Pond Boss Magazine
https://www.pondboss.com/images/userfiles/image/20130301193901_6_150by50orangewhyshouldsubscribejpeg.jpg
Advertisment
Newest Members
mistickslinger, annjieshuffles, jdulaney80, pkamphuis, MikeWeber3
17,826 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums36
Topics39,882
Posts542,981
Members17,826
Most Online3,583
Jan 15th, 2020
Top Posters
esshup 26,889
ewest 21,063
Cecil Baird1 20,043
Bill Cody 14,324
Who's Online Now
4 members (Snipe, Pond Star, anthropic, CrazyCarl), 95 guests, and 110 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,626
Likes: 222
J
Offline
J
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,626
Likes: 222
Originally Posted by Billy Bates
So you’re advocating for cheaper, lower nutritional feed as an overall better option? Am I understanding you correctly ?

No. To be clear.

"I am not advocating against cheaper, lower protein feed like everyone else."

One of the big questions here is what is the most cost effective? So to answer this question for pond owners we really do need to know the whole picture. For example, direct conversion of the feed and the secondary effects arising from manuring the pond. The secondary effect is not inconsequential and research over the last twenty years are showing us that nutrient recycling is improved by increasing C/N ratios. There is a lot of literature out there on the subject as it pertains to high density aquaculture. We don't yet understand the whole effect of conversion for BG when the manuring effect is accounted for at weight densities normal for recreational ponds. Or how protein percentages play into this picture. It is something worthy of additional study.

Some here claim that the lower protein formulations are bad for fish and ponds. I lean that way with regards to the fish but not so with regards to ponds. If the fish depended entirely on feed it wouldn't be good for long life. Lower protein feeds might be more detrimental to fish health. Almost everything fish eat have protein percentages greater than 60% (dry matter) so feed is a very poor replacement for natural foods. I think this is true of any feed.

I think it stands to reason that direct conversion is improved with a high protein feed, especially when the source of protein comes from aquatic organisms. But in the end, all a feed manufacture must to do is meet minimums and maximums. They merely label crude protein, lipids, and sometimes other parameters like calcium and phosphorus. The formulas can and do change and the product you buy from year to year can and does change in terms of ingredients.

As for Theo's comment. Yes I have fed fish. And yes I don't feed catfish Optimal or Aquamax. Yes, I have a pond now and am planning another for doing some pilots and research. All the same, I am intrigued by how little of feed is metabolized by BG and LMB in particular. They are very poor converters of feed on a dry matter basis even when you are spending $1.50 a pound for the feed. This means the greater opportunity of fish growth lies not in the eating of the feed but rather on what happens next. How do those nutrients stimulate the food chain and how efficiently can they be utilized? So of considerable interest to me is how co-cropping and community structuring can better recycle the waste nutrients and grow fish.

Last edited by jpsdad; 05/03/22 05:58 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: May 2014
Posts: 3,415
Likes: 174
A
Online Content
A
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,415
Likes: 174
Interesting idea, jpsdad. But if the main effect of feeding is indirect, why has the Kingfisher Society Lake now have so many 2 & 3 lb BG? It has very high water flow & extremely low fertility & pH, which mitigate against secondary & tertiary effects on the lake itself.

Last edited by anthropic; 05/03/22 07:22 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 -116




Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 26,889
Likes: 361
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 26,889
Likes: 361
jpsdad, I will be interested in seeing your study on the FCR between cheaper lower protein feed and the more expensive higher protein feed. When will you be publishing the results?


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: 1,626
Likes: 222
J
Offline
J
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,626
Likes: 222
Originally Posted by anthropic
Interesting idea, jpsdad. But if the main effect of feeding is indirect, why has the Kingfisher Society Lake now have so many 2 & 3 lb BG? It has very high water flow & extremely low fertility & pH, which mitigate against secondary & tertiary effects on the lake itself.

Frank, you're questions of late are always better answered with questions.

