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 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
#546017 04/04/22 09:17 AM
Joined: Jan 2021
Posts: 37
Likes: 1
R
OP Offline
R
Joined: Jan 2021
Posts: 37
Likes: 1
I have a 3 acre pond freshly stocked with 2-3" perch last fall. I have a broadcast feeder I'm going to use. Any tips on what food to put them on? I bought them feed trained. This pond also will have some 4-6" SMB that are feed trained too. Would like to feed them both if possible. I'm a total noob at the feeding game.

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1,641
Likes: 13
J
Offline
J
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1,641
Likes: 13
The two fish foods that are recommended here are Purina's Aquamax and fish food from Optimal.

Resource guide has both: https://www.pondboss.com/Resources?lid=274&lci=22

Joined: Oct 2018
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 255
S
Online Happy
S
Joined: Oct 2018
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 255
Originally Posted by roymunson
I have a 3 acre pond freshly stocked with 2-3" perch last fall. I have a broadcast feeder I'm going to use. Any tips on what food to put them on? I bought them feed trained. This pond also will have some 4-6" SMB that are feed trained too. Would like to feed them both if possible. I'm a total noob at the feeding game.
Find out what they were trained on.. Start with that and make a slow transition to Optimal. The Jr Feed from Optimal was engineered based on YP. I assume when you say perch, you mean perch and not Bluegill? Either way I would go the same route.

Joined: May 2004
Posts: 13,443
Likes: 126
Moderator
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Lunker
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 13,443
Likes: 126
I'm curious - does Optimal put Bob Lusk's picture on each bag?


"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 2014
Posts: 3,415
Likes: 174
A
Online Content
A
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,415
Likes: 174
Originally Posted by Theo Gallus
I'm curious - does Optimal put Bob Lusk's picture on each bag?

Not the last bunch I bought.


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 2021
Posts: 37
Likes: 1
R
OP Offline
R
Joined: Jan 2021
Posts: 37
Likes: 1
correct
Originally Posted by Snipe
Find out what they were trained on.. Start with that and make a slow transition to Optimal. The Jr Feed from Optimal was engineered based on YP. I assume when you say perch, you mean perch and not Bluegill? Either way I would go the same route.

Correct. Yellow Perch. I'll talk with the guy who fed em

Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 14,324
Likes: 191
B
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
B
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 14,324
Likes: 191
Feeding newly stocked pellet trained fingerling fish in a 3 ac pond could result in their slow return to eating pellets for a few reasons. 1. size of pond. A larger pond has lots of available space to fish to wander around and find other natural food items. 2. the smaller the pellet trained fish when stocked the less likely it will return to eating pellets because the habituation period is relatively short. The shorter the habituation period the quicker the fish will forgo pellets in place of eating natural foods. 3. Amount of natural foods in the pond influences the more likely the new fish will resort to instinctively eat natural foods. Sometimes as the natural foods become scarce the fish will return to eating pellets.

A new pond with silty murky water has a low amount of natural food base due to turbidity suppressing the food base of plankton growth. Turbid water with reduced natural foods could encourage the small pellet trained fish resume eating pellets. Finding pellets in a 3 ac pond might cause a delay in fish locating the pellet feeding area.

It will be helpful to all members if you return periodically and tell us how your pellet feeding in your new pond is progressing.

Last edited by Bill Cody; 04/05/22 01:02 PM.

aka Pond Doctor & Dr. Perca Read Pond Boss Magazine -
America's Journal of Pond Management
Joined: Nov 2021
Posts: 42
Likes: 12
Offline
Joined: Nov 2021
Posts: 42
Likes: 12
The Aquamax 400 is good for fingerling fish. Some sinks some floats but it is a small pellet more easily consumed by smaller fish. I am currently feeding Aquamax 500 and have some nice fat bluegills and HSB.

Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,415
Likes: 174
A
Online Content
A
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,415
Likes: 174
Speaking of Aquamax, I was shocked at the price at my local Purina store: One bag of MVP for nearly $69! Very close per pound to Optimal, where normally AM is 25 to 35 percent cheaper. I love MVP, but this is disconcerting.

Last edited by anthropic; 04/15/22 01:11 AM.

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 2004
Posts: 13,443
Likes: 126
Moderator
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Lunker
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 13,443
Likes: 126
Aquamax 600 is $49/bag at our local Purina dealer.

Last year MVP was about $8/bag more (and after trying a bag, I decided to just keep mixing 600 with a little 500 instead).


