Pond Boss Magazine
https://www.pondboss.com/images/userfiles/image/20130301193901_6_150by50orangewhyshouldsubscribejpeg.jpg
Advertisment
Newest Members
Shotgun01, Dan H, Stipker, LunkerHunt23, Jeanjules
18,451 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums36
Topics40,899
Posts557,055
Members18,451
Most Online3,612
Jan 10th, 2023
Top Posters
esshup 28,407
ewest 21,474
Cecil Baird1 20,043
Bill Cody 15,110
Who's Online Now
14 members (rjackson, jpsdad, Donatello, Freg, Layne, jludwig, Shorthose, DenaTroyer, Theo Gallus, Tinylake, catscratch, Brandon Larson, Dave Davidson1, Blestfarmpond), 636 guests, and 177 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#545330 03/17/22 07:58 PM
Joined: May 2020
Posts: 90
Likes: 2
D
OP Offline
D
Joined: May 2020
Posts: 90
Likes: 2
So I've been feeding Optimal Signature Series for the past 1 1/2 years that I purchase from the local fishery at a cost of $50 for a 45lb bag. The local Yardmaster store, who is a Texas Hunter distributor, sold me two bags of Sportsman's Choice for $25 for a 50lb bag.

The Optimal analysis is:
Crude protein 42%
Crude fat 10%
Crude fiber 4%
Phosphorus 1%
Ash 8%

The Sportsman analysis is:
Crude protein 36%
Crude fat 4.5%
Crude Fiber 6.5%
Phosphorus 0.8%

Is there enough difference to justify the cost of the Optimal?

What are your thoughts?

Dean

Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 28,407
Likes: 788
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 28,407
Likes: 788
Yes there is a HUGE difference in the feeds, well worth the price. It's not what is shown on the bag, it's what isn't shown on the bag that makes the big difference. Your fish will grow faster, with less food and you will have less FA in the pond due to the fish utilizing more of the food (less fish poop).


www.hoosierpondpros.com


http://www.pondboss.com/subscribe.asp?c=4
3/4 to 1 1/4 ac pond LMB, SMB, PS, BG, RES, CC, YP, Bardello BG, (RBT & Blue Tilapia - seasonal).
esshup #545342 03/18/22 07:30 AM
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,284
Likes: 288
Moderator
Offline
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,284
Likes: 288
Originally Posted by esshup
Yes there is a HUGE difference in the feeds, well worth the price. It's not what is shown on the bag, it's what isn't shown on the bag that makes the big difference. Your fish will grow faster, with less food and you will have less FA in the pond due to the fish utilizing more of the food (less fish poop).

Agree


AL

Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 605
Likes: 13
Offline
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 605
Likes: 13
There is a huge difference in these two products. I`m nearly finished writing up a report that uses both these products against each other. Not only for a price stand point, but also the feed weight to fish weight gain. Should be finishing up this week, The differences is astonishing.


Forced to work born to Fish
2 members like this: Mainahs70, esshup
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,245
Likes: 583
F
Lunker
Offline
Lunker
F
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,245
Likes: 583
Our family budget is still tight, so I have the exact same mindset as Dean (as shown in his post). The facts he posted indicate a seemingly small difference in content for an enormous difference in price.

However, THREE people posted replies that the higher priced product is well worth the difference for the long term goals of your fish and your pond.

Getting answers on the Pond Boss forum is clearly my best value for time and money invested into our ponds!

A big THANK YOU to everyone who takes the time to post answers on the forum!

Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 28,407
Likes: 788
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 28,407
Likes: 788
FWIW, here's my feed test. I fed the same amount of feed to 3 different groups of HBG in 3 different cages. Same number of fish, same size in each cage. This is 3 months of growth. Fish were 2" when the test was started. I didn't weigh the feed, I just fed them a small coffee can per day, split into 2 feedings.

Top one Sportsmans Choice
Middle Aquamax 500
Bottom Optimal BG Jr.

That was enough for me, but the other thing that I saw was the first year feeding Optimal vs feeding Purina was about a 50% reduction in FA in the pond. Could that be attributed to the year to year conditions? Maybe but I don't think so.

