Well the fish food trial is already being done and I have the time and space to conduct my own test. So what should i test? I was thinking along the lines of finding an ideal feeding frequency, but I'm open to any ideas.
firstly.... Are your tanks all on the same filter system, are they all exactly the same size, are they all in the same part of the house??
but obviously with the frequncy of feeding, the more you feed the quicker they will grow, so i cant see the point in that one because then it really comes down to whether your filter can take care of that much food going in to your tank
Yes, yes and yes.
The same amount of feed will be given, just split up more.
eg: 5g x 1 feeding. This should cause the fish to fast.
vs.
1g x 5 feedings. The fish will have a more constant supply of nutrients.
A very common question is "how often should i feed my fish?". This test may shed some light.
I'm open to any ideas.
is it going to bring all the boys in the yard???
For something like mbuna, they should be fed little bits often, they are a grazer. Feeding depends on the fish and wether its herbivore....
Worth testing I supose, why not.
Can I be a synic? :wink: What the hell going to anyway.
The only true way to tell a healthy fish is by checking its inner functions. Feeding product (a) was great fast growth...but something in the food that helps fast growth, lets say causes the liver more stress, so fish dies at say 3 years instead of 5 years.
You wanna test that theory out for me & get back to me. :wink:
Frenchy :D
[quote:e71ed1bc49]is it going to bring all the boys in the yard???[/quote:e71ed1bc49]I will have to choose a true omnivore to try to even things out. The same with the feed.
[quote:e71ed1bc49]Feeding product (a) was great fast growth...but something in the food that helps fast growth, lets say causes the liver more stress, so fish dies at say 3 years instead of 5 years.[/quote:e71ed1bc49]This is true if you are comparing different feeds, wich this test is not.
I'm not sure if this question, "how often should i feed my fish?", realy needs to be answered. Most of us survive on 3 square meals per day, the native Australian people survived on 1 meal per day for thousands of years. But any nutritionist will tell you that the healthiest diets consist of eating every 2-3hours.
great idea to do these tests i think the outcome will be facinating, the only other thing i have to add is.... you have way to much time on your hands.....lol.
I don't think it realy matters how many times you feed them as long as you them all the same
My self i feed mine twice a day
good Luck
My theory, based on my knowlage of human nutrition, is that most of the nutritional content in foods get broken down within 3-4 hours of ingestion. I plan on feeding one group every 2hrs (8 times per day), one group once per day (mid-day) and a third group maybe 2 - 4 times per day... I'm leaning towards 3 - help me decide. I only want to divide the tank by 3 so i can have a larger sample size
Here's a poll I found.
How often do you feed your fish?
Once a day 167 Votes
Twice a day 334 Votes
Three times a day 92 Votes
Every other day 23 Votes
Live fish once or twice a week and others 2-3 time 4 Votes
Every 2-4 days 13 Votes
It dosen't even have an option for 3x +.
how about trying different food types, pick th emost popular and go from there.
someone - this thread is about me trying to find the "perfect test"
My current reverse thought process=
To work out a feeds value you must first test its quality.
To test a feeds quality you must first test how much feed fish need.
To test how much feed fish need you must first test how often fish need feed.
Thats three different tests i can do. If I start from the bottom I can work my way up. How does that sound?
This test is only one idea. I can put a couple of feeds head to head to test quality, and let the "How often should I feed my fish" question go unanswered, but what if it had a clear winner? Would it change the way some people feed their fish? I could even test the effects on fish with different tank setups eg: hidy holes vs none, water currents vs none, plants vs none, lighting hours, substrate color vs substrate color, ect...
I don't understand how you are going to test how often you should feed your fish?
Problem with this is it is a theory, you could feed them 5 times a day smaller amounts and get great growth rates, that doesn't mean it's healthy for the fish internally though.
Same is true in reverse, feeding them once a day and getting slower growth rates might be better for them in the long run.
I'm not trying to knock what you're trying to achieve, I just think that no matter what results you get, it is impossible to back them up scientifically, and even if you could do it, it in fact would only relate to that one species.
All other species would still be considered theory, which is exactly what we have now with most people feeding twice a day.
Just for those who don't understand the difference between fact and theory, Fact is proven scientifically, theory is one man's opinion on how things work, or many opinions, none of who can actually prove this, if they could prove it, it would become a fact.
So I just think from my point of view you are not going to get a proven fact out of any of your tests, How ever with the other tests you are, Food(weight) x Feed(frequency) = Growth rates, with the water and light parameters staying static. Over the test subjects as it is on a sump.
