Pond Boss Forums MANAGING AN EXISTING POND Feeding Feed trial experiment

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

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.

Optimal = unsurpassed customer service. Their presence on the forum serves as a testament. Thanks for all you do, Dustin.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Thank you.


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


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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


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.

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.

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 We can only speculate whether there is any effect

Can’t wait for your results, Kenny. I’m grateful for your willingness to provide your intel!