Why would you conclude that a lake which conditions prevent nutrient retention and uptake into the food chain is evidence that there is no gain from secondary effects in a pond where the conditions are favorable for secondary effects? That a great majority of nutrients pass through BG is provable on the basis of dry weight conversion.

I say they have so many 2 & 3 lb BG because they don't have so many BG for the amount they are feeding.


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: 1,626
Likes: 222
J
Offline
J
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,626
Likes: 222
Originally Posted by esshup
jpsdad, I will be interested in seeing your study on the FCR between cheaper lower protein feed and the more expensive higher protein feed. When will you be publishing the results?

Scott, I don't plan on comparing feeds but will state facts about lower protein feed and its in pond FCR. I am pretty sure I'll get better growth than you did in your trial and that after growing a month they will look better than the best of your caged fish. Heck, I fish ponds nearby with no feeding that are plumper than all of them (regardless of what you were feeding them). The only places I have ever seen BG that poor looking have been in stunted ponds. Anyways, you can rest assured that it will be a good experiment where the all the nutrients in the growing cell will be measured and reported with the results. My experimental cell will be cement lined and so feed will be the only source of nutrients for fish and other life.

This is the least of my interests, however, so different experiments are going to precede it. For now I will let Dogdoc's results speak for themselves. If after sharing my results enough would like me to do a similar experiment with high protein feed I would do it but I would want the experiment to be conducted over similar calendar period so that sunlight hours and water temps are as duplicate as possible. Wouldn't take much feed so maybe a nearby member could trade me a little in exchange for something I've grown. If I were to do the high protein experiment, I think I would do it on a protein equivalent basis. That way, the same amount of nitrogen will be introduced to the pond. How much nitrogen was assimilated will be evident at the end of trial in the weight of the fish. If there is some benefit to the higher protein feed in terms of its nutrition, then a greater proportion of the nitrogen of the feed will be assimilated in the fish of its trial. If there is no difference in assimilation then they would be essentially equivalent. If on the other hand, a counter intuitive result was evident, that is, that the lower protein feed produced greater assimilation than the higher protein feed .... well in that case I wouldn't say the lower protein feed was more nutritious. I would probably say that the result is consistent with other evidence that higher C/N ratio helps with nutrient cycling and that the carbon, the pond, and the forage organisms made the difference.


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 2013
Posts: 2,642
Likes: 77
C
Offline
C
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 2,642
Likes: 77
Originally Posted by jpsdad
I am pretty sure I'll get better growth than you did in your trial and that after growing a month they will look better than the best of your caged fish. Heck, I fish ponds nearby with no feeding that are plumper than all of them (regardless of what you were feeding them). The only places I have ever seen BG that poor looking have been in stunted ponds. Anyways, you can rest assured that it will be a good experiment where the all the nutrients in the growing cell will be measured and reported with the results. My experimental cell will be cement lined and so feed will be the only source of nutrients for fish and other life.

sheez, this sounds like junior high locker room talk... 'not only is my dad tougher than your dad but I can bench press with two fingers way more than you can with both of your arms and my bicep is bigger than both of your thighs. Plus your mom's is ugly and your fish are skinny'

usually then there is a squaring off in the middle of the playground and everyone gathers round to see what will happen next...

1 member likes this: SherWood
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,626
Likes: 222
J
Offline
J
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,626
Likes: 222
CC,

Be honest with yourself. Do any of the fish below even look 100 RW? Seriously, I am not trash talking. They do not look well.

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]


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


Joined: Feb 2021
Posts: 22
Likes: 6
B
Offline
B
Joined: Feb 2021
Posts: 22
Likes: 6
Originally Posted by Sunil
Originally Posted by Billy Bates
So you’re advocating for cheaper, lower nutritional feed as an overall better option? Am I understanding you correctly ?


At the end of the day, BB, feed whatever feed you want, or don't feed if you don't want.

