Pond Boss Forums MANAGING AN EXISTING POND Feeding Pellet sizes

To the collective:

I have looked but cannot find any study that was done comparing one fish pellet size with another to see which was better.

i.e. is feeding one larger pellet or two smaller pellets better?

That is with the understanding that the particular fish in question can consume each size pellet easily.

Same fish food formula, both floating pellets, the only difference is pellet size.

Here's my quandary:

Feed one pellet. Fish expends less energy to get "X" food in it's gut. Pellet has less surface area, so it would be consumed slower. Say 7mm which is the size of the AM600 pellet or.........

Feed two smaller pellets where the nutritional value in two pellets equal one 7mm pellet? Fish expends more energy to get "X" food (providing pellets aren't clumped together on the pond surface and the fish can get 2 with one gulp) but can digest the pellet faster because of more surface area?

This is gonna be a great discussion. I've never considered the smaller pellets being easier to digest, but it seems as though it would be correct. I can't think there is that much difference in energy expense to feed on one pellet vs two, but I could obviously be wrong.

With that discussion probably goes the digestibility of the pellets in regard to glycemic index, insulin production and the longevity/health of fish? But maybe their digestive system works differently than humans in that regard?

Temps have a huge effect on digestion in LMB - many times more than size of prey/pellets or in non-cold blooded animals. Spring and summer (water temps 69-84 +-)any size pellets swallowed (up to 1/3 gape size) will be dissolved quickly. Not sure where the question is going. Pellet at 1/4 gape is ideal for energetics purposes.

My thought would be that digestion rate would be close to the same, regardless of pellet size, as I suspect the pellets cease being pellet shape pretty quickly after entering the gut. In that train of thought, I would feed the largest size pellet the fish will greedily feed on.

Another angle to consider - fish stomach can accommodate higher volume of smaller pellets vs larger pellets. The difference in volume might be too minor to impact growth, but still, something to consider.

IE: A bag of AM LMB weighs 40#, AM 500 is 50#.

I was on the phone for a couple of hours today with the guys from Optimal discussing many different things.

One thing was a top size limit that can be thrown 100% of the time by a Texas Hunter Feeder without making any changes to it other than possibly adjusting the spin plate up or down. We are continuing to work with Texas Hunter to fine tune the pellet sizes. Pellets can be made that are larger than Texas Hunter feeders can reliably throw 100% of the time. So, now the fine tuning process starts.

Then there was the different formulations specifically blended for different species of fish. Without going into too much detail, approaching pond fish food from an Aquaculture standpoint with return on investment or cost of production in mind, i.e. converting as much of the food to fish meat and not fat, while at the same time creating fast growth and increasing resistance to stress. They found that by changing the protein and fat content in addition to some other changes, they could reduce the % of fat that a fish had (around internal organs and in the meat) but not affect it's growth for that particular species of fish. Will that work for other fish species? Testing will give us the answers.

How do you ensure that different fish eat the correct pellet in a pond setting, and how do you feed the different species of fish the correct food?

In an Aquaculture setting, they feed a smaller pellet size to prevent shooters and to grow all the fish at roughly the same rate, because the fish are all the same age. Less grading, less stress on the fish, faster fish growth and less labor. No concerns about the fish getting the correct food because it's a monoculture and they eat what is thrown in the tank.

But in a pond setting, there are fish of different age classes, different species, etc.

One way would be to design the pellet size to the size of the fish, or more to the mouth gape of the fish. Another would be to adjust the taste of the pellet to reduce "pick and spit". Either by a flavored coating or by other means.

While you cannot ensure that a large fish won't eat a small pellet, you can minimize small fish eating a larger pellet.

Additionally, smaller fish need a different formula than larger fish for optimum growth, even of the same species.

So, is it better to have the largest possible pellet that a fish can eat, or a smaller sized pellet that a fish can still eat but needs to eat 2 or 3 of them?

In an aquaculture setting, fish rarely live more than a few years before they meet Mr. Knife and Mrs. Fork. In a pond, that time could be quadrupled or they could never meet Mr. Knife and Mrs. Fork. But we want the fish to live as long as possible to reach maximum size because fish grow their whole life, don't they? Would having them swim a bit more for smaller pellets be better or worse providing that the additional energy expended didn't offset the energy intake of the 2nd, 3rd or 4th pellet?

I still don't know the answers, that's why I am asking.

