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?