"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: Apr 2002
Posts: 14,324
Likes: 191
B
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
B
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 14,324
Likes: 191
Agricultural grain prices are close to about double what they were 16 months ago. Expect fish food prices to continue to rise because the food contains a large percentage of gain products of wheat, corn and soybeans for protein. Compare average grain prices since 2020
Corn 2020= $3.30/bu, 2021= 6.05, April 2022= 7.00.
Soybeans 2020= $8.40/bu, 2021= 14.00, April 15 2022= 16.40
Wheat 2020= $5.40/bu, 2021= 6.20, April 15 2022= 10.44

Last edited by Bill Cody; 04/15/22 10:28 AM.

aka Pond Doctor & Dr. Perca Read Pond Boss Magazine -
America's Journal of Pond Management
Joined: Feb 2021
Posts: 22
Likes: 6
B
Offline
B
Joined: Feb 2021
Posts: 22
Likes: 6
Tsc sells it for $52 out the door. Aquamax 500 and MVP. For some reason 600 is $1 more currently

Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 4
Likes: 1
D
Offline
D
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 4
Likes: 1
No doubt the aqua max and similar products are best but I have been feeding 32 % catfish floating for years and my blue gill are big and fat. I run 4 feeders on 2 ponds I own so 23 dollars a bag is ok for the 32 percent. Nearly 50 dollars for the aqua max and others these days is higher than I am willing to go. I guess there is best and then good enough. I go with good enough for now

Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,626
Likes: 222
J
Offline
J
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,626
Likes: 222
Originally Posted by Dogdoc1
No doubt the aqua max and similar products are best but I have been feeding 32 % catfish floating for years and my blue gill are big and fat. I run 4 feeders on 2 ponds I own so 23 dollars a bag is ok for the 32 percent. Nearly 50 dollars for the aqua max and others these days is higher than I am willing to go. I guess there is best and then good enough. I go with good enough for now

Nahhh. shocked Are you trying to tell us that all your BG don't look like the top fish in the image below? wink

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]

From your handle it would seem you are a veterinarian? Anyways, we love evidence here. Post some pics and share other aspects of management efforts. Welcome to the forum Dogdoc.

Last edited by jpsdad; 05/03/22 07:47 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 2014
Posts: 3,415
Likes: 174
A
Online Content
A
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,415
Likes: 174
AquaMax MVP around $52 a bag in east Texas, $69 in northwest Louisiana. AM 400 now $55 in east Texas.

As diesel prices skyrocket, this will only get worse.

Last edited by anthropic; 05/03/22 07:56 AM.

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: Feb 2021
Posts: 22
Likes: 6
B
Offline
B
Joined: Feb 2021
Posts: 22
Likes: 6
When you run the conversion rate numbers the better feeds are cheaper than the inexpensive feed when you figure out the cost per pound of flesh put on, unless you’re just feeding to feed or to put more poop/nutrients in your ponds. Then sure the sportsman’s choice or similar will accomplish that.

Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,053
Likes: 80
S
Offline
S
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,053
Likes: 80
I fed the lower price/quality feeds from the farm store the first year or two. Sportsman Choice was one and the other by Purina, Game Fish Chow I think. Then as I learned more about feed qualities I switched to mostly Aquamax and Optimal choices.

My uneducated view is that any feed is better than none if a person enjoys hand feeding. The cheap stuff worked well for that when I did it and the fish seemed to grow on it. I think the fish will grow even on the cheap feed, but likely not nearly as well as the higher quality higher protein feed.

As a person gets in to the heavier feeding rates (with higher potential to cause nutrient load probelms in the pond) and higher desired growth rates of the fish, the better quality higher cost feed makes sense to me.

My feed dealer now stocks the Aquamax stuff for me (MVP and 500 usually). Back when they did not and I had to order what ever I wanted, it sometimes took 2-3 weeks and I never knew when I was going to get feed. So occasonally I would run out and go to TSC and pick up a bag or two of the cheaper consumer grade stuff. My fish didn't turn their nose up to it. Ate it just fine. I was never feeding to satiation, always limit feeding, so that might make a difference. My fish were hungry.

Optimal works really well for me in the feeds I need a lower amount of. I can order a single bag or two and it shows up in a few days on my porch step. It seems like if I have to order anything "special" through my Purina dealer (other than what they normally stock, MVP and 500) it is complete hit and miss if I ever get it or who knows when I will get it (say fopr example AM400 or Bass). So I use the Purina a lot for the bulk of my feeding (a little cheaper price than Optimal), although I have no problem using the Optimal and sometimes do. But for the smaller orders/quantities of more specialized feed, Optimal wins for me hands down because of the convienience and dependability of getting what I want when I want. As far as the feed quality, I like them both about equally.

