Pond Boss Forums MANAGING AN EXISTING POND Feeding Feed trial experiment

I am very interested in the results of the trial as are many of us Snipe. You've done very well to keep us informed and I appreciate your patience with my misunderstandings. I will mention that you are treading some deep water. It is not common in the scientific world to do comparisons of popular brands. This is probably in part due to support industry provides to science.

Were I one of the manufactures what would concern me most is the availability of my feed to the caged fish. For example, I wouldn't want any of my feed to sink through the cage and be uneaten. I would want my sample to float and be fully consumed.

I will mention a few other things.

Now I am interested in knowing whether there would be any difference in gains between the round pelleted Optimal and the standard shapes. Particularly whether shape might contribute to consumption. I am also interested in whether the round pellets may be available to public at large.

One of the things that improves FCR is the quantity of food consumed. One can easily imagine just feeding enough to maintain a weight of fish where there is an FCR of zero at no fault of the feed's potential for conversion. So the SGR (specific growth rate) provided by any feed is a function also of the feed consumed daily as a ratio of fish weight. Given that we normally only supplement feed to fish that are primarily feeding on pond organisms, it is important that weights fed to each treatment are identical. For someone growing fish commercially at densities dependent on feed, if fish will satiate after eating more of particular feed, that can result in more gain and better FCR due to greater specific consumption of feed which improves efficiency. For commercial production, this effect would be important but doesn't not affect the results of limited feeding provided that lack a palatability doesn't result in unconsumed feed. Fish that were prior fed one feed may find that feed more palatable but unless this prevents the feed (the feed not prior fed) from being eaten the specific consumption would still be same when equal weights of feed are fed.

Pellet sizes are important I think. Eric has mentioned research of an optimum ratio of gape to pellet affecting consumption of pellets. But as long as each feed is fully consumed then the relative difference in pellet size should not be a big factor. (How much energy does it take to catch and swallow a pellet?)

I'll mention that you also need a control. This would be a cage where an otherwise identical treatment fish are kept and not fed. A cage will provide structure that will attract shelter seeking pond organisms (eg BNM and FHM and other organisms). These will be food for the caged fish. To have a really good sense of the effect of feed, one needs to subtract the natural contributions of pond organisms. It may surprise you that unfed caged TP can grow remarkably to weights large enough to harvest. It requires rich water and some level of flow through but you get the idea. Good science requires adequate experimental control.

Placement of cages could have impacts on the supply of pond organisms. Two factors I think will impact this particularly. I think the prevailing wind will concentrate pond organisms on the downwind sides. Placement of the control between the other two cages might also compromise the controls results if there is not adequate space between the cages. There may be some unwanted effect of cage placement after you have made your best effort. It goes with the territory.

I will close by saying this. I would be more interested in the manufactures being transparent about the ingredients in the formulation than in whether one feed produces more gain than the other in this trial. I get the whole proprietary trade secrets thingy ... so wouldn't even ask .. however. Personally, I will not let the results influence my decisions about feed independently of other considerations. I think both are good feeds and will produce comparable gains provided the consumption is equal. I also value cost/benefit, convenience, service, friendliness, and other factors so these are also very important attributes that are also important to me.