Go to the main page of this section, at the top left there is a button titled "New Thread". Click on it, and post your title, and comment.
Best pellet mix up.
- Thread starter Fishnthehood
- Start date
- Status
RD.;4640457; said:
That study seemed iffy.
But, these studies are still just the immersion rate. Not the actual amount of nutrience your fish recieves because im sure 1/3, if not more, is still lost during chewing. So even with the densest of pellets, the water soluble vitamins are fouling the water considerably after chewing because the pellet is pretty much flake at that point anyway. Still its probably not counter productive because with better vitamin intake and better nutrients, the more tolerant fish are of water conditions. Which all in all is more likely a good thing. Im sure quality manufacturers take all that into consideration when formulating feeds.
Nothing iffy about those stats at all. It's not like people holding PhD's in this field are simply going around pulling random numbers out of their ass.
Seriously, think about it. The aquaculture industry is a global multi-billion industry, where the science is constantly evolving & being further fine tuned.
The only way that a scenario such as you descibed could take place, is if one was feeding pellets too large for the fish. Feeding an improper pellet size (along with overfeeding) is one of the biggest mistakes made by many hobbyists. They typically do so in the belief that the more a fish eats, the faster that it will grow. (only to a point)
Even with very large adult FH, the optimal pellet size is 1/8" (3mm). If/when the pellet has to be chewed to the extent that you described, then the pellet size is too large for the mouth of the fish. Only a tiny fraction of the pellets are expelled from chewing when I feed, I would guesstimate that 90-95% goes straight down the pipe. I have kept cichlids pushing 8-9", that ate 1mm pellets for years. The larger fish simply sucked them up in quantity, while the smaller fish in those tanks ate one pellet at a time.
In a group of fish where sizes vary greatly, you always feed a pellet that is best suited for the smallest fish in the group. Feeding 101 in commercial aquaculture, and the same rules apply in an aquarium setting.
This is exactly how fish are fed on large scale commercial operations, where reduced feed conversion ratios & correct pellet size can equal $100's of thousands of dollars in savings each year. Nothing is done randomly, ALL of the above & then some has been fine tuned over the past 50+ years. Not that there isn't room for improvement, there most certainly is, but it's not all by guess or by golly either.
If one is feeding correctly, your concern about water fouling from vitamin loss is a moot point. Fouling ones tank water from nitrogen waste from overfeeding should be a FAR greater concern for most hobbyists, but even that can be kept in check by performing regular water changes. Most nitrogen is excreted as ammonia (NH3) by the gills of fish, and only approx. 10% is lost as soilid waste. Hence a tank with very high nitrates may appear to be clean & clear, but in actuality the fish is swimming in it's own waste.
Seriously, think about it. The aquaculture industry is a global multi-billion industry, where the science is constantly evolving & being further fine tuned.
The only way that a scenario such as you descibed could take place, is if one was feeding pellets too large for the fish. Feeding an improper pellet size (along with overfeeding) is one of the biggest mistakes made by many hobbyists. They typically do so in the belief that the more a fish eats, the faster that it will grow. (only to a point)
Even with very large adult FH, the optimal pellet size is 1/8" (3mm). If/when the pellet has to be chewed to the extent that you described, then the pellet size is too large for the mouth of the fish. Only a tiny fraction of the pellets are expelled from chewing when I feed, I would guesstimate that 90-95% goes straight down the pipe. I have kept cichlids pushing 8-9", that ate 1mm pellets for years. The larger fish simply sucked them up in quantity, while the smaller fish in those tanks ate one pellet at a time.
In a group of fish where sizes vary greatly, you always feed a pellet that is best suited for the smallest fish in the group. Feeding 101 in commercial aquaculture, and the same rules apply in an aquarium setting.
This is exactly how fish are fed on large scale commercial operations, where reduced feed conversion ratios & correct pellet size can equal $100's of thousands of dollars in savings each year. Nothing is done randomly, ALL of the above & then some has been fine tuned over the past 50+ years. Not that there isn't room for improvement, there most certainly is, but it's not all by guess or by golly either.
If one is feeding correctly, your concern about water fouling from vitamin loss is a moot point. Fouling ones tank water from nitrogen waste from overfeeding should be a FAR greater concern for most hobbyists, but even that can be kept in check by performing regular water changes. Most nitrogen is excreted as ammonia (NH3) by the gills of fish, and only approx. 10% is lost as soilid waste. Hence a tank with very high nitrates may appear to be clean & clear, but in actuality the fish is swimming in it's own waste.
I thought pellets were extruded?RD.;4640946; said:
The graph isnt very informative. There should be a retention level for each feed at intervals. There are such gaps and im guessing "-" means not present.
There seems to be no rythme or reason for the retention values. Like how pellet shrimp retain 100% vitamin E in 2 hours and extruded salmon is at 68% in 2 minutes. What could be the reasoning behind this?
Also, I just cant see a water soluble vitamin retaining up to 91% after being soaked for 2 hours. So I dont know where these PhD holders are pulling these numbers from, but it doesnt seem like studies, Or maybee I am misunderstanding.
3mm is very small for big fish. Understandable for expensive enhancer foods and what have you, But even the Hikari gold mini-pellets, Which is one of their smallest feeds is over 3mm in diameter. Yes it might be optimal, But nobody feeds a fish over 6in. on 3mm. Its just more water pollution. Ive always just target fed smaller fish smaller pellets and the big guys leave them alone. I understand this is not practicle In hatcheries/farms.RD.;4640946; said:
All multi-billion dollar companies cut corners. They "improve" on finding cheaper methods of sustainable proteins. Man, Dont even get me started on why I dispise aquaculture. Yes, It does take a bit of pressure off the wild specie, Considering under 10% of predatory fish, like marlins/tuna and what have you, are left compared to 50 years ago!RD.;4640946; said:
As well as the 15:1 feed conversion ratio it takes to produce 1 lb of not so healthy or tasty fish. Plus the amount of pollution these things crank out. I think some farms fish diet consists to up to 30% chicken too. How inefficient is that?