That all said, I did not feed last year in my main pond. Previous years would feed all through the spring, summer and fall off the dock with a TH feeder. All I fed last year was a bag or two in my SMB HSB pond a little in the fall so they would put on some weight before winter. I had a lot less problems with FA and bluegreen algae when I quit feeding. Maybe just the season or coincidence though.

https://www.purinamills.com/Products/fish-and-aquatics-feed

https://optimalfishfood.com/online-store/

Last edited by snrub; 05/03/22 08:49 AM.

John

I subscribe to Pond Boss Magazine
1 member likes this: anthropic
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,626
Likes: 222
J
Offline
J
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,626
Likes: 222
Billy

80% of the nutrients are pooped out anyway and so also is the majority of the potential whole pond gain. The wastes of a lower protein content feed can be more easily processed by the heterotrophic community. Also water quality improves with lower protein feeds, enough that one can feed more of it without as great an ammonia contamination. The organisms that do the job of consuming and metabolizing ammonia need the additional carbon in a lower protein feed. This also speeds up decomposition getting the nutrients into the web in less time. From a whole pond perspective, higher protein feeds are not superior.

If Dogdoc would post some pics, I think that point would be clear. If he would post pics of his BG ... 1 each in the lengths depicted in the image above ... I'd bet that his fish look notably more robust, healthy, and fat that the fish in the image above. Particularly the largest fish which is 5"in length and was reported to gain from 2 in to that length in 3 months on a diet of Optimal.

Last edited by jpsdad; 05/03/22 08:36 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: 1,626
Likes: 222
J
Offline
J
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,626
Likes: 222
Originally Posted by snrub
As a person gets in to the heavier feeding rates (with higher potential to cause nutrient load probelms in the pond) and higher desired growth rates of the fish, the better quality higher cost feed makes sense to me.

John, this actually isn't true. Feeds improved for conversion efficiency have high amounts of Nitrogen and phosphorus which are both essential for fish growth (the building of flesh and bones). High quality feed does not reduce the amount on nutrients going into the pond. The increased rations of these two nutrients are the reason why. Furthermore, the low CN ratio of high protein waste decays more slowly and is more likely to become incorporated in the sediment to accumulate. To whatever extent this happens, the nutrients are then more bioavailable to Macrophytes than to phytoplankton.


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
In order to get the same amount of healthy fish flesh, more low quality feed is necessary. That means more fish poop. To what extent the fish poo from low quality feed differs from high quality is an interesting question. The impression I've gotten from Purina & Optimal is that their high protein feeds cause fewer excess fertility issues, not more. Any research on this?

Last edited by anthropic; 05/03/22 09:24 AM.

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
Originally Posted by anthropic
In order to get the same amount of healthy fish flesh, more low quality feed is necessary.

This may not necessarily be true. In part it depends on the how effectively the wastes can be utilized by fish. Depending on the fish, some of waste can be consumed and result in gain. TP are fairly efficient converters of their poop. But BG aren't going to doing a lot of poop eating. Whether poop is a stable organic (will persist as a very slowly
decaying organic material in pond soils CN ratio less than 8 ) depends largely on the amount carbon in the residue. High protein feed are already stable in terms of CN ratio and will not decay as fast a feeds that have CN ratios > 8. In fact, what you may consider low protein feed is supplemented with additional carbon (think sugar or starch) in order to reduce ammonia and facilitate the recycling of waste nutrients into the food chain. The additional carbon isn't added to the feed ... it is added to the whole pond and this makes additional food for the fish.


That means more fish poop. To what extent the fish poo from low quality feed differs from high quality is an interesting question.

Ask yourself "Why would the carbon, nitrogen, calcium, sulfur, and phosphorus be any different in one feed than another?" All that is different of each of these nutrients is their proportions in the poop. The elements themselves are identical.

The impression I've gotten from Purina & Optimal is that their high protein feeds cause fewer excess fertility issues, not more. Any research on this?

To what extent is your impression influenced by opinions and sales jargon published here? Researchers don't make brand comparisons. They look at nutrients and judge things without considering brands. None of the brands publish ingredients so you can have no confidence even the next bag is identical to the last. In the end, its protein %, phosphorous %. There is not much else affecting N and P in wastes.

Last edited by jpsdad; 05/03/22 09:02 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: 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
A lot in this thread to digest. Here is a link to info Mark Griffin (phd ) who worked for Purina posted some time back.

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
















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

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
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.


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."

2 members like this: jpsdad, ewest
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 13,443
Likes: 126
Moderator
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Lunker
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 13,443
Likes: 126
Originally Posted by Billy Bates
So you’re advocating for cheaper, lower nutritional feed as an overall better option? Am I understanding you correctly ?
You may be understanding jpsdad correctly. Have him tell you what he feeds in his own ponds.

Personally, I'm not going back from high protein feed. That's after a couple of years of first feeding Game Fish Chow.