What year was the test done? I can't remember, but I do know it was before Optimal BG Jr. was out on the market. wink grin

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]


www.hoosierpondpros.com


http://www.pondboss.com/subscribe.asp?c=4
3/4 to 1 1/4 ac pond LMB, SMB, PS, BG, RES, CC, YP, Bardello BG, (RBT & Blue Tilapia - seasonal).
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 355
Likes: 37
H
Offline
H
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 355
Likes: 37
Esshups pic is initially what sold me on Optimal. I later found out about the 50% FA reduction which only made it better and less expensive in the short and long term. Ask yourself this question. Would you rather spend your hard earned money on a superior feed growing fish to their potential or a cheaper feed with minimal growth and more chemicals fighting FA? The choice is easy when you look at all costs involved. After almost 3 years I am happy and confident in my decision.

Edit: Just thought I should add that I feed a mix of Optimal Bass/Jr. April-October and Ziegler (Trout) Finfish G 42-16 floating 40ppm pink 5mm (3/16”) fish food November-March.

Last edited by Heppy; 03/18/22 02:53 PM.
Joined: Oct 2018
Posts: 1,125
Likes: 273
A
Offline
A
Joined: Oct 2018
Posts: 1,125
Likes: 273
This is what Optimal will do to a RES in two years time.

[Linked Image from hosting.photobucket.com]

[Linked Image from hosting.photobucket.com]

2 members like this: jpsdad, esshup
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 13,685
Likes: 281
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 13,685
Likes: 281
Thing will take your finger off...


Excerpt from Robert Crais' "The Monkey's Raincoat:"
"She took another microscopic bite of her sandwich, then pushed it away. Maybe she absorbed nutrients from her surroundings."

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,245
Likes: 583
F
Lunker
Offline
Lunker
F
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,245
Likes: 583
Augie,

I thought "hand feeding" your sunfish meant you walked out to the end of your dock and threw out a few handfuls of pellets for them.

I didn't know that it meant you hold the RES in one hand and then force 1# of pellets down his throat with the other hand. grin

Man, what a hog!

1 member likes this: gehajake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,861
Likes: 298
A
Offline
A
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,861
Likes: 298
We are truly fortunate to have a choice of good BG feeds these days. Speaking personally, I've been quite happy with both AquaMax and Optimal, and fish seem to agree. Optimal more expensive, maybe worth it. If I had a naturally fertile pond, the FA deal would be important, but that's definitely not my issue.

Assuming that FA actually does grow less in Optimal fed ponds, is that because fish turn it into flesh more efficiently?

Last edited by anthropic; 03/18/22 09:03 PM.

7ac 2015 CNBG RES FHM 2016 TP FLMB 2017 NLMB GSH L 2018 TP & 70 HSB PK 2019 TP RBT 2020 TFS TP 25 HSB 250 F1,L,RBT -206 2021 TFS TP GSH L,-312 2022 GSH TP CR TFS RBT -234, 2023 BG TP TFS NLMB, -160




Joined: May 2020
Posts: 90
Likes: 2
D
OP Offline
D
Joined: May 2020
Posts: 90
Likes: 2
Those are definitely some impressive results. I think that I will continue to use the Optimal feed.

Dean

Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 28,407
Likes: 788
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 28,407
Likes: 788
Originally Posted by anthropic
We are truly fortunate to have a choice of good BG feeds these days. Speaking personally, I've been quite happy with both AquaMax and Optimal, and fish seem to agree. Optimal more expensive, maybe worth it. If I had a naturally fertile pond, the FA deal would be important, but that's definitely not my issue.

Assuming that FA actually does grow less in Optimal fed ponds, is that because fish turn it into flesh more efficiently?

That's my assumption. Less passing through the fish to feed the "plants". Some on here have done a feed to flesh comparison too, more fish flesh for the same weight in food tossed to the fish.

