AND.... If you are into reading more into a specific part/fear of thsi subject check this thread.
http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=167891
http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=167891
Validity Of Non-Live/Preparred Foods
- Thread starter Scatocephalus
- Start date
Tongue33;2997884; said:
Wicked read, I remember chatting with Neal (RD) about something like this once.
Though I dont own any cichla as I cant get any here in sask
I do have a thought on the feeder fish issue.
I keep a 55g in which I grow my own feeders, I have found that mollies and guppies(not that you could feed cichla with guppies) are very prodigious breeders as I suppose would goldfish
Keeping my own tank to grow my own breeders in solves the bad fish conditions.
Judging on how fast convicts and other cichlids breed why not grow them for food some cichlids get big. I can just see it now the flame throwers are heating up for me to suggest that you use cichlids for feeders BUT HEY FISH EAT FISH
I do have a thought on the feeder fish issue.
I keep a 55g in which I grow my own feeders, I have found that mollies and guppies(not that you could feed cichla with guppies) are very prodigious breeders as I suppose would goldfish
Keeping my own tank to grow my own breeders in solves the bad fish conditions.
Judging on how fast convicts and other cichlids breed why not grow them for food some cichlids get big. I can just see it now the flame throwers are heating up for me to suggest that you use cichlids for feeders BUT HEY FISH EAT FISH
chefjamesscott;2998196; said:
read pages 4-5 there are a few links that save you from any flaming....
Guppies are actually an excellent main course for cichla between 2-6" after that you need to get the BIGGEST females to be abel to curb the appetite
Channarox and Tongue33, your experiments are interesting, however, they don't prove that LIVE fish produce higher growth rates than dead fish of the same species.
What you discovered in your experiments was that live feeder fish produced higher growth rates than frozen cocktails of inverterbrates or pellitized foods. The nutritional values of bloodworm, mysis shrimp etc. are very different from, for example, a goldfish.
To correctly test this theory, you would need to feed one group of fish live goldfish, and the others, dead (killed by yourself of course) goldfish from the same batch. They would need to be the same SPECIES of fish for this experiment to be completely valid. Silversides have very different nutritional values to rosy reds for example.
If you don't adhere to the 'same species' rule, all you're doing is finding out if one kind/brand of food is better than the other, as opposed to whether or not the food must be live to acheive the greater growth rates.
My interest in this is purely due to practicality. If the food did not necessarily have to be 'alive' to acheive high growth rates, but simply had to be a certain species of fish, it would be much easier securing and STORING food for your cichla. This would probably wind up saving you a mint (or at least a lot of effort) as you could buy or catch large numbers of these feeders at a time, and freeze them into blocks so that you could break off an amount when you needed it.
Saves you having to set up quarantine tanks for feeders alone, or make dozens of trips to your local fish store and potentially introduce diseases/parasites into your tanks too...
What you discovered in your experiments was that live feeder fish produced higher growth rates than frozen cocktails of inverterbrates or pellitized foods. The nutritional values of bloodworm, mysis shrimp etc. are very different from, for example, a goldfish.
To correctly test this theory, you would need to feed one group of fish live goldfish, and the others, dead (killed by yourself of course) goldfish from the same batch. They would need to be the same SPECIES of fish for this experiment to be completely valid. Silversides have very different nutritional values to rosy reds for example.
If you don't adhere to the 'same species' rule, all you're doing is finding out if one kind/brand of food is better than the other, as opposed to whether or not the food must be live to acheive the greater growth rates.
My interest in this is purely due to practicality. If the food did not necessarily have to be 'alive' to acheive high growth rates, but simply had to be a certain species of fish, it would be much easier securing and STORING food for your cichla. This would probably wind up saving you a mint (or at least a lot of effort) as you could buy or catch large numbers of these feeders at a time, and freeze them into blocks so that you could break off an amount when you needed it.
Saves you having to set up quarantine tanks for feeders alone, or make dozens of trips to your local fish store and potentially introduce diseases/parasites into your tanks too...
Tongue33;2995259; said:Thanks
Man!! I hope I never get the One tank rule!! Cause I really love my wife
ahahhahahahahhahahahha
if you do get the one tank rule just make it a 50,000g tank
Piscineidiot;2998228; said:
Actually My experiments are COMPLETELY valid
And the proof is in the pudding..I am kind of offended and take aback by your comments.. As I am not completley understanding why you would state things the way you did...
Let me go re read what I wrote to see where and How I mis led you.
Tongue33;2997648; said:As for nutritional value on paper
One reason being the natural predation or ambush colors that our fish display when the food get;s harder to catch... These colors are in my expeirience and opinion ONLY viewed by those that feed live fish. You just absolutely WILL NOT SEE the Full spectrum of coloration that your Cichla is capable of goign thorugh without Live fish.
Are you speaking of this paragraph??
Tongue33;2998396; said:
No, not that paragraph.
I did not mean to cause offense at all. I'll try and be a little more clear on what I meant.
What you tested was valid as an experiment testing the the differences in growth rates between fish fed with live fish, as opposed to bloodworms, mysids and brine shrimp. Therefore, your results confirm that a diet of fish gives higher growth rates in cichla than a diet composed of bloodworms, mysids and brine shrimp specifically.
Forgive me for the cliche, but what you've established is that 'apples are better for growth rates than oranges' not that 'fresh apples are better for growth rates than dried apples' for example.
While your experiment showed that a diet of fish protein yields higher growth rates than a diet of insect larvae and crustacea, it does not answer the question of whether or not the food has to be alive for the greatest effect.
In order to assess whether or not the fact that the food is 'alive' is affecting your fish's growth rates, you would need to have live and dead versions of the exact same food i.e. live artermia vs. dead artemia, or live goldfish vs. dead goldfish. This ensures that there are no 'confounding' effects caused by the difference in nutritional value between the foods.
[A confounding effect is an effect on your results due to an un-accounted for or un-controllable factor.]
This isn't a flaming post. I'm just trying to offer constructive criticism in terms of constructing a truly scientific experiment for figuring out whether or not it's the fact that the food is alive or not that is affecting the fish's growth rates.
Granted you might just want to test whether readily available livefoods are better for your fish than readily available frozen or pellitized foods of miscellaneous origins, but I think you and other members so far have already established that fish protein is better for your fish than readily available frozen foods and most pellets.
So, that's why I suggested what I did in the interests of advancing this investigation and in the hope of learning more about fish growth rates and feeding regimes.