"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
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




Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 3,308
Likes: 72
Editor, Pond Boss Magazine
Lunker
Offline
Editor, Pond Boss Magazine
Lunker
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 3,308
Likes: 72
What a great thread!

I'll chime in as well. First off, I started consulting/working/learning with Purina Mills as an advisor and field test guy in 1995. Back then, all they really had was 32% Catfish Chow. We sent a letter to Purina, asking them to advertise in Pond Boss back then, and received a phone call from one of their top guys back then. They wanted to meet. "Yes, we want to advertise in Pond Boss, but we'd also like to meet with you. We see the pond management business as a growing industry and would like to help design products specifically for that niche. We met, (I'll save the entertaining part of this story for an article in the magazine, or around the campfire one of these days) and spent a couple of days in the field, looking at lakes and some of the fish I'd been growing for clients. From that meeting, Game Fish Chow was spawned. It became one of their staple sales throughout the nation. Still is. It's a grain-based fish food. I started using it with quite a few clients. Bluegills ate it, grew well, or so I thought. From 1995 until around 2005, I saw lots and lots of 1 lb bluegills, with the best ones pushing to 1.25 pounds. I did this with trophy bass lakes, bass-crowded lakes, big ponds, little ponds. Results were consistent. The biggest bluegills hit a pound to pound and a quarter.

In 2005, started working with Dr. Mark Griffin, who I'd known for a few years. He was ready to ramp up the AquaMax line of products and make them more nutritionally complete. That was also the time I started working with Richmond Mill Lake. I knew that lake would get zero help from any natural food chain, so we made the conscious decision to make the fish dependent of fish food. Some of what we saw was expected. Some wasn't.

In that lake, after it was drained, renovated, and restocked, we faithfully fed the fish AquaMax, under Mark's and my guidance. Mark made several trips there where we'd sample fish and analyze them. I also had several other ponds and lakes under management, as did several other guys Mark trusted, where he'd analyze fish as he refined the diet. Over several years, Mark would refine the diet, tweaking the amount of fish meal, adjusting the vitamin package, fine-tuning the ingredients to best match the metabolic needs of bluegills and feed-trained bass.

In Year 3 of Richmond Mill Lake, owner Jim Morgan texted me a picture of a two-pound bluegill. I don't think he realized how big of a deal that was. It didn't take long for him to recognize it. Over the next decade of my involvement there, that lake cranked out literally hundreds of two-pound-plus bluegills. Then, we started seeing some knocking on the door of three pounds. By Year 6, Bruce Condello had caught two over three pounds. I have a photo of one on certified scales that was 3 pounds, 4 ounces. Several of the guides at that lake also caught several bigger than 3.

As all this was happening, I encouraged several other clients, and many, many others that weren't clients, to use AquaMax products. I can't tell you how many bluegills I've seen well beyond two pounds

There is no doubt in my mind those fish grew so large because of that fish food. No doubt.

To further the direction of this thread, I also used AquaMax products in my personal ponds. Two of those ponds were 1/10 acre hatchery ponds. Most of the moderators have seen/been in those ponds. Over a span of 6 straight years, I confirmed conversion rates of 1.3 pounds of fish food per pound of gain. Sure, there was natural food there, but at the end of each season, we'd harvest, weigh, and count all the fish, all size classes, and I'd sell most of them to stock new ponds for clients. Each year, the yield was a little different regarding head count (recruitment wasn't totally predictable), but the feed conversion rate was.

With 42 years of pond management, feeding fish, dealing with aquatic plants, water quality, water chemistry, and seeing the results, I have zero doubt the higher protein feeds are much, much better, much more digestible, cranking out less waste than any of the the grain-based fish foods. Further, from the higher protein, fish-meal based fish feeds, I've see interesting upticks in aquatic insects and periphtyon. Dragonfly, damselflies, and other aquatic insects seem to indirectly benefit from well-fed lakes.

Yes, there are other variables such as fish population dynamics, but this thread is about feeding fish and quality of fish food.

As Forrest Gump may have said, "That's about all I have to say about that".

Have a great weekend.


Teach a man to grow fish...
He can teach to catch fish...
7 members like this: SherWood, 4CornersPuddle, DrLuke, Snipe, Billy Bates, anthropic
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 4
Likes: 1
D
Offline
D
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 4
Likes: 1
Late to reply as I had to create a shortcut to convert photos from iPad . Here are some of my pond fish on 32% catfish. I know aquamax is better and may feed some in future but you can grow some pretty nice fish even on 32%.

Attached Images
IMG_1541-2.gif (195.41 KB, 519 downloads)
IMG_1492-3.gif (252.89 KB, 530 downloads)
1 member likes this: jpsdad
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,282
Likes: 93
D
Moderator
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Lunker
D
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,282
Likes: 93
Good looking fish Doc.