As I will and have always done. Just making sure I’m understanding the ascertion correctly.

Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 26,889
Likes: 361
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 26,889
Likes: 361
jpsdad, I will be interested in your facts and figures.


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: Sep 2003
Posts: 12,908
Likes: 125
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 12,908
Likes: 125
Originally Posted by Billy Bates
Originally Posted by Sunil
Originally Posted by Billy Bates
So you’re advocating for cheaper, lower nutritional feed as an overall better option? Am I understanding you correctly ?


At the end of the day, BB, feed whatever feed you want, or don't feed if you don't want.

As I will and have always done. Just making sure I’m understanding the ascertion correctly.


Sometimes, people try and get too detailed about things are are absolutely NOT absolute. So the point of any 'studies' that indicate something in one body of water is only fractionally applicable to a different body of water.

Take the simple advice of people who have fed multiple types of feed in multiple ponds and you'll be fine. Feed differences are incremental, and the fish, and ourselves may not be around (for any variety of reasons) to 'experience' orders of magnitude of improvement or decline.


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."

1 member likes this: SherWood
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 13,443
Likes: 126
Moderator
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Lunker
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 13,443
Likes: 126
Originally Posted by canyoncreek
sheez, this sounds like junior high locker room talk... 'not only is my dad tougher than your dad but I can bench press with two fingers way more than you can with both of your arms and my bicep is bigger than both of your thighs. Plus your mom's is ugly and your fish are skinny'

usually then there is a squaring off in the middle of the playground and everyone gathers round to see what will happen next...
At its worst, the Internet is one big JHS playground.

The moderators here try to steer things away from that, without slamming anyone's head into the monkey bars, but not everyone can take a hint.


"Live like you'll die tomorrow, but manage your grass like you'll live forever."
-S. M. Stirling
[Linked Image from i.pinimg.com]
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,626
Likes: 222
J
Offline
J
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,626
Likes: 222
Theo,

I think moderators do a good job ... except when comes to each other and self-censorship. I wasn't the first to comment that the image above had 3 thin BG in it. TJ was. Back then, esshup didn't take credit for doing the trial, rather he said a buddy of his did it. For my part I know something is wrong with the representations made but I don't know the reason why. I want to believe that there is reasonable explanation for the results. I have made a concerted effort to extend that benefit of the doubt. This is something you should also extend to me.

If a person doesn't care about being misinformed then he is pretty much asking to be misinformed. Where I am probably wrong is thinking that most want good information and want to learn how to discern between good information and false information. I'll have to give that more thought. Because I could just go along with the status quo which is easier path for me.


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


3 members like this: KY_pond, 4CornersPuddle, Pat Williamson
Joined: Jul 2021
Posts: 94
Likes: 30
S
Offline
S
Joined: Jul 2021
Posts: 94
Likes: 30
Originally Posted by canyoncreek
'not only is my dad tougher than your dad but I can bench press with two fingers way more than you can with both of your arms and my bicep is bigger than both of your thighs. Plus your mom's is ugly and your fish are skinny'

That reminds me of when I was a little kid and me and my best friend were arguing as to whose dad could beat the other dad up, except in this case we each thought the other's dad could beat up our own dad, LOL.

By the way, I always told the other kids, my mom may be ugly, but don't ever tell me my fish are skinny. Now them's fighting words.

1 member likes this: anthropic
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,415
Likes: 174
A
Online Content
A
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,415
Likes: 174
I like observational evidence. Until feeding, I'd never caught a CNBG or BG exceeding one pound. Now me & my buddies catch one plus all the time, top weight over 1.5, and they're still growing.

That's just one person & one pond, you say? Well, consider Bob Lusk, who has seen hundreds and thousands of ponds in his career. He comments how rare it was for him to ever see a 2 pound BG until BG feeds came on to the market. Since then, he's held hundreds. If you don't believe the representations of the feed companies, I hope you believe him.