I should have results from a much larger test that will be done this Spring/early Summer. Just to see how much faster the fish grow from hatching to 4: or so.


www.hoosierpondpros.com


http://www.pondboss.com/subscribe.asp?c=4
3/4 to 1 1/4 ac pond LMB, SMB, PS, BG, RES, CC, YP, Bardello BG, (RBT & Blue Tilapia - seasonal).
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 2,892
Likes: 144
C
Offline
C
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 2,892
Likes: 144
very eager to see the reports from esshup's test and also Snakebite's report! I hope it can be released publicly here?

I have nothing to compare to but have loved the convenience of having Optimal shipped to me and also the various size options which I create my own mixture with (BG and BG-Jr sizes) to satisfy the big YP and the tiny SFS all at once. The painted turtles also have become feed trained. They will plop off the turtle islands and swim over to get some too even though I'm hand throwing and getting fairly close to them.

Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 28,407
Likes: 788
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 28,407
Likes: 788
I will post what information I can, when I get the information. Its a test being done at a fish hatchery.


www.hoosierpondpros.com


http://www.pondboss.com/subscribe.asp?c=4
3/4 to 1 1/4 ac pond LMB, SMB, PS, BG, RES, CC, YP, Bardello BG, (RBT & Blue Tilapia - seasonal).
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,878
Likes: 278
J
Online Content
J
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,878
Likes: 278
Originally Posted by anthropic
... is that because fish turn it into flesh more efficiently?

Frank, the assimilation of feed is just a formula. When we are talking flesh ... then we are talking protein assimilation and so its a simple matter of calculating how much protein the fish gains in dry weight and then dividing it by the protein in the feed consumed. So we can take the tack that we will judge assimulation efficiency by protein assimulation.

The protein assimilated from 1 lb of feed can be calculated as below

P_a =1/FCR * (DW/WW)*DW%P

where FCR is the unit weight of dry feed consumed per wet weigh gain
and (DW/WW) is dry weight proportion of the fish species
and DW%P is the percentage of a fish's dry weight that is protein.

For TP in cage culture an FCR of 1.75 is considered good conversion and this is achievable with 28% protein feed. So we can calculate the Protein weight assimilated at this conversion as follows.

P_a= 1/1.75 * (.235)*.72 = .097 lbs protein per 1 lb feed consumed

If we divide this number by the weight of protein in 1 lb of 28% feed we get the proportion assimilated.

A= P_a/P_f = .097/.28 = .346 OR 34.6% assimilation of feed protein.

This is pretty close to the limit of protein assimilation efficiency where usually a smaller proportion is actually achieved from the consumption of feed. This formula is just one of others that can be used to root out false claims and to test the honesty and integrity of "so-called scientific findings".

One of the key components of scientific integrity is the "conflict of interest" disclosure. When there are financial interests involved reviewers and readers want to know. Generally, when this happens, the authors also address steps and measures they took reduce conflict of interest influence in their experiment and/or data collection etc.

The example above reflects a goal of conversion in a natural foods limited culture. In cages, most of the gain will be acquired by feed alone. But in a pond setting where TP are free to roam and where the density permits, FCR can be much better. So 65% of the nutrition passes through fish into the pond environment stimulating the food chain which produces additional food. So it is possible to get the FCR below 1 under such conditions where secondary effects may also contribute to gain.

Though the initial equation above applies to all fish ... not all fish are equal. For example (DW/WW) isn't the same for all fish. Some are much more dry matter dense than others. Like the Koi that the Kansas DOW use to feed their LMB the (DW/WW) exceeds 0.30. There is less percentage of water in them. For LMB and BG the (DW/WW) is ~ 0.195.

Now at first glance we might suspect it would be easier for LMB and BG to gain than TP or Koi but we have found that this isn't the case. Their ability to assimilate feed is not nearly as efficient. Their nutritional requirements are also more specific. So to achieve similar FCR the protein content of feed must be increased and protein profile needs to be more similar to fish protein than it is required for TP. Fishmeal is a very good source of the protein that predator fish need. So the source of protein can influence efficiency. Let's take a look at BG particularly at 1.5 FCR with a 42% protein feed.