And at the end of the day, If you manage to prove that feeding twice a day is better than once, it would require you to test this for the life of the fish, and then dissect the fish and review there internal organs for a final outcome. This would take many years on one species and one type of food.
Not conclusive by any means.
Sorry to be a skeptic.
[quote:252f870ff5]feeding them once a day and getting slower growth rates might be better for them in the long run[/quote:252f870ff5]Hmm... Just imagine yourself if you ate your daily Calories (aprox. 2000) in just one sitting each and every day. Your body can only take up about 1000 Calories from your blood stream in the time it takes the food to digest. So about half of the calories would be stored as fat in adipose tissue, making you "overweight", and only half would be used for cell repair. We know as a fact that to be "overweight" has many health risks in humans and animals.
Now for the confusing part... If all groups get the same amount of feed just split up defferent, the lightest group of fish will be the most "overweight".
(I forgot to mention i will be weighing the fish and their feed down to 0.01g)
[quote:931e43336c]Food(weight) x Feed(frequency) = Growth rates[/quote:931e43336c]
Correct, but too much and you will also be growing fat
[quote:931e43336c]To test a feeds quality you must first test how much feed fish need[/quote:931e43336c][quote:931e43336c]Food(weight) x Feed(frequency) = Growth rates[/quote:931e43336c] Sound similar? This is how I would test how much feed fish need with the Food(Calories) being the variable.
I could ask the question "how do i get my fish to grow the fastest with out becoming fat?".
How are you going to test body fat?
well you could enter them in THE BIGGEST LOOSER.
or weigh them????
or do the pinch test?????
jokin!!!!! good question!!!
will these super fish look like grayhounds when your finished??
lol... that is my goal!
[quote:910ccd69b7="someone"]How are you going to test body fat?[/quote:910ccd69b7] Good question! In humans there's a bodyfat test wich weighs the indervidual on land and under water. I think i will have to do something smillar but because of the swim blader and constant hovering I will have to discover my very own equation.
See thats my problem, there are just to many variables, im really not trying to knock what you are trying to acheive, just pointing out the problems you are going to have.
How do you know your calculations will be correct? that many variables I personally will be skeptical of the results, and i think most others would be aswell, in which case there isnt much point in doing it.
I like what your doing someone. I cant weigh a fish in water, only if it was dead so I can rule this out. The sum would be in the the difference in calories and weight eg: 1 gram of fat is 9 cal while the rest of the body is a lot less. The end result of any test that i do will be in numbers not my own judgment.
All you have to do is get a set of electronic scales put the water and container on them
Then set it back to 0 them drop in the fish
easy lol
I was thinking that, lol
[quote:7a82950c06]All you have to do is get a set of electronic scales put the water and container on them, Then set it back to 0 them drop in the fish[/quote:7a82950c06]This would be the same as weighing the fish dry. To test it in water the fish would have to suspended by a string and be completly still, wich even if it could be kept still, would be very difficult. The only reliable way to test when a fish becomes "overweight" is to have many test groups with one slight variable in either feed frequency or feed volume. Then at the end of the trial period draw a line graph of the weight results and a pattern should emerge. The point at wich this line curves is where the calories start shifting from being used for cell repair to where they start being stored in adipose tissue as fat.
GUYS!!!!!!
Get a life. :lol:
I keep lots of fish and I love keeping my fish.
I don't need all this stuff to decide what food I am going to feed.
I want healthy fish, but, I also want to stop the budget from blowing out.
Fishtraders test for me.
what about how many water changes you do..
as changeing the water will make them grow faster....
kev
[quote:263e51d14a]I don't need all this stuff to decide what food I am going to feed.
Fishtraders test for me.[/quote:263e51d14a] Fishtraders test is about wich feed you should use.
[quote:263e51d14a]what about how many water changes you do[/quote:263e51d14a]This would be very difficult because I would need many seperate tanks. Even a slight temperature difference between tanks would have an effect on the results. I'm not saying it cant be done, but im not too keen on carrying out that many water changes.
I think I have found a test wich may answer these questions:
Could feeding my fish X frequency per day be enough?
Could feeding my fish for X minutes be over feeding?
Can fish become "overweight"?
Only two groups:
Group A: Diliberately try to make the fish over eat and become "overweight". eg: 2 x 5 minute feedings per day.
Group B: Same amout of feed as group A, just split up so the fish is less likely to be over eating. eg 5: feeds per day.
If group B gains more % of body weight than group A, Group B will have used more of the calories for cell repair instead of storing it as fat.
Gc disagree with you on the weighing bit this is how they do live wieght in fishing comps and have you ever noticed when you stick fish in a bucket they do stay still until you disturb.