The point of that graph was simply to point out the vitamin retention values of a typical extruded trout/salmon pellet - much like what one would typically see in most tropical fish pellets. The numbers you posted are way off, even rather extreme for most flake food.
Not all pellets are extruded, there are also "steamed" pellets which I can only assume is what the shrimp pellets were in the last column.
Crustacean/shrimp pellets are typically steamed under a great deal of compression, which makes for a very dense, hard pellet. They also use special binding agents to assist in nutrient retention, as well as extra vitamin fortification as they know that many nutrients will be lost to the water before the shrimp consume all of the feed. (most crustaceans are very slow eaters compared to finfish) These types of pellets can be almost as hard as a rock, and take a very long time before they soften on the inside. But I'm not a "shrimp" person, and have very little knowledge on the subject so don't ask me to elaborate any further.
3mm pellets are not small for big fish, and thousands (perhaps millions?) of hobbyists feed fish over 6 inches 1-3mm pellets. When I was a mod on cichlid-forum.com, a large portion of that site fed African haps that were 10+ inches, 3mm pellets, some even fed them 1mm pellets, exclusively.
I've seen plenty of 12+ inch frontosa that have never eaten a pellet larger than 3mm.
Here's a great post by cchhcc on that subject, with regards to large CA cichlids.
http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=319153
Then take a close look at some of cchhcc's CA's and tell me if they look nutrient starved to you?
http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=203143
One of the FH "mascots" at a local Big Al's is one the largest FH I have ever seen up close, an absolute monster, and they feed that fish 3mm NLS pellets as its daily staple.
How do you figure that feeding a large fish, a smaller pellet, equates to more water pollution? I feed each of my larger fish a pellet or two at a time, and trust me, there is almost zero waste. As I said previously, 90-95% goes straight down the pipe. If the odd pellet makes it by them (if I toss 3 or 4 in at a time for the bigger fish) they simply swim down & suck them back like a fat kid eating M&M's.
I certainly won't argue with your last comment, indeed the aquaculture industry as a whole is always looking for ways to SAVE costs, not ways to increase costs. My point was simply that there are thousands of nutrition studies involving millions of dollars worth in grants, and not all of these studies are performed strictly for commercial aquaculture purposes such as the salmon/trout industry, so don't be so damn cynical.
All joking aside, some of the research in the past 20 years has been pretty interesting stuff, and at the end of the day these discoveries help our pets live a longer healthier life in captivity. After all, we're the ones playing God & putting them into a glass cage, not the billion dollar companies.
Not all pellets are extruded, there are also "steamed" pellets which I can only assume is what the shrimp pellets were in the last column.
Crustacean/shrimp pellets are typically steamed under a great deal of compression, which makes for a very dense, hard pellet. They also use special binding agents to assist in nutrient retention, as well as extra vitamin fortification as they know that many nutrients will be lost to the water before the shrimp consume all of the feed. (most crustaceans are very slow eaters compared to finfish) These types of pellets can be almost as hard as a rock, and take a very long time before they soften on the inside. But I'm not a "shrimp" person, and have very little knowledge on the subject so don't ask me to elaborate any further.
3mm pellets are not small for big fish, and thousands (perhaps millions?) of hobbyists feed fish over 6 inches 1-3mm pellets. When I was a mod on cichlid-forum.com, a large portion of that site fed African haps that were 10+ inches, 3mm pellets, some even fed them 1mm pellets, exclusively.
I've seen plenty of 12+ inch frontosa that have never eaten a pellet larger than 3mm.
Here's a great post by cchhcc on that subject, with regards to large CA cichlids.
http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=319153
Then take a close look at some of cchhcc's CA's and tell me if they look nutrient starved to you?
http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=203143
One of the FH "mascots" at a local Big Al's is one the largest FH I have ever seen up close, an absolute monster, and they feed that fish 3mm NLS pellets as its daily staple.
How do you figure that feeding a large fish, a smaller pellet, equates to more water pollution? I feed each of my larger fish a pellet or two at a time, and trust me, there is almost zero waste. As I said previously, 90-95% goes straight down the pipe. If the odd pellet makes it by them (if I toss 3 or 4 in at a time for the bigger fish) they simply swim down & suck them back like a fat kid eating M&M's.
I certainly won't argue with your last comment, indeed the aquaculture industry as a whole is always looking for ways to SAVE costs, not ways to increase costs. My point was simply that there are thousands of nutrition studies involving millions of dollars worth in grants, and not all of these studies are performed strictly for commercial aquaculture purposes such as the salmon/trout industry, so don't be so damn cynical.
All joking aside, some of the research in the past 20 years has been pretty interesting stuff, and at the end of the day these discoveries help our pets live a longer healthier life in captivity. After all, we're the ones playing God & putting them into a glass cage, not the billion dollar companies.
chingmix headbooster in combination with x o ocean free red syn will do the best to your flowerhorn / s this combination will provide your flowerhorn with
essential nutrients and it is rich in protein but there should be a part of live food also
essential nutrients and it is rich in protein but there should be a part of live food also
I have the last of my hikari biogold+ and excell mix up mixed with my new NLS floating pellets. Still had over a pound of hikari mix so I mixed it with a 5 pound tub of NLS.
- Status