P_a= 1/1.5 * (.195)*.72 = .0936 lbs protein per 1 lb feed consumed

Where assimilation efficiency is:

A= P_a/P_f = .0936/.42 = .223 OR 22.8% assimilation of feed protein.

So the situation is that not all fish are equal and not all feeds are equal.

An interesting take from this analysis is that one can test the proposition that feeding one feed over another reduces nutrient loading. For a 42% protein feed with an FCR of 1.5. 77.2% of the protein passes through and since nearly all of the Nitrogen in feed is in the protein we can make an estimate of the weight of N from feed that passes through the fish for each pound of feed eaten. It can be calculated according to the following equation:

N =( .42 * .772)/6.25 = .052 lbs Nitrogen per lb feed

Now lets assume BG are fed 28% feed intended for catfish or TP and they don't gain anything from it. All 28% of the weight of the protein goes into the pond. Let's calculate the Nitrogen loading from 1 lb of feed.

N= .28/6.25 = .0448 lbs Nitrogen per lb feed

So from this it is clear, for a fish with a dry weight percentage of 19.5% fed a feed with 42% protein and an FCR of 1.5 in cage culture, the only way to reduce nutrient loading relative to a 28% feed that produces no fish gain ... is to reduce the weight of the 42% feed to less than the 28% feed. There is NO WAY around this.

So clearly, no 28% feed produces no gain in BG, unless the BG aren't eating it (which could be a problem for caged BG). But this doesn't take into account the organic fertilization of the pond's food web by the 28% feed. Just like in the case of Tilapia FCRs that can be less than one in pond culture due to food chain effects, all the waste that isn't assimilated by the fish eating 28% feed is introduced as nutrients to the food web. So this will decrease FCR (an increase conversion efficiency) to levels below that of direct conversion (as observed in cages). An analysis of cost/fish produced in a pond system will reflect the secondary effects. For the organisms at the bottom of the food chain, the difference between the wastes of 42% feed and 28% feed is the proportions of Carbon, Nitrogen, and Phosphorus. 28% feed has a higher CN ratio than 42% feed for obvious reasons.

There are many nuances one should consider when reviewing pseudo-scientific tests between feeds. One of first is the size of feed and the size of fish. In aquaculture, one sizes feed to sizes appropriate for the size of fish and so the sizes of pellet increase with fish size. So for example, Sportman's Choice, which is big pellet much larger than the mouths of 2" fish, it is clear to me that its treatment was disadvantaged by pellet size. The pellets would have to soften in order for the 2" BG to pick them apart into bite sized chucks. If no provision was made to keep the pellets in the cage, they may have drifted from the cage by wave and wind actions before the 2" BG could have consumed them. They certainly look to have been starved in the photo. The BG Jr being of the appropriate size for juvenile BG provided advantage to the Optimal over the competing feeds allowing the 2" BG of the Optimal treatment to get off to a much better start. A better comparison would have been a larger Optimal pellet, one consistent with the sizes of the feeds under evaluation. This is how a scientist would compare different formulations in order to gain a true metric of direct conversion for each. A scientist would ensure that all the feed were consumed also ... something which I doubt happened.

Last edited by jpsdad; 03/19/22 11:12 AM.

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


Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,878
Likes: 278
J
Online Content
J
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,878
Likes: 278
Augie,

Everytime I see photos of your RES my jaw drops. Very remarkable indeed.


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


1 member likes this: Augie
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 884
Likes: 201
G
Offline
G
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 884
Likes: 201
JPsdad, can you translate your findings and formulas to English so some of us can understand them? just kidding! , I never have been that good at math.


All the really good ideas I've ever had came to me while I was milking a cow.
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 28,407
Likes: 788
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 28,407
Likes: 788
Originally Posted by gehajake
JPsdad, can you translate your findings and formulas to English so some of us can understand them? just kidding! , I never have been that good at math.

