Interesting read for those who feed fish multiple times a day

[Aquamojo]

While I agree that most aquarium fish are overfed, the frequency and amount that you feed them isn't the same for all species.

Ironically, one of the key points that Anton Lamboj made yesterday when he presented at our club meeting was that overfeeding is a key cause of death for Pelvicachromis (kribs). In nature, they consume micro-organisms out of the substrate...so a bite is 80-90% dirt/leaf litter and 10% "food"...but it all goes into their gut.

He started feeding for two days and skipping one and allowing algae and mulm (leaf litter to build up in his tanks). He sees the fish grazing on the sponge filters, mattenfilters, etc. on the days that he doesn't feed. And - most importantly - his "kribs" tend to live for a decade or more...

I will read the whole paper

Matt

I do agree with Matt and a few others. Most aquarium fish are overfed. IN fact, I've been mulling over the death of my zonatum. Suddenly and without warning. And I would have classified him as a "fat" fish. I honestly can't say I over fed him...but ultimately DID feed him too much. All of my fish get fed once a day five days a week...the exception being grow outs. They get a full seven days and couple days a week two feedings. A feeding might last a a couple minutes...making sure I see everyone get something at a minimum. Fry get fed twice a day.

I read the original posted article and, from what I could understand, it was interesting. I think one of the biggest problem hobbyists have...and I'm included...is that we don't truly know the complexity of the species diet....forget amount for a second. And even if you did, most people house multiple species in the same tank...assuring you couldn't guarantee a specialized diet. Wayne Leibel was talking about fish behavior and diet and made a comment. He said that you never really know what (if any)the trigger might be that gets a fish to breed. It's possible that there is a specific food that it eats in nature that is missing and affecting the fish. Might not only apply to breeding...maybe general health. I do the best I can trying to understand what's important when it comes down to proteins vs. carbs with the various species..and I do have a lot of tanks with only one species...so it's a little easier to divvy it out. But I don't get down to any nitty gritty analysis. Just a variety for all.

I do have to say that the comment about "Mental stimulation and even a bit of bonding going on as well." is simply making an anthropomorphic observation. Those are human characteristics that really can't be measured or proven. "Bonding" is simple conditioned response. THe only "mental stimulation" is on behalf of the people feeding them. Take a look at a lot of dog or cat owners. They give treats to the dogs not because they need it...but it makes them feel good to have the interaction. The dog develops a conditioned response...I whine he gives me a cookie...and pretty soon you have a foot stool with four legs. I do believe the same applies with the fish.

 

[HULON]

Very Interesting read for sure ...As far as raising Cichla fry 100%% guilty over feeding as they reach adult over 15 inches into 18+ and a couple years up to three years i feed only a couple times a week and they are perfectly happy with that and not feeding for a couple days looking at the fish you honestly could not tell they have went without ...

 

[flowerpower]

Well, a valid observation nontheless. It's moderation vs overindulgence.
Mo, you've owned two of the most iconic specimens in the hobby (Jumbo and Blue). You've shot plenty of fish but these two stuck in everyone's mind. They were big, fat and beautiful and they lived a long, pampered life, no?



Sent from my LG-MS910 using MonsterAquariaNetwork App

 

[RD.]

I think one of the biggest problem hobbyists have...and I'm included...is that we don't truly know the complexity of the species diet....forget amount for a second.

While what you state is in many cases true, IMHO that has nothing to do with the vast amount of obese fish that we see in this hobby.

It's a rather simple equation, that is not always so simplistic to put into practice. Ideally you do not want the energy input, to exceed the energy output. A simple equation that applies to most life forms, including humans, dogs, etc as any excess energy gets stored as fat. Fat builds up in the tissue, and more importantly in & around vital organs such as the liver, and over the long haul it can diminish the overall health of the fish, and in severe cases cause premature death.


To quote Dr. Ruth Francis-Floyd, a professor at the U of Florida whom is considerd by many to be an expert on fish nutrition;

"Fatty infiltration of the liver has also been designated "the most common metabolic disturbance and most frequent cause of death in aquarium fish"

Perform a necropsy on a fish that has been overfed on a high energy diet and what you will typically find is fatty infiltration of the liver, heavy vacuolation, and severe necrosis of the liver, pancreas, and spleen. These types of conditions have been demonstrated in contolled feed trials using cichlids (both omnivores & carnivores) that were only a few months old, with the damage taking place within a 12 week feed trial.


IMO the entire promotion of "species specific" diets is a sham, perpetuated by certain portions of the industry who are in a position to cash in on the ignorance of consumers.

As an example, for decades Tropheus keepers felt that due to the intestinal length & long digestive process in that species, it should only be fed low protein "green" food, and that any amount of animal based protein could cause bloat. The industry was quick to jump on this, offering a plethora of green dyed flakes & pellets, specifically (cough-cough) designed for herbivorous species of cichlids.

Yet science has proven that in captive bred species of Tropheus the intestinal length can be half of what's found in wild specimens.

"Intestinal prolongation, although indicative of specialization on diets with low nutritional value, such as those of epilithic algae and detritus, has been shown to be highly plastic (Sturmbauer et al.1992). In Tropheus moorii the intestinal length of domestic fish measured only 50% of the length found in wild individuals (Sturmbauer et al. 1992)."

A more recent study that was published in 2009 demonstrates just how great intestinal plasticity can be in response to the diet quality of various species of cichlids found in Lake Tanganyika.

http://limnology.wisc.edu/personnel..._Functional-Ecology-LT-cichlid-gut-length.pdf


The above paper clearly demonstrates just how adaptive wild Rift Lake cichlids can be when it comes to their diet. As long as one feeds a quality food, and feeds that food in limited quantity, the overall diet will generally be a non issue.

