I have three functioning TH feeders on my BOW, spaced far apart. Sometimes I fill them with AquaMax, sometimes Optimal. Fish seem to love both about equally, so far as I can tell.
So the thought struck, why not pit one against the other? AM in one or two, Optimal in one or two. Observe fish feeding activity, and take creel surveys to see which area seems to do best. Heck, maybe even do a professional electrosurvey next fall for most reliable data!
Anybody tried this? If so, what were your results?
In addition to Snipe's concerns, there is the added complication that the feeders are spatially separated. The habitat and natural foods may not be equivalent at the different location. It could be that any favorable differences (particularly like those Snipe pointed out) are sourced to natural foods and not the feed at all. To be good science, there must be better control. For example:
1. Selecting equivalent numbers of equivalent sized fish.
2. Place them in cages in near proximity to limit natural food effects.
3. Feed them equivalently both in the weight of food but also in the size of pellets.
These treatment controls allow for a fairer comparison of the two feeds although even these are impractical for the multiyear and water quality effects that Snipe mentions.
Just as an aside. Were I feeding, I would favor a feed that produced lower RW fish of equivalent or greater gain. By this I mean that I would be more interested in producing lengthy frames than girth and I might even prefer a feed that produced less weight gain particularly when the length attribute is favorable and the relative cost/gain remains reasonable.