It's not about the fish. It's about the pond. Take care of the pond and the fish will be fine. PB subscriber since before it was in color.

Without a sense of urgency, Nothing ever gets done.

Boy, if I say "sic em", you'd better look for something to bite. Sam Shelley Rancher and Farmer Muleshoe Texas 1892-1985 RIP
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,626
Likes: 222
J
Offline
J
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,626
Likes: 222
Great fish Dogdoc. Nice color on this male BG.

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

Last edited by jpsdad; 05/10/22 08:54 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: Apr 2002
Posts: 14,324
Likes: 191
B
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
B
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 14,324
Likes: 191
That very nice bluegill in my experience would have been a bigger fish(BG) if using higher protein food. No easy, simple convenient way to measure the excess food / manure waste and excess plant growing nutrients when using original 32% protein vs higher 40%+ protein feed. Not enough good practical research has been published on this topic.

My associate at a high quality indoor fish growing facility operated with pure oxygen says he sees less fish manure, measurably better water quality, healthier fish, fewer fish deaths, and better resulting fish growth when using the best quality fish food that he can find. End cost for him in the end is better with better quality feed. Over the last few years he has used various fish food brands in his indoor facility. The current brand he uses is 48%protein 18% fat as his larger finish size pellet and this produces the best results from numerous comparisons and "out the door profit and results". This food brand can produce 14" walleye at one year old. No doubt in my mind that BG in the above picture could have been grown with best methods in just 2.5 years or less with better high quality food. In the end it is all about ones GOALS for the fishery.

Last edited by Bill Cody; 05/11/22 10:09 AM.

aka Pond Doctor & Dr. Perca Read Pond Boss Magazine -
America's Journal of Pond Management
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,626
Likes: 222
J
Offline
J
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,626
Likes: 222
Originally Posted by Bill Cody
.... No easy, simple convenient way to measure the excess food / manure waste and excess plant growing nutrients when using original 32% protein vs higher 40%+ protein feed...


It is easy to calculate. BG are 80.5% water what remains is proportioned nutrient properties. Analyses I have read put protein% of the dry weight around 72% and phosphorus between 2.5% and 3%. So if you know how much it grew you can make an estimate of what dry weight of the gain is protein and what is phosphorus.

If the FCR of a 42% feed is 1.5 then 1.5 lbs of feed gains 1 lb of wet BG of which .195 lbs is the dry matter of the fish. The rest is water. If 72% of the .195 lbs is protein then .1404 lbs of the BG's 1 lb gain is dry matter protein. To gain this .1404 lbs of dry matter protein ... the BG ate 1.5 *.42 = .63 lbs of dry matter protein. So the BG eats 4.5 times the weight of protein that it gains. All the rest is waste. The protein assimilation efficiency at 1.5 FCR is roughly 22.2% the consumption. If the FCR of a 42% feed is 1.8 it is only 18.6% efficient. To really understand the efficiency on that first pass .. one must clear wastes and not allow them to generate food or be consumed again, only then will the direct single pass FCR be understood. I recall Kenny sharing that in clean water tanks with water exchange his best FCR with YP was around 2.2. But YP may be more dry matter dense than BG so that conversion factor could be better than just the number might otherwise suggest.

We can do a similar estimate of the assimilation of phosphorus. The .195 lbs of BG dry matter gain will contain 3% phosphorus or .00585 lbs and the BG will consume 1.5 *.01 = .015 lbs of phosphorus in a 1% phosphorus feed. So assimilation efficiency is around 33% for a feed that converts at 1.5 to 1 and is 1% phosphorus.

So the point is we don't have catch and measure the pooh in order to understand how much waste there is. We only need to know what goes in the fish... and to know what stays in the fish ... to understand what exits the fish.

Last edited by jpsdad; 05/11/22 08:28 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 2004
Posts: 13,443
Likes: 126
Moderator
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Lunker
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 13,443
Likes: 126
You could tell a Nobel Prize winning nuclear physicist how to make cold fusion work.


"Live like you'll die tomorrow, but manage your grass like you'll live forever."
-S. M. Stirling
[Linked Image from i.pinimg.com]
1 member likes this: jludwig
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,415
Likes: 174
A
Online Content
A
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,415
Likes: 174
Originally Posted by Theo Gallus
You could tell a Nobel Prize winning nuclear physicist how to make cold fusion work.