In my pond, I could never get the LMB to eat Aquamax LMB pellets. BUT they would wait until 2-3 Aquamax 600 pellets would clump together or they would pick off individual Aquamax 600 pellets. Same with Optimal Sunfish pellets last year. The individual pellets were smaller than Aquamax 600 pellets so they would ignore them, but clump 4+ pellets together and they would grab them in one bite.

The Optimal Sunfish food is designed. Now we are looking at both YP specific feed and Carnivore specific feed.

Scott - Great information and update about Optimal fish food. I am confident they will produce some state of the art fish food for sport fish.

Wow! IMHO these guys at Optima take fish food way more seriously than another big supplier, I will not name, that puts fish food right below rabbit chow on their priority list. I sure hope they get the distribution issue worked out to get shipping costs down....my money is on the Optima guys!

Never had a problem with LMB eating 600 or LMB pellets .

Time will tell on much of fish food and new methods . There is a lot out there already and much more to come .

Hey Guys and ladies, I had a conversation with a biologist from Optimal, and he said say thanks to all for giving them a shot. Next is what I gathered from the conversation I had. Optimal has been working mostly on commercial fish feed. The cost of the per ton/ bag for those businesses are different than the average pond guy (we were talking about me), who does not care about the cost so mush because it is a minimal part of the yearly costs overall(at least for me).

The commercial fisheries manager must look at cents per lbs. of fish, so the formulations are geared to be competitive. Proprietary (trace minerals etc..) that are not on the ingredients list/tag, are the difference in the Optimal feed as compared to the majors,Bla,Bla,Bla...

For the PB'ers like me, who want the best, fastest, lowest residual waste and maybe longer life for growing monster CNBG,and costs do not matter so much, they have developed the sunfish stuff I think we as a group are buying. They are working on studies other than the one on the site, that really had some issues. They have no white papers etc either. He said the customers testimonials are the ones who have sold the product, so to speak,which he said are anecdotal to "True Data driven results" at this time. He said they are working on it and we are a new part of their feeds.

SO, at the end of the conversation, again as I read the conversation, they want feedback, need people willing for them to access some fish from different areas of the country, are conducting studies, and appreciate those who have given them a opportunity to utilize their product(s).

I discussed the liver color issue (maybe an issue) and he said they do not know for sure if fatty livers are a problem in fish and Todd Overton from Overton fisheries told me basically the same thing. I'm not digging into this any deeper at this time.

Those who have read my posts, realize I have some interest in learning the facts on fish feed. Definitive research is somewhat new in CNBG, and many questions with some answers.

One of the real interesting statements to me the optimal guy did say, was IN THE RIGHT %age, even chicken feather protein, among other types of proteins are digestible. He stated to me that fish meal protein in to high a concentration %age cannot be digested. I am not stating this as fact, because I do not have the facts on that subject, but find it interesting.

When I get the Optimal I will give my observations and if they decide to sample some of my fish for scientific research I will share any data they give me, Fatty livers and all.

The Dr. they have who does all the "microscopic research", I believe he said was a pediatric Dr. before coming on board with Optimal. Interesting to me. The Optimal guy I talked to said he was the one who started the focus on the trace mineral components to grow a better fish.

Hope this helps someone, or at least spurs others to send an email or call Optimal for more answers.

My two cents.

Hey guys on the subject topic. I currently have bought some Skretting 9.5mm 48/18 floating that Todd Overton feeds his fish. My fish nailed the stuff and did not act like they had any problem eating it. I hand feed it to keep it out of the mouths of the CC. I do not know if the TH feeder I have would throw it or not.

I have read quite a bit about pellet size, and my feeling is from what I remember is,I think Bob L. has stated too, that the less energy expelled gathering feed is spent on growth, in general. So bigger is better if the fish can consume it. It has been stated in stuff I have read that for most pond owners that have different classes of fish sizes, it would be better to provide different sizes of feed, in general. On the surface it would seen to make since to me, but a simpleton am I.

I am happy with the results I had with Aquamax 5D5 and their sports fish multi size product as well. I am still trying different stuff until we get the research from the smart research guys, and maybe some real data driven results we can read about.

They found that by changing the protein and fat content in addition to some other changes, they could reduce the % of fat that a fish had (around internal organs and in the meat)

Let me know when Optimal comes out with human chow.

Along this subject line they say if you eat in small portions it may give you a full belly effect. Could this apply to fish as well? Feeding small pellets give the fish a stuffed belly when actually if fed a larger pellet they would consume more.

I'm switching over to Optimal exclusively.

MPC, doesn't Skretting make the 9.5mm food that Todd has? The reason I'm asking is that Cargill told me the biggest pellet they make is 1/4".

