In the wild most fish are are opportunistic generalist feeders, including those often considered carnivorous, such as piranha.
"Research on the Red bellied piranha (Pygocentrus nattereri) and its relative Serrasalmus sp. aff. brandtii have shown that they’re actually generalist feeders — and not the pure carnivores they’re made out to be.
Scientists studying these piranha species caught them three times a month and examined the foods that fish of different ages had been eating by dissecting them and looking at their guts to see what foods they were digesting.
Both species are plant eaters, however, the Red-bellied eats much more in the way of vegetation than brandtii."
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0044-59672005000100010
For most species of fish kept in captivity there is no definitive wrong or right answer, as most of the ornamental species kept in this hobby have never been studied in-depth for any of us to fully understand their nutritional needs through all of their growth stages. But the science is always improving, and there are many definitive things that we can now state with certainty, where 20-30 years ago no one really had a clue. As the science evolves, I try & evolve with it.
And what studies exactly would those be? And what pellets were being used - commercial farm feed? No comparison to some of the commercial feed that hobbyists have available to them today. That data would fail right out of the gate.....
If you know of any nutritional reasons why a fish would require something beyond the amino acids, fatty acids, fibre, vitamins, minerals etc that are found in a high quality pellet, please let me know. I would honestly love to know the answer. Not that there is anything wrong with feeding frozen/live etc, if done responsibly there isn't. But my point always has been, and still is, that there's absolutely no nutritional reason why a dish kept in captivity would require tilapia, shrimp, or anything else in their diet if a quality pellet is fed.
Ever been to a commercial Sturgeon farm, seen the size, age, and weight of a mature female before being harvested for her caviar? Some are multimillion $$$ enterprises, where the caviar can fetch $2,000-3,000 per kilo. All raised on pellet food.
As far as the argument; "I wouldn't want to eat the same thing every day, so why would my fish?"
The answer is simple, fish aren't humans, and humans aren't fish. Try being married to the same women for 30+ years, then tell me all about variety. lol
A lot of what one does in this hobby depends on ones goals. Certainly there are ways to get larger/quicker gains in growth, and/or greater fecundity in female breeders - but that does not necessarily equate to healthier fish. If ones only concern is large gains in growth, feed a generic trout chow. If one cares about the longevity & overall health of their fish, then that's not something they'll want to be doing long term, because in most species of fish kept in an aquarium it will result in fatty deposition of the liver.
In the wild the vast majority of fish go through seasonal swings of feast or famine, mostly borderline famine, yet in home aquariums I personally find that the vast majority of hobbyists overfeed their fish, offering them far more nutrients than what the fish can utilize without resulting in excess storage of fat. Anyone that has ever spent any time around a commercial importers operation will tell you that you will never see chubby "wild" fish arriving from SA, CA, Africa, or anywhere else on the planet.
Overfeeding on a regular basis is IMO far more detrimental to the health of captive fish, than what one chooses to feed. Fish are one of the most efficient animals on the planet for converting food to flesh, and from what I see from many of the photos shared here on MFK, a lot of hobbyists fail to understand that. It seems as though the BIGGER the "Monster" fish, the greater the praise they receive. Ironically those fish are probably having years shaved off of their natural lifespan from over care.
"Research on the Red bellied piranha (Pygocentrus nattereri) and its relative Serrasalmus sp. aff. brandtii have shown that they’re actually generalist feeders — and not the pure carnivores they’re made out to be.
Scientists studying these piranha species caught them three times a month and examined the foods that fish of different ages had been eating by dissecting them and looking at their guts to see what foods they were digesting.
Both species are plant eaters, however, the Red-bellied eats much more in the way of vegetation than brandtii."
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0044-59672005000100010
For most species of fish kept in captivity there is no definitive wrong or right answer, as most of the ornamental species kept in this hobby have never been studied in-depth for any of us to fully understand their nutritional needs through all of their growth stages. But the science is always improving, and there are many definitive things that we can now state with certainty, where 20-30 years ago no one really had a clue. As the science evolves, I try & evolve with it.
And what studies exactly would those be? And what pellets were being used - commercial farm feed? No comparison to some of the commercial feed that hobbyists have available to them today. That data would fail right out of the gate.....
If you know of any nutritional reasons why a fish would require something beyond the amino acids, fatty acids, fibre, vitamins, minerals etc that are found in a high quality pellet, please let me know. I would honestly love to know the answer. Not that there is anything wrong with feeding frozen/live etc, if done responsibly there isn't. But my point always has been, and still is, that there's absolutely no nutritional reason why a dish kept in captivity would require tilapia, shrimp, or anything else in their diet if a quality pellet is fed.
Ever been to a commercial Sturgeon farm, seen the size, age, and weight of a mature female before being harvested for her caviar? Some are multimillion $$$ enterprises, where the caviar can fetch $2,000-3,000 per kilo. All raised on pellet food.
As far as the argument; "I wouldn't want to eat the same thing every day, so why would my fish?"
The answer is simple, fish aren't humans, and humans aren't fish. Try being married to the same women for 30+ years, then tell me all about variety. lol
A lot of what one does in this hobby depends on ones goals. Certainly there are ways to get larger/quicker gains in growth, and/or greater fecundity in female breeders - but that does not necessarily equate to healthier fish. If ones only concern is large gains in growth, feed a generic trout chow. If one cares about the longevity & overall health of their fish, then that's not something they'll want to be doing long term, because in most species of fish kept in an aquarium it will result in fatty deposition of the liver.
In the wild the vast majority of fish go through seasonal swings of feast or famine, mostly borderline famine, yet in home aquariums I personally find that the vast majority of hobbyists overfeed their fish, offering them far more nutrients than what the fish can utilize without resulting in excess storage of fat. Anyone that has ever spent any time around a commercial importers operation will tell you that you will never see chubby "wild" fish arriving from SA, CA, Africa, or anywhere else on the planet.
Overfeeding on a regular basis is IMO far more detrimental to the health of captive fish, than what one chooses to feed. Fish are one of the most efficient animals on the planet for converting food to flesh, and from what I see from many of the photos shared here on MFK, a lot of hobbyists fail to understand that. It seems as though the BIGGER the "Monster" fish, the greater the praise they receive. Ironically those fish are probably having years shaved off of their natural lifespan from over care.