In the debate over fertilization vs direct food effects, this should be an easy thing to check. Have a number of similar ponds, some fed, some fertilized with the same amount of nitrogen and phosphorus as contained in the feed. Heck, do the same study on high protein vs low protein feed.

Feed fertilization effects are real, even for the feed that is eaten. However, Richmond Mill Kingfisher results indicate that direct feed impact is greater, as fertilization is minimal in that situation. To a lesser degree, my infertile pond shows the same.

Last edited by anthropic; 05/04/22 06:07 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 -116




1 member likes this: FishinRod
Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,735
Likes: 116
P
Offline
P
Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,735
Likes: 116
Originally Posted by jpsdad
Theo,

I think moderators do a good job ... except when comes to each other and self-censorship. I wasn't the first to comment that the image above had 3 thin BG in it. TJ was. Back then, esshup didn't take credit for doing the trial, rather he said a buddy of his did it. For my part I know something is wrong with the representations made but I don't know the reason why. I want to believe that there is reasonable explanation for the results. I have made a concerted effort to extend that benefit of the doubt. This is something you should also extend to me.

If a person doesn't care about being misinformed then he is pretty much asking to be misinformed. Where I am probably wrong is thinking that most want good information and want to learn how to discern between good information and false information. I'll have to give that more thought. Because I could just go along with the status quo which is easier path for me.

jpsdad keep doing what you are doing it benefits us all

Last edited by Pat Williamson; 05/04/22 05:31 PM. Reason: Can’t spell
3 members like this: KY_pond, 4CornersPuddle, anthropic
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,415
Likes: 174
A
Online Content
A
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,415
Likes: 174
Even though I don't always agree with jpsdad, I do agree that his thoughts often stir up useful debates. When based on facts rather than worldviews or arguments from authority, this benefits the PB community.

Last edited by anthropic; 05/04/22 06:07 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 -116




Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,735
Likes: 116
P
Offline
P
Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,735
Likes: 116
Originally Posted by anthropic
Even though I don't always agree with jpsdad, I agree that his thoughts often stir up useful debates. When based on facts rather than worldviews or arguments from authority, this benefits the PB community.
Lol I always agree cause I aren’t savvy enough to know the difference anyway……I’m smart enough to be dangerous to my self sometimes

Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,626
Likes: 222
J
Offline
J
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,626
Likes: 222
Originally Posted by anthropic
I like observational evidence. Until feeding, I'd never caught a CNBG or BG exceeding one pound. Now me & my buddies catch one plus all the time, top weight over 1.5, and they're still growing.

That's just one person & one pond, you say? Well, consider Bob Lusk, who has seen hundreds and thousands of ponds in his career. He comments how rare it was for him to ever see a 2 pound BG until BG feeds came on to the market. Since then, he's held hundreds. If you don't believe the representations of the feed companies, I hope you believe him.

In the debate over fertilization vs direct food effects, this should be an easy thing to check. Have a number of similar ponds, some fed, some fertilized with the same amount of nitrogen and phosphorus as contained in the feed. Heck, do the same study on high protein vs low protein feed.

Feed fertilization effects are real, even for the feed that is eaten. However, Richmond Mill Kingfisher results indicate that direct feed impact is greater, as fertilization is minimal in that situation. To a lesser degree, my infertile pond shows the same.

I have fished many ponds like yours where the only difference was no one was feeding and no one was managing the water. Indeed on most trips to OK I visit a pond where I catch very few BG & HBG under 9". Lots of small LMB too. Its only about 1/3 to 1/2 acre but I usually catch more than 4 BG over 10". Its a hoot. Al, its an old pond, at least twenty years older than me. Been around a very long time and I very much doubt it have ever experienced a fish kill. So my brother lives near it and I could encourage him to go down and feed the pond every day.