Early morning scatter shooting....

How long does it take for a BG to digest food at that 70-85 degree temp? If we knew that, then the frequency of feeder throws could be more uniform. If it took 4 hours, then could there be any reason to feed any more often than that?

Does surface area really matter? Fish food is porous, think Cheetos as opposed to M&M's.

What are the potential liver issues if you're dealing with older, and probably larger BG? Would long term potential problems be negated by their already shorter future lifespan?

Does any food manufacturer provide online info that helps pond owners make informed food decisions prior to purchase? Purina does, but a simple online grid chart by other manufacturers would be nice.

If smaller fish food is good for digestion, wouldn't make sense that two 3" BG would be better for a LMB than one 6" BG? If so, don't we need to rethink all forage size/predator relationships?

Just questions, no answers by me for sure. I'm merging Optimal in my fish food mix, and am excited that the non-hatchery market is being directly targeted for a change. Scott, you made me think much earlier than I like.

Good that I got you thinking Al!

I have to measure my TH feeder. Specifically the distance the spin plate is down from the funnel. The Skretting 9.5mm feed DID throw just fine, but there was a problem with it clogging in the area under the spin plate where it transitions 90° to be blown out of the feeder. I have to test whether it is the amount of feed that is being allowed out of the hopper (maybe my spin plate is too low?) or if it is the feed size itself.

When larger pellets like that are mixed with smaller pellets, it works fine so I think it is a volume issue, but I don't want to say that it will work unless the feeder can be filled with 100% of that pellet size and work without clogging.

FWIW, I measured the 9.5mm pellets from Skretting, and they measured from 9.5mm to 12mm, depending on where the pellet was measured. There is inconsistency in the extruding process, it doesn't matter who is making the food - it's a variable that has to be taken into consideration. Think of a meat grinder. The plat on the end where the hamburger comes out? With fish food production, there is a set of blades that is on the outside of the grinder and that set of blades dictates how long the pellet is, The plate that the ground meat is forced thru, that determines the diameter of the pellet. All pellets are "cooked" after they come out of the extruder, and that makes them puff up a bit. So, a 9.5 mm hole might not make a 9.5mm pellet....

I don't know if a 3" BG vs. a 6" BG is a correct comparison because LMB aren't catching BG every time they try to eat one, where pellets don't have the means to escape predation.

I have been hand feeding lately for the enjoyment, and as I set on the floating pier just inches away from the Bg, my little Charlie(6lb Toy Poodle Maltese mix) watches the fish splash the water as they take the pellets. Makes little difference to the size pellets of 1/8" to 1/4" Cargills or Optimal. Charlie eats the pellets and worries the fish will get the ones I set aside especially for him.

Tracy

In my aquariums of tilapia(grow out tanks), I swear that when the fish get large enough to take the next size larger pellet, there is a big growth explosion in the following weeks. So I think that size of pellet does matter for speed of growth. Of course this is in a scenario that the fish will only live for no more than a year, and longevity is not important in relation to the fat that I hear you guys mention.

I also feed BG for entertainment, and my German shepherd also joins me. However, he becomes uncharacteristically rabid and froths at the mouth and barks in anger that the fish are being fed. He also tries to drink enough water to empty the pond. Sometime, I need to video tape the behavior. He gets really excited when I say that I am going to feed the fish, and runs to the dock in anticipation. It is really odd. He always has food available to him, and even shares it with our cats. He just has a passionate dislike of fish. He is one of the gentlest dogs that I have ever owned.

You have to admit, I lobbed a softball out there on that one.

Will find some answers AL - to the extent they exist.

Some basics.

Growth rate and metabolism (consumption/digestion) are not maxed at the same temps.

Both are based on temps.

Excess fat in fish from pelleted fish food is not normally a big issue in fish in a supplemental feeding program. In hatcheries , RAS systems , Raceways or aquaculture (food production)operations, etc it is more pronounced. Excess carbs from pellets are more of a problem in pond predator fish.

From Pond Con talk on nutrition

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

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.

The immense variety of cultured finfish species hampers efforts to simplify production industry wide. Approximately 170 taxa are currently cultured, including carnivores, herbivores, planktivores, and omnivores, each posing its own set of nutritional demands .