Maybe pond owners should stick to fission. whistle

1 member likes this: FishinRod
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,626
Likes: 222
J
Offline
J
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,626
Likes: 222
This isn't nuclear physics at all Theo. It's materials balance, what is taught in Jr High science classes across the country. Here are some examples

Water in Pipe = leaks + water at exit

Equity = Assets - liabilities

Food Eaten = Food assimilated + Food waste products

which is equivalent to:

Food waste products = Food Eaten - Food assimilated

No practical means to know how much is wasted and how it affects the nutrient pool? Rather than this response I would expect something more along the lines of "Hey I never thought of it that way" or "Ahh yes, we can know how much waste there is".


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
I marvel at what it must be like in your brain JPs-dad. Everything in smooth categories, lots of neat folders, each with a few pages in each, wide aisles and straight hallways. Every equation with only 2 or 3 variables. Everything is as easy now as it was in junior high. I'm not being facetious, truly there are people like that and I envy them. I work with some people like that where they excel in committee meetings as it is so simple/clearcut in their mind that the answer comes immediately and without hesitation.

In my mind it seems that every decision has at least 10 immediate variables to consider and then as soon as I try to consider those there are 10 more and then I start down this path and there are so many branches off that branch that I hardly dare continue. Usually I find so many ways to look at the issue that I realize a solution is not possible but a 'scenario' to try out next is about the best I can come up with.

I love your posts, just often get lost. Maybe that is what Theo feels like too.

1 member likes this: anthropic
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,626
Likes: 222
J
Offline
J
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,626
Likes: 222
canyon,

I see a statement like "No easy, simple convenient way to measure the excess food / manure waste and excess plant growing nutrients when using original 32% protein vs higher 40%+ protein feed."

and if didn't know any better I would think, "Oh OK". It's coming from an authority.

Bill's a PhD and I very much respect that.

Even so, it doesn't mean he isn't overlooking practical and effective method that would produce just as valid a determination. I think, or at least I hope, Bill will respond with affirmation. I would like to think he would want to know and possibly apply such a method. I offered it in hopes he would reconsider his position on it. There is too much sensitivity over things I contribute that is in disagreement. There is also to much misconstruing or misinterpreting what I say. I am not trying to say to folks they should feed the catfish feed to BG. Not true. No one should take that away. I consider the question of which is most efficient on equal cost or equal protein to be open. It depends on evidence that extra carbon in the lower protein feed assists nutrient recycling of the wastes allowing more of the equal quantities protein to be metabolized (ultimately). Even so, greater efficiency on the first pass may still keep a higher protein feed ahead.

I think its great that Dogdoc1 showed up to demonstrate that catfish feed isn't going to stunt anyone's fish like the one in esshup's photo. Glad Dogdoc1's photo is out there. But I can't say whether that BG even ate the feed, maybe Dogdoc1 could, but like me Bill can't either. Not every BG gets feed unless one is feeding a substantial amount of it. What I noticed in the pic (beyond the great BG) was that he has rich water and so even if the 32% isn't converting as efficiently ... the secondary effect of his feeding is plainly visible in the picture as a vibrant bloom. For all we know, that BG grew that big on the food chain in his water. Bill may be right that it could have been bigger if he had fed the higher protein feed but on an equal Nitrogen basis (something that is proportional to protein %) he should pause and in bold letters state it needs additional research. Which is all I have been trying to say.

Anyways, I mentioned if I didn't know better ... but the facts are that I haven't always known. Just a year or so ago I bought the arguments that harvest was a viable means of removing feed nutrients hook line and sinker. After all, there are nutrients in fish and one is taking them out. But after careful study on the matter, I changed my mind in the light of evidence and principles of conservation which cannot be invalidated. So the question I might pose to you, Theo, Bill, and everyone else. Are you offended that I learned this? Or can you also change as did I by learning with me and being content with what was learned?


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


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
"I love your posts, just often get lost. Maybe that is what Theo feels like too."


Always a tough call to know what someone is thinking....


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: Oct 2018
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 255
S
Online Happy
S
Joined: Oct 2018
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 255
I think there are certain figures that we can use in these equations that lead to somewhat accurate expectations.
There are also factors in the water body that will affect growth-differently-in every pond/lake environment.
To assume it is an exact number that will be repeatable is where we have problems and make bad assumptions. Science only goes so far and there are and always will be "things" happening in an aquatic environment that we may never understand completely.
Every spring during WAE egg-take we have 10-12 guys in the same cabin every night and most are high level biologists and I get to be the sponge, soaking up everything I can in the conversations and sometimes it gets really deep. The conclusions to most of the conversations lead back to the same place nearly every time... there are things we will never know for sure and Bill's suggestion of more studying and research being needed is in my opinion, spot-on.

Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,415
Likes: 174
A
Online Content
A
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,415
Likes: 174
Originally Posted by canyoncreek
I marvel at what it must be like in your brain JPs-dad. Everything in smooth categories, lots of neat folders, each with a few pages in each, wide aisles and straight hallways. Every equation with only 2 or 3 variables. Everything is as easy now as it was in junior high. I'm not being facetious, truly there are people like that and I envy them. I work with some people like that where they excel in committee meetings as it is so simple/clearcut in their mind that the answer comes immediately and without hesitation.

In my mind it seems that every decision has at least 10 immediate variables to consider and then as soon as I try to consider those there are 10 more and then I start down this path and there are so many branches off that branch that I hardly dare continue. Usually I find so many ways to look at the issue that I realize a solution is not possible but a 'scenario' to try out next is about the best I can come up with.

I love your posts, just often get lost. Maybe that is what Theo feels like too.

There are no solutions, only tradeoffs. That's why I like observational evidence to verify theories & models of complex phenomena.

Last edited by anthropic; 05/13/22 01:49 AM.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,975
Likes: 11
S
Ambassador
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Lunker
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,975
Likes: 11
Maybe it just depends upon one's level of involvement. Sometimes, good enough is just that..... good enough.

"Do regular BG have the ultimate potential to outgrow HBG?" ...... Yep. Will that matter in the majority of 1/2 acre backyard ponds under minimal management? No? Maybe?

"Will stainless screws last longer in my dock than regular screws?"...... Yep. Are you building the dock for you, to enjoy during your lifetime, or is it to be a monument for the ages, marveled at by curious visitors 300 years from now?

"Is feeding higher quality, more expensive fish food better for my fish and my pond?"...... most likely. Is growing quantities of BG to one pound plus on cheaper feed with minimal expenditure acceptable? Yes? Maybe?


"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"

If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1)
And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1)
Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT?
PB answer: It depends.
3 members like this: 4CornersPuddle, tubguy, anthropic
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,415
Likes: 174
A
Online Content
A
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,415
Likes: 174
Risk assessment plays a role here as well. A highly fertile pond may be at greater risk of a fish kill with lower quality feed. To be fair, even high quality feed might increase this risk somewhat due to larger numbers of fish, assuming that harvest is too low.

While some things seem pretty clear, there's no getting around It Depends!


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
Originally Posted by anthropic
There are no solutions, only tradeoffs. That's why I like observational evidence to verify theories & models of complex phenomena.

Where you are wrong Frank is that there is no verification of theories ... only falsification. No such thing as evidence of or proof of theoretical ideas. Matter conservation is theoretical principal that has never been falsified yet never proven.

The advantage to the approach that I offered for quantifying the wastes as a practical method of budgeting and tracking nutrient addition is that it relies on more reliable evidence. The evidence of dry matter gain which is much better metric that is more easily measured than waste. Aside from the obvious problems of collecting pooh ... a fair percentage of the waste is in molecular form. For example, some of the protein fuels the process of assimilation and upon extracting the energy the byproducts of CO2 and ammonia are released in molecular form. These are in solution and would have to be measured independently and are not in the pooh at all. In daylight, the CO2 is rapidly scavenged but the ammonia can persist. Anyways, relying on the metric (EVIDENCE) of FCR and the nutrients proportions most commonly EVIDENT for a species is a very practical estimate with acceptable uncertainty. That there is uncertainty is immaterial as an argument against a solution or method. My example suggests a range of 18% to 22% assimilation. Anyone who would argue for example that this uncertainty invalidates the range of expectations is just obstructing an appropriate application of EVIDENCE. Anyone who might suggest the lack of measurement in the estimate claiming, for example, that the assimilation could be 35, 50, or 70% for all we know .... Well that individual is a crank of the highest order with absolutely no respect for evidence or the principle of material conservation. The method makes a practical estimate that would be useful for anyone budgeting/tracking nutrients.

In the application of scientific principles, we often take metrics that are established from prior conducted experiments and apply theoretical models to solve practical problems. The reason this is acceptable ... is because we don't know of evidence falsifying the theory but have found evidence to be consistent with it with acceptable uncertainty. Where it comes to nutrient budgets, these have been practiced in planted crops for a long time where the objective is to maintain soil fertility and crop production. But the crop is the primary production and that is all we are trying to grow. Its an annual thing. A pond hosting an biome year after year serving as sink of nutrients is much more complex and in most cases doesn't need nutrient addition to replace what is harvested. Particularly Nitrogen, which in most areas of the eastern US deposits at 10 to 15 lbs per acre per year just from precipitation. This is enough nitrogen to supply the nitrogen proportion of 312 lbs of BG. This contribution is small relative to nitrogen that is fixed by bacteria and so we don't need any help from feed when it comes to nutrient accumulation, it will happen anyway.

Also BTW, there is evidence that addition of carbon reduces ammonia and improves FCR ... this is documented. You should read up on it.

