viable, Read Pond Boss Magazine -
America's Journal of Pond Management

Link Copied to Clipboard
Today's Birthdays
Charles Anderson, S. Hammons, Scott Erickson
Recent Posts
Brook trout 16-21" now what, Own pond for 1 yr
by J&T Ranch - 07/26/21 03:10 PM
Water bugs
by DannyMac - 07/26/21 01:20 PM
Thoughts on a new 2.7 acre pond stocking
by Heppy - 07/26/21 01:11 PM
Crawdads...Free to a Good Home!
by Augie - 07/26/21 01:01 PM
What did you do at your pond today?
by Bobbss - 07/26/21 10:32 AM
Stocking new Pond
by esshup - 07/26/21 09:38 AM
Stocking advice for shad & carp control
by Mark Dyer - 07/26/21 09:24 AM
Jenson pond mower
by NorthCarolinaboy - 07/26/21 07:15 AM
2-4D and EWM?
by Old Man Bo - 07/25/21 03:22 PM
Happy Birthday Sunil!
by Sunil - 07/25/21 10:51 AM
New Pond owner Help
by Bobbss - 07/25/21 09:17 AM
Newly Uploaded Images
Catfish ID - Channel or Flathead?
Neighbors Pond with RES
Neighbors Pond with RES
by Shorty, July 17
Fish ID
Fish ID
by airborne3118, July 12
Algae?
Algae?
by OhioJon, July 7
pond
pond
by Stressless, July 7

ÔŅĹ 2014 POND BOSS INC. all rights reserved USA and Worldwide

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.4