Fish meal has proven to be an excellent dietary protein source for finfish, leading to its description as an ‘‘ideal protein.’’ The ideal protein concept is based on the premise that if the amino acid profile of the feed mimics the whole-body amino acid profile of the animal being fed, protein utilization and growth should be maximized

Lipids, fatty acids, and their derivatives play a role in virtually every physiological process that occurs and for this reason dietary lipid composition and content represent a massive sector of overall nutrition. Nowhere is this more true than in finfish nutrition where lipid can exceed protein in the body composition of finfish, a testament to the physiological and energetic importance of this nutrient class (Tocher2003). Aside from physiological importance, lipids are indispensable energy sources, especially for finfish, which are not well-adapted to carbohydrate utilization.

Dietary protein and energy must be kept in proper balance because a deficiency or excess of dietary energy can reduce growth rates. Fish fed diets deficient in energy will metabolize more expensive dietary protein to meet energy requirements. Excess dietary energy can decrease protein intake and suppress growth.

finfish do not require carbohydrates in their diet, … complex carbohydrates cannot be digested and utilized efficiently by most finfish species. A general dichotomy exists in the carbohydrate digestive ability of warmwater omnivores and herbivores versus the inability of coolwater and coldwater carnivores, which lack the appropriate function necessary for digestion of carbohydrates.

For this reason, diets fed to these fish rarely contain more than 20% complex carbohydrate

Conversely, warmwater omnivores or herbivores (e.g., channel catfish, tilapia, common carp, and white sturgeon) adapt well to diets containing as much as 40% dietary carbohydrate .

Although vitamins and minerals are required in minute amounts compared with protein, lipid, and so forth, they are critically important, … Every micronutrient has a deficiency disease associated with it, the effects of which are sometimes irreversible or fatal. For a few vitamins and most minerals, excess can be equally detrimental, resulting in toxicity.


FOOD HABITS OF WHITE AMUR, LARGEMOUTH BASS,BLUEGILL, AND
REDEAR SUNFISH RECEIVING SUPPLEMENTAL FEED
Ronald H. Kilgen
27th Southeast Association of Game and Fish Commissioners
Largemouth bass preferred fish and other animals (64%), but also ate some supplemental feed (32%). Bluegill stomachs contained more supplemental feed
(44%) than any other item, followed by insects and animal parts (28%), and plant
parts (17%). Redears seemed to prefer insect larvae (42%), but also ate plant
material (38%). White amur apparently did not compete with the sunfishes for
either natural or supplementary food items.


Mean fat percentage of Dorosoma spp. (24.2%) exceeded that of Lepomis spp. (15.2%) and fathead minnows (19.1%), but was less than that of mosquitofish (25.8%) and golden shiners (34.8%) . Bluegills had lower caloric contents than gizzard and threadfin shad ; preliminary data collected for the present study also showed Lepomis spp. To the lower in caloric content than the clupeids.


Although carnivorous fish species generally have a limited ability to use carbohydrates for energy, hybrid striped bass are relatively adept at it. Digestibility coefficients for the carbohydrates were generally high (83.3 to100 percent), indicating that both simple carbohydrates and complex carbohydrates were digested efficiently by these hybrids.


• 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.

Sorry about that Fire Is Hot, I changed my post. Just had a brain fart. It happens when you get my age, oh I mean most of my adult life. Thanks for the notice.

Adding info :

Initial weights of fishes equalled 16.8 g -+
3.45 g (mean -+ SD) and were not significantly
different among the 16 treatment groups (analysis
of variance: F = 1.65; P > 0.05). Fish grew
on all daily rations that were 2% of initial body
weight or greater (Table 1). Under fixed daily
rations, growth rates of fish at 28 and 30 C were
similar, and greater than those of fish at 34 C.
Growth differences between fish at 34 C and
other temperaturesin creasedw ith larger daily
rations; at 6% day -• rations, the growth of 34
C fish was less than 70% of that of fish at the
other two temperatures. Maintenance rations
were estimated to be 0.9 to 1.5% body weight
day- • for all temperaturesC. onversione fficiencies
were highest at the 4% day -• ration and
lowest at the 2% day -• level. The lowest and
highestc onversione fficiencieso ccurredi n the
34 C fish on the 2% day -• ration and 30 C fish
on the 4% body weight day -• ration, respectively.
Under ad-libitum conditions and corresponding
temperatures, bluegills grew 2.2 to
2.5 times faster than those fed 6% day -1 rations.
Although the growth of bluegills was greatest
at 31 C, no significant differences occurred
among fish at 25.0, 28.0, and 31.0 C (F = 0.629;
P > 0.50). However, fish grew significantly
faster at these three temperatures than those at
34.0 C (F = 8.54; P = 0.0013).

Thanks for the info Eric.

I still have so much to learn.

Will add more and clean this up to make it useable .