Most cichlids were born to adapt.


One of the people that I respect most in this hobby is Chris Coleman (cchhcc), below is a quote from a post that he made a few years ago, which IMO was at that time, and still is, right on the money.

Regarding size in the wild, you won't see many cits with giant humps and fat guts swimming around........ Plenty in aquariums though! It's funny how "wild caught" fish are the craze when what most people really want isn't typical of a wild fish at all!

 

[Modest_Man]

• Feed less than you think necessary
• A couple times a week skip feeding entirely
• Feed sinking foods
• Feed smaller pellets

I find the information on captive bred species of Tropheus pretty interesting where their intestines have shortened up over time to deal with a higher quality diet. This is a prime example of selective breeding, even if the breeders were unaware of the process. Cichlids are great at adapting but it's not going to result in a 50% reduction over one spawning, so with wild fish dietary consideration is more important (as most people know).

The good news is that given time and an improved feeding regime the fatty deposits can be reduced/eliminated over time.

 

[Aquamojo]

IMO the entire promotion of "species specific" diets is a sham, perpetuated by certain portions of the industry who are in a position to cash in on the ignorance of consumers.

Don't get me wrong....I am not in any way saying anything about selling a species specific diet or anything someone might be pushing. I think that the commercialization of that is BS. I don't think anyone short of mother nature can get it 100% right. I agree with the statement about adaptability. But that is based more on surviving and not thriving.

Well, a valid observation nontheless. It's moderation vs overindulgence.
Mo, you've owned two of the most iconic specimens in the hobby (Jumbo and Blue). You've shot plenty of fish but these two stuck in everyone's mind. They were big, fat and beautiful and they lived a long, pampered life, no?

I've had several fish that lasted well over a decade. The Citrinellum 18 years, them managuense 13 years and the Zonatus 10. I hve a bumble bee catfish that is 22 years old. And I can tell you I NEVER think about what he' going to eat. I see him about every couple months in the large tank. Ultimately it has to do more with overall care than just diet. Blue was fat. I don't think I can say the same about the other two.

 

[RD.]

•Feed less than you think necessary
•A couple times a week skip feeding entirely
•Feed sinking foods
•Feed smaller pellets

I'm curious as to why you would specifically recommend sinking foods?
I'm quite certain that the nutrient quantity and/or quality isn't going to vary between sinking and floating, if the formula/recipe itself is the same.

Cichlids are great at adapting but it's not going to result in a 50% reduction over one spawning, so with wild fish dietary consideration is more important (as most people know).

I've kept my fair share of wild fish over the years, and dietary wise I have treated all of them the same way as I would those that were captive bred/raised.


I suggest you read the 2009 paper that I linked to in my last post.

A few select excerpts from that paper .........

Two major obstacles have prevented rigorous combined analysis of dietary and phylogenetic influences on gut length in animal taxa. First, it has been difficult to account
for the true complexity of animal diets using categorical characterizations. Previous studies have assigned species to discrete groups (e.g. algivores, invertivores, piscivores)
based on temporal snapshots of gut contents, but many species consume multiple types of food either concurrently or in response to changing resource availability (Fryer et al. 1972; McKaye & Marsh 1982). These food types differ substantially in their nutrient and energy content, and hence in their nutritional value to consumers (Bowen, Lutz & Ahlgren 1995; Sterner & Elser 2002). Thus, gut content based trophic designations may be poor reflections of long-term diet type and quality.

With regards to the intestinal length change in Tropheus, note they state "months" in the following comment, not generations, or years. These are "wild" cichlids, not captive bred.

We compared fish intestine lengths to algal data collected the previous year because a diet manipulation experiment indicates that Tropheus require months to alter their intestine length in response to dietary change (P.McIntyre&Y. Vadeboncoer, unpublished data).

Tropheus brichardi showed substantial variation in intestine length among the six study sites; intestine length ranged from 3-13 to 5-70 times body length (mean 4-37).

Digestive tissues are notoriously plastic in their responses to dietary change (Starck 1999). Plasticity in gut morphology has been observed in response to fasting, increases in food intake and changes in diet (e.g. Starck 1999; Naya, Karasov & Bozinovic 2007; Olsson et al. 2007).

And finally ...........

Our use of nitrogen isotope data to distill the complexity of tropical fish diets into a single axis of trophic position provides the first quantitative evidence that gut length varies in a continuous fashion as a function of diet.

These results suggest that intestine length in cichlids reflects a trade-off between maximizing nutrient and energy absorption and minimizing the energetic demands of digestive tissues.

The nutrient content, energy content and digestibility of food resources all influence the overall quality of an animal’s diet.

 

[dogofwar]

I tend to feed once or twice per day (usually skipping a day or two) during the week...and small portions more frequently on weekends. I try not to give more than what is immediately consumed...

Predators like pike get fed less often.

I also feed live (red wiggler worms) usually once or so per week.

It's still probably too much...

Matt

 

[carolinyens]

I feed my crappie once a day and drop pellets or shrimp in one at a time, let em chew it and when he starts lookin for another I drop another. When a minute or so is up thats it. Ive never had any problems but I typically only have wild caught natives in my tank so Im not sure how the metabolism on wild vs captive bred are. This might be an interesting study(which Im sure someone has already done).

 

[m1ste2tea]

I think a lot of overfeeding happens with not realizing that your fish are not juvenile fry anymore, and continuing to feed them in a fashion as if they were still growing out small fry. You feed them multiple times a day with the hope of seeing them grow fast. that same mentality can continue into the fish's adulthood. I was once guilty of this type of feeding. While keeping mbuna in a planted tank I used to give them a lot of food to prevent them from devouring my plants. Later on it was reversed, I didnt feed them too much, with the expectation that they would nibble on the plants if they were really hungry.