His info will be close, but the micro-nutrient package that Optimal puts in their feed helps convert more to fish flesh, and they also add "stuff" to help fish get over stressful periods in their life that I've seen kill fish on other feeds. (like an O2 crash)


www.hoosierpondpros.com


http://www.pondboss.com/subscribe.asp?c=4
3/4 to 1 1/4 ac pond LMB, SMB, PS, BG, RES, CC, YP, Bardello BG, (RBT & Blue Tilapia - seasonal).
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,878
Likes: 278
J
Online Content
J
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,878
Likes: 278
Esshup,

I think Optimal is very good feed. I base that your satisfaction along with the satisfaction of many other members. I don't see the quality of Optimal feed being in question. I get it, it's good feed.

A picture paints a thousand words. But the picture posted, if posted to suggest the gains one would achieve with equal consumption of differing feeds, tells a very negative story about Sportsman Choice and Purina AM500. When I look at the picture and the comments made, I see a very tangible legal risk to you. It just doesn't make sense that either Purina AM500 or Sportsman's Choice would perform so poorly on equal quantities of feed relative to Optimal. This risk you run is that Purina or Tractor Supply or both them might hire experts to replicate your results. If they differ significantly, you would be in a very tough position. Now keep in mind, that neither would have to establish that your results were obtained intentionally or with malice. Only that a misrepresentation damaged their brand and resulted in material loss of sales. I think the fish size and pellet size is the most likely cause of most the difference but if independent experts find significant differences you would have to defend your results. Even if you can explain the result, for example by feed exiting the cage due to their inability to consume the larger pellets, the opposition might try to make a case that you had knowledge of the effect of prior to or during the experiment. They may try to establish malice or intentional defamation of their brand. Your collaborative work with Optimal would strengthen such an argument of pre-knowledge not to mention your level of experience which they could argue is one of an expert. I am just saying, if you aren't cock sure that Optimal is that much better than AM500 and Sportman's Choice ... where the results of independent researchers would agree with your findings ... you should give very serious consideration as to whether there is anything to gain that adequately compensates the risk of keeping those images in print.


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


jpsdad #545422 03/19/22 07:57 PM
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 28,407
Likes: 788
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 28,407
Likes: 788
Originally Posted by jpsdad
Esshup,

I think Optimal is very good feed. I base that your satisfaction along with the satisfaction of many other members. I don't see the quality of Optimal feed being in question. I get it, it's good feed.

A picture paints a thousand words. But the picture posted, if posted to suggest the gains one would achieve with equal consumption of differing feeds, tells a very negative story about Sportsman Choice and Purina AM500. When I look at the picture and the comments made, I see a very tangible legal risk to you. It just doesn't make sense that either Purina AM500 or Sportsman's Choice would perform so poorly on equal quantities of feed relative to Optimal. This risk you run is that Purina or Tractor Supply or both them might hire experts to replicate your results. If they differ significantly, you would be in a very tough position. Now keep in mind, that neither would have to establish that your results were obtained intentionally or with malice. Only that a misrepresentation damaged their brand and resulted in material loss of sales. I think the fish size and pellet size is the most likely cause of most the difference but if independent experts find significant differences you would have to defend your results. Even if you can explain the result, for example by feed exiting the cage due to their inability to consume the larger pellets, the opposition might try to make a case that you had knowledge of the effect of prior to or during the experiment. They may try to establish malice or intentional defamation of their brand. Your collaborative work with Optimal would strengthen such an argument of pre-knowledge not to mention your level of experience which they could argue is one of an expert. I am just saying, if you aren't cock sure that Optimal is that much better than AM500 and Sportman's Choice ... where the results of independent researchers would agree with your findings ... you should give very serious consideration as to whether there is anything to gain that adequately compensates the risk of keeping those images in print.

I hear what you are saying, but I am not "politically correct", so I will let the pictures speak for themselves. If the test was flawed and if they want to do more testing, I will let them and they can come here and post the results. Others are doing feed tests, lets see what their results are. Optimal isn't paying me anything for advertising, nor am I a paid spokesperson for Optimal. All I can do is show what MY test showed. It would be no different than someone posting a picture of a body part or a part of a rodent in a food item that was purchased. What does that do to sales? Optimal didn't pay me to do the test, nor did they furnish the food for the test. Neither did the other brands. All were purchased as anyone would, from the supplier or the store. I have no allegiance to any particular company, if a better feed comes along I will jump on their bandwagon quicker than you can blink.