Last edited by jpsdad; 05/13/22 04:01 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 2004
Posts: 13,443
Likes: 126
Moderator
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Lunker
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 13,443
Likes: 126
Originally Posted by jpsdad
This isn't nuclear physics at all Theo.
If it was, you'd still have all the 1000 word answers for the experts.


"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
Originally Posted by Theo Gallus
Originally Posted by jpsdad
This isn't nuclear physics at all Theo.
If it was, you'd still have all the 1000 word answers for the experts.
Not so, completely false.

The truth is that if I have a few words of truth that contradict your thoughts I can always count on few words of insult from you. Right?


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
Originally Posted by jpsdad
Originally Posted by anthropic
There are no solutions, only tradeoffs. That's why I like observational evidence to verify theories & models of complex phenomena.

Where you are wrong Frank is that there is no verification of theories ... only falsification. No such thing as evidence of or proof of theoretical ideas.

There is no one standard demarcation of sufficient warrant for a scientific theory, jpsdad. While I agree that Popper's falsification criterion is attractive (indeed, I used to teach it in economics class), not every theory or idea can be falsified, even in principle. The fashionable theory of a multiverse is one good example. Causes of past events, like the end of the dinosaurs or the Cambrian Explosion of new body plans, are another.

My dad taught me that not all authorities had genuine expertise, so it was best to check their claims against the observational evidence. Indeed, certain kinds of errors tend to repeat, even among experts. That skeptical philosophy has served me well.

Last edited by anthropic; 05/13/22 03:46 PM.
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,877
Likes: 126
Moderator
Offline
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,877
Likes: 126
And then there's poor old fixed income retiree me. My big pond fluctuates between 8-11 acres, and I just put out my second bag of high quality fish food this year.

Growing large BG can be as easy as turning a feeding event into survival of the fittest. The aggressive BG will grow at an accelerated pace, and the timid ones will not. Daily observation shows me large numbers of approximately 6-8" BG retreating from the chaos. I never have seen a 10-12" BG miss a meal.

Not advice, just my observation.


AL

Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,415
Likes: 174
A
Online Content
A
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,415
Likes: 174
Now that's interesting, Al. I don't tend to see CNBG feeding correlate all that much with size at my place. What I do notice is that they sometimes wait a bit to see if another fish gets away with feeding on the surface. When one does, others are more willing to do the same.


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: Apr 2002
Posts: 14,324
Likes: 191
B
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
B
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 14,324
Likes: 191
Quote
I see a statement like "No easy, simple convenient way to measure the excess food / manure waste and excess plant growing nutrients when using original 32% protein vs higher 40%+ protein feed."

and if didn't know any better I would think, "Oh OK". It's coming from an authority.

In defending my comment, it had an emphasis on "No easy, simple convenient way to measure..."" although surely this has been done in an academic setting. Achieving a detailed fish food comparison analysis requires in-depth and detailed scientific method. Jpsdad solves the method or problem in theoretical and academic terms. I doubt that he has actually participated in the actual feeding study since he did not reference his journal published information. But for the general pond owner the food comparison quandary has to be basically a visual, and simple basic method such as esshup's pellet study of a few brands of fish food.

PS - there is no dissertation behind or supporting my academic degree.

Last edited by Bill Cody; 05/13/22 03:43 PM.

aka Pond Doctor & Dr. Perca Read Pond Boss Magazine -
America's Journal of Pond Management
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,626
Likes: 222
J
Offline
J
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,626
Likes: 222
Originally Posted by anthropic
.... While I agree that Popper's falsification criterion is attractive (indeed, I used to teach it in economics class), not every theory or idea can be falsified, even in principle. .

Yeah. I don't call that science. That's metaphysics. A theory must be expressible in the language of mathematics and it must predict the outcomes of experiments that if not in agreement would falsify it.

Quote
... it (is) best to check their claims against the observational record.

Can't find any fault there, that is exactly what I did.


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
Bill, I am glad you responded. No need to defend your position. Measuring wastes is problematic because of all forms waste takes. Measuring the FCR and %dry weight is far less problematic. I see I didn't win you over to the idea that its a good approach to understanding waste contributions from feeding and feed conversion efficiency. Meanwhile you may dwell on it and perhaps you will warm up to the idea after further contemplation.


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
Al, a big BG has to be eating and not missing many meals. Even so I have caught many BG over 10" that have not been fed feed. So the meals those BG weren't missing wasn't feed. What I haven't seen many of is BG > 11". I have caught a few of them though .... and one 12" in length. It's been my holy grail ever since.

There is a substantial difference between 10" and 12" ... nearly double the weight and double the maintenance required to support such a fish.


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 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