I stand by my recommendation ... that is ... if the trial is intended to benefit forum members. It is nonsensical to feed fish in a recreational pond to satiation. Nobody here does it. Everyone feeds fish a small proportion of what they are capable of eating. Usually only 1 to 2 lbs per surface acre ... sometimes less ... sometimes a little more. I'm not suggesting to you to starve the fish. Geez. The feed rate that I inoculated the SS with provides 61 lbs of feed to a starting weight of 4.36 lbs of fish over the course of 120 days. Let's put that into perspective. If you tried to do that in a 1 acre pond with standing weight of 150 lbs of bluegill you would feed 52 bags of feed for gods sake.
If you feed the fish to satiation you may discover which feed they will consume more of but you won't compare the feeds in terms of nutritional quality unless you feed both treatments the same quantity of feed ... every day ... making no exceptions. Truth is, the trial prove nothing about what members can expect from typical feeding regimens. The fish are caged will be fed an astronomically higher proportion of feed than they would ever get in any members pond.
Bump. I'll respond to your questions.
1. Do we feed until fish stop consuming? If so, what if they WANT to consume more of one feed than another.
I think, as I mentioned before, that this would lead to better FCR. There is much evidence supporting this effect. It takes so much to maintain ... the rest can go to gain. This improves FCR. As I mentioned before ... this is important for commercial production because it increases production for marginally lower costs. But it makes no difference in a recreational pond where a member is feeding below satiation. You will skew FCR in the favor of the most palatable feed
2. If we go by % of body weight, again, how do we know they won't eat more (or less) of one brand than the other?
We don't. But it doesn't matter. No one feeds that much anyway.
Last edited by jpsdad; 05/22/21 10:12 PM.