There were feed rings in the cages so the feed didn't float out - I had thought about that.

It's no different than Consumer Reports doing a product test, is it?

If you would like to do a test like I did, please do so and post the results. It's not all about what is read in a book, it's about real world tests. That's why they have 2 cars going down the track side by side during a drag race. One car could be faster on paper, but what happens in real life could be completely different.

I firmly believe that this country has become sue happy, and that the flip side of the coin is just as slippery of a slope. Anybody can sue anybody for anything, and turn about is fair play, all that needs to happen to win a suit is to find the correct "venue" to have the suit held, and make sure that judge leans in your direction.


www.hoosierpondpros.com


http://www.pondboss.com/subscribe.asp?c=4
3/4 to 1 1/4 ac pond LMB, SMB, PS, BG, RES, CC, YP, Bardello BG, (RBT & Blue Tilapia - seasonal).
1 member likes this: SherWood
Joined: Feb 2021
Posts: 26
Likes: 5
L
LTL Offline
Offline
L
Joined: Feb 2021
Posts: 26
Likes: 5
Esshup - when I first tried feeding last year, I started with Sportmans Choice (just hand tossing for fun). I have to say that it sure seemed like they grew a good bit, but when I started getting ready to buy another bag of feed - I dug into details further. I changed to a feed with a meat based protein because it seems like it made the most sense. One of the articles that I read was the test that your pic above was from. One thing that I always wondered about that could have impacted the study was the size of the feed and the % sinker pellets. The Sportmans Choice is a mix containing larger pellets that might not be able to be eaten by the smaller fish and if they were caged - the sinker pellets might have been lost before they could have been eaten. Just something to consider. (I’m not sure what % sinkers are in AM500 or the Opimal (but there seem to be a lot less sinkers in the AM vs the Sportmans Choice.). I’m currently using a bag of AM500 (and unfortunately I didn’t realize that they are all smaller pellets) and so I eagerly anticipating the results of these newer studies which may change my mind on the brand of my next bag of feed.

Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,878
Likes: 278
J
Online Content
J
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,878
Likes: 278
If the BG ate all their given feed there are serious problems with your results. Based on my analysis there are serious problems with the reported growth in relative terms base equal rates of consumption and equal starting lengths. The results are that the Optimal treatments SGR (specific growth rate) is .0246 (growth from 2" to 4" over 90 days). This reasonable of course. The SGR for the AM 500 treatment is 0.0143 (growth from 2" to 3" over 90 days). The Sportsman's choice is almost too pathetic to mention at 0.00313 (growth from 2" to 2 3/16" over 90 days). These specific growth rates assume standard weights but the result would be exacerbated if the RW of Optimal exceeded AM500 and the RW of AM500 exceeded the Sportsman's choice only making SGR differences more profound and worse than presented above.

It may be reasonable that Optimal has an FCR of 1.5 ... However, if this is the case, the relative results depicted in your photo imply that Purina AM500 has an FCR of 2.58. The photo implies that at equal rates of feeding that Purina AM500 is only 58.1% as efficient as Optimal at conversion. I don't think I am ready to swallow that. It is a significant difference. The picture readily shows that the weight of the Optimal Sample is > 2.4 times as heavy as the AM500 BG. It goes unnoticed by no one even though few know how to or would go to the trouble to calculate it. They just see the difference and buy Optimal.

The Sportsman choice was of course much worse. Only 3/16 of inch gained. Its not clear whether it even gained weight. We don't have its before picture when it was 2" long. Indeed it looks to be starving with gigantic eyes. But assuming standard weight is valid the photo implies the FCR of Sportsman's choice is 11.72. If the RW worsened over the 90 days, then the FCR would be worse. When science is at one's disposal it is rather simple to weed out unreasonable experimental results. The results of the experiment suggests it is was a kind of "crank experiment" that was inadequately controlled yielding no determinations of useful knowledge.