I know the BG would grow larger and get fatter if he did that. That is because the pond is in balance now. It my bro fed it a 1/2 a bag a month for six months he could add 75 lbs of weight to the BG in it. Probably, same goes for next year. But as old as the pond is this would only hurry it on its way to its first major fish kill. It would probably make the existing weeds much worse. I just don't think I would enjoy it nearly as much ... even if I were catch a few 2 lb BG. There are many BG which have grown to 2 lbs without feed in other waters though probably not many or possibly none in that pond. But if feed gets the credit for growing the 2 lb BG ... shouldn't the feed get the blame for its eventual destruction?

And what about your situation where you dreamed of having trophy bass? Does feed play a role in LMB recruitment that has made this dream difficult to achieve? Normally an environment that is favorable for BG ultimate size leads to abundant small LMB. What are your thoughts? How does feeding affect the recruitment of LMB?

As I said before I never just look at one thing and then claim a cause and effect as a single causal variable. We are dealing with systems. But its very easy to predict that if a one acre pond that carries a food limited 300 lbs of BG is fed 200 lbs of feed that they will gain 100 lbs above the existing carrying capacity. That isn't rocket science and it is much easier than removing 50 lbs of BG and fertilizing the replacement nutrients for that harvest. Indeed you get two times the growth and don't need to harvest anything. I understand what the path of least resistance is and its hard to fault people for doing that.

The facts are and have always been ... that I have never been against feeding lean water. I have always encouraged it. All I have ever done is try to encourage people to think about the duplicity of truth. A lean pond is benefited by feed but rich pond isn't. So it depends, requires some budgeting of the nutrients, and careful thought.

Hey, I don't enjoy conflict. Just ask my kids who I am always telling to be kind to one another. The sounds of them talking, giggling, and just having fun ... no matter how loud ... has always been music to my ears. But when they fuss ... it's like someone screeching a blackboard. I haven't enjoyed any conflict here.

When James and I get our cell together we have a lot of projects planned. We'll be doing pilots and experiments as many 3 or 4 annually. We're going to grow GAMs, RSH, Cambarellus, Anostraca, Notostraca, BG-RES hybrids, maybe even try to spawn some catfish. The very last of my interests is learning how good or how bad my catfish food is or isn't. I have come to an epiphany. I am not going to concern myself with the misinformation that is here. If I were getting more dialog then I would reconsider. But I don't want to be single voice on such matters and I'd rather focus on enjoying my family and our projects.

Last edited by jpsdad; 05/04/22 08:15 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: Feb 2021
Posts: 26
Likes: 5
L
LTL Offline
Offline
L
Joined: Feb 2021
Posts: 26
Likes: 5
Not to specifically keep this going, but my main reason for moving from Sportmans Choice to something else (AM500 for now) was that my understanding from the forums was that a meat based protein was better (healthier) for bream vs grain based protein - any thoughts on this?

Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,626
Likes: 222
J
Offline
J
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,626
Likes: 222
Originally Posted by LTL
Not to specifically keep this going, but my main reason for moving from Sportmans Choice to something else (AM500 for now) was that my understanding from the forums was that a meat based protein was better (healthier) for bream vs grain based protein - any thoughts on this?

Just my two cents. Meat is probably better converted for most fish (especially predators like BG and LMB). I can't really say that the vegetable based feed is harmful or bad for health.

So as long as you didn't make the switch hoping it would help reduce nutrients fueling FA or other nuisance weeds and don't mind paying extra to get more direct conversion then the choice appears justified.


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


Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,063
Likes: 155
E
Moderator
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
E
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,063
Likes: 155
The best protein for fish is the one that most closely replicates that specie's amino acid profile. That is why fish meal is the gold standard of products for fish that eat fish. For fish that eat plants a plant-based source is good.

If you want to know more then look at this post by Mark Griffin PhD nutritionist and former head of Purina's feeds program.

https://forums.pondboss.com/ubbthre...gold+standard&Search=true#Post244349

However, the science and understanding of fish food components is evolving and there are new products - see PB mag.