Tractor Supply and Purina both support the Pond Boss Forum. Your photo has been posted multiple times and IMEO adversely and inaccurately depicts the relative performance of their feeds relative to Optimal. I think the harm it causes their brands is unwarranted and undeserved. I'm not interested in repeating your experiment nor am I interested in seeing you sued. I am very much interested in appealing to your sense of fairness and justness and inspire you to pull down the photo's multiple placements here. If that is at all possible.

Last edited by jpsdad; 03/19/22 11:24 PM.

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


Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 28,407
Likes: 788
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 28,407
Likes: 788
You know what assume means? I don't know if the fish actually consumed all the food that was fed. That is an assumption that I am not willing to make. If there was uneaten food for any reason, that was not collected and weighed as it would be in a lab. The pick and spit percentage was not tallied. etc. etc. Fish were put in a cage, fed the smallest available floating food like a typical pond owner would feed and the results are shown.

I am not the one that is throwing numbers out there without knowing 100% the details and I don't know 100% of the details because this was not done in a laboratory environment, it was done in a pond environment.

Like I said earlier, all I can do is put out there what the test was and the results. Nothing more, nothing less. Unless you want to do the test in laboratory conditions, I suggest that you take your own advice and consider the information that you are putting out there. I am not the one making statements except what was observed.


www.hoosierpondpros.com


http://www.pondboss.com/subscribe.asp?c=4
3/4 to 1 1/4 ac pond LMB, SMB, PS, BG, RES, CC, YP, Bardello BG, (RBT & Blue Tilapia - seasonal).
1 member likes this: Heppy
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,878
Likes: 278
J
Online Content
J
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,878
Likes: 278
esshup,

All I can tell you is that my heart in the right place. While its true I don't have all the evidence I am not without it and I am doing the very best I can with what evidence you provided. The picture, the statements about starting lengths and equal amounts of food are all evidence that one can review in order to judge the reasonableness of an experimental outcome. Reviews are done by people who did not perform the experiment every day. In fact, that's the only way it is. Its not complicated. Were it reasonable, I would not say anything. I don't think the treatments consumed equal amounts of food because the growth recorded is very inconsistent with that. Just why the treatments didn't consume equal amounts of food is something that you could better explain. Indeed, I offered possible reasons so you could affirm or provide a better explanation. Anyways, you seem to be agreeing with the idea that they didn't eat equal amounts of food. So at least we can agree that the photo isn't a guage of relative performance and it isn't something people can expect to occur in their ponds when they feed their fish whatever they happen to be feeding.


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


Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Today's Birthdays
Bob Lusk, GaryK, GrizzFan, PhotographerDave
Recent Posts
Brooder Shiners and Fry, What to do??
by Freg - 03/28/24 07:28 AM
Happy Birthday Bob Lusk!!
by Donatello - 03/28/24 07:20 AM
Relative weight charts in Excel ? Calculations?
by jludwig - 03/28/24 07:12 AM
Reducing fish biomass
by esshup - 03/27/24 06:17 PM
New 2 acre pond stocking plan
by esshup - 03/27/24 06:05 PM
1 year after stocking question
by esshup - 03/27/24 06:02 PM
Questions and Feedback on SMB
by Donatello - 03/27/24 03:10 PM
Paper-shell crayfish and Japanese snails
by Bill Cody - 03/27/24 10:18 AM
2024 North Texas Optimal BG food Group Buy
by Dave Davidson1 - 03/27/24 08:15 AM
Dewatering bags seeded to form berms?
by esshup - 03/26/24 10:00 PM
Freeze Danger? - Electric Diaphragm Pump
by esshup - 03/26/24 09:47 PM
Newly Uploaded Images
Eagles Over The Pond Yesterday
Eagles Over The Pond Yesterday
by Tbar, December 10
Deer at Theo's 2023
Deer at Theo's 2023
by Theo Gallus, November 13
Minnow identification
Minnow identification
by Mike Troyer, October 6
Sharing the Food
Sharing the Food
by FishinRod, September 9
Nice BGxRES
Nice BGxRES
by Theo Gallus, July 28
Snake Identification
Snake Identification
by Rangersedge, July 12

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

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5