Last edited by ewest; 05/05/22 10:59 AM.















2 members like this: jpsdad, FishinRod
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,626
Likes: 222
J
Offline
J
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,626
Likes: 222
Thank you for posting the link Eric. I know he wasn't posting a formula for Optimal, Triton, or Aquamax but I was very surprised that fishmeal was such a small proportion of the overall feed in his example formulation for BG (everyone you need to click the link and read). It is formulations like this that farmers have a mill manufacture customized feed.

For a lot feeds, the materials list is often either available or declared on packaging. Why is it that we are not privy to such information in the way cattle farmers and pig farmers are? What are your thoughts on the weight percent of fish meal for various feeds ... I mean do you have knowledge that you haven't been sworn to secrecy for? It would be great to know what percentage of each vendors feed is fish meal and whether this ingredient remains consistent (kind of like a quality guarantee). I've know for long time that the percentage of fishmeal in these feeds are limited to less than 30%, something that can be calculated from phosphorus % but after reading your link my hunch is that it rarely exceeds 20% fish meal by weight. This one ingredient tells a lot of the story how good a feed is for LMB and/or BG.

Jim Wetzel has fed 100% dehydrated fish and remarked that the conversion was best with it. There is no published data with regard to that. One of my interests is to learn what that conversion may have been.


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 2014
Posts: 3,415
Likes: 174
A
Online Content
A
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,415
Likes: 174
As I recall, trout protein seems particularly well suited for largemouth bass growth. Trout themselves are the right size and shape to be easily eaten by LMB, but evidently there's something about the trout flesh itself that enhances growth.

Last edited by anthropic; 05/05/22 05:47 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 -116




Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,626
Likes: 222
J
Offline
J
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,626
Likes: 222
Frank,

There is around 44% more dry matter in RBT than a equal wet weight of BG. RBT are more energy dense. Open the post below and look at the Excel SS on the specific consumption tab. The energy densities in joules per gram wet weight are in the Joules/g. I will mention for common pond fish Centrarchids are not particularly energy dense. Esox are the only group I know of that are less.

https://forums.pondboss.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=40731&Number=529114#Post529114


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: anthropic
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,415
Likes: 174
A
Online Content
A
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,415
Likes: 174
Thanks. I try to stock some RBT every winter to help feed LMB, but trout aren't always available. They do grow very fast on feed & are great fighters, however.


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 -116




Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
Today's Birthdays
Gambusia
Recent Posts
Algae and Dying Bluegill ... a connection ?
by Snipe - 08/08/22 01:26 AM
What did you do at your pond today?
by Snipe - 08/08/22 12:55 AM
Getting started on a 50 acre unmanaged pond
by jpsdad - 08/07/22 09:32 PM
Blue Catfish supplier for Indiana
by FishinRod - 08/07/22 07:24 PM
Plants for LMB pond
by Bill Cody - 08/07/22 06:53 PM
Redoing pond.
by Pondfun - 08/07/22 09:07 AM
Killing Brushy Plants
by RAH - 08/06/22 02:42 PM
How Do Fish Sense Their Forage Food?
by anthropic - 08/05/22 11:03 PM
Taurine: Fish protein that's good for diabetics!
by anthropic - 08/05/22 10:33 PM
Release to the Grease - calling all states!!
by Pat Williamson - 08/05/22 06:34 PM
Thoughts on a new 2.7 acre pond stocking
by Heppy - 08/05/22 03:45 PM
Removing water from pond harmful or helpful?
by Snipe - 08/05/22 03:15 PM
Newly Uploaded Images
test
test
by Dwight, July 29
My possible pond site
My possible pond site
by ArbyTX, July 27
test
test
by Dwight, July 22
Male RES
Male RES
by Shorty, June 27
New Record Bluegill
New Record Bluegill
by Theo Gallus, June 10
pond 6
pond 6
by Stressless, May 10

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

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5