Don't take this the wrong way but I think this has gone a bit over the top I am interested in lauies test do to it is a brand test but as for this test personally it is a waste of time.
The one thing that I find in this hobby is trying to make it too scientific for something that is supposed to be enjoyable.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Looking at above posts,
I read that eating once a day will makes you fat.
I read that native australians ate one meal a day.
The thing is, I haven't seen many overweight Native Australians, apart from some of the elders.
As for your testing methods, too many flaws. Gee I have to agree with Gurumndi here too. :oops:
eg; Once a day should be broken down to 3 different groups.
One group in the morning, one at mid day & one at night.
Also for your test to work, it would need to be done in a dark room, tanks will need to be lit, with set hours on light & dark. Especially for the multiple feeds a day result to show true.
& my earlier post on these tests affecting internals...would be correct for this test too. {Silly me to give an example in general terms. :roll:}
If you were feeding a mbuna, a heavy amount once a day, it would put more stress on its internals too. :idea:
Frenchy :D
ok we have all had our say, so now let all wait for the results to come in.....
[quote:02ae667164]ok we have all had our say, so now let all wait for the results to come in.....[/quote:02ae667164]
Yes dad.... :lol:
ps; What results :?: :?: :?:
Frenchy :D
[quote:fbe9d9b6a5]this is how they do live wieght in fishing comps and have you ever noticed when you stick fish in a bucket they do stay still until you disturb.[/quote:fbe9d9b6a5] You are correct. But my point was that there is a human test wich weighs people on land and under water to see how much difference there is. Then they can accuratly messure the amount of body fat by doing a simple equation.
[quote:fbe9d9b6a5]The thing is, I haven't seen many overweight Native Australians, apart from some of the elders.[/quote:fbe9d9b6a5]Most of the ones you see are not the people I am refering to. I'm talking about the hunters and gatherers. I dont think they were big fatties. But if you do compaire them to other groups of hunters and gatherers, you will find they do have a slightly higher % of body fat. But this could be just evolution.
[quote:fbe9d9b6a5]One group in the morning, one at mid day & one at night.[/quote:fbe9d9b6a5]OK I will rule out feeding once per day.
The hours of light and darkness will be (unless the fish is nocternal):
On hours: 9am to 11pm. This is 14 hours, Plenty of time do divide up.
Off hours: 10 hours of uninterupted darkness.
Eating once per day wont make you fat, unless you over eat and cant burn off how many calories you over ate by. If you only ate once per day your body would go into a catabolic state due to lack of calories being supplied. When your body gets into a catabolic state, it not only uses fat for energy but it also breaks down skeletal muscle tissue. When you have less skeletal muscle tissue your metabolism slows and you are more likely to store calories as fat. Get it? Not a good thing at all.
[quote:fbe9d9b6a5]If you were feeding a mbuna, a heavy amount once a day, it would put more stress on its internals too.[/quote:fbe9d9b6a5]I agree this test will only give us an example of one species.
Ok ill make this my last post on this, because I don't want it to turn into an argument as that was not my point.
I agree that it would be good to get these results, and i agree that it is possible to get these results, the problem you are going to have is making everyone believe your results when you have come up with several complex calculations yourself that you cannot prove are correct.
Well you probably could prove them, but that would take alot of money alot of time and probably a pretty good controlled research lab.
There are just so many different components that make up the way fish grow, Oxygen levels, ph, tank size, water changes as kev said, lighting, minerals in the water, the genetic background of the species and your strain of that species.
These are all things that need to be taken into consideration when trying to test when and how much is the best amount of food to feed your species.
it would require in my opinion to do this correctly and make everyone in the hobby stand up and listen to you, (and this is what you want, waste of time if half the people think you are full of crap).
5 Different Species X 5 Different Types of Food X 5 Different Water Conditions X 2-3 different Feeding Times X 3-5 Different sized tanks. Plus keep and grow them to there death.
Which would mean you would need over a thousand tanks, and a hell of alot of work and money just to get results.
Alternatively you could just use 1 species, and would only need about 300-400 tanks. Still a fairly large number in anyone's books.
It can be done, I just don't think it's conclusive with 4 tanks, and I personally would take the results of such a test with a grain of salt.
You could of course wait for the test to be completed using the 5 different foods, then use that one food on different feeding times and amounts to get a better picture of when it is the best to feed for growth. But growth wont take into all the tests you where planning on testing for. But it's a start.
This would enhance the results found on the food test, and give you a stepping stone to further tests. No one found all the results on there own, you have to trust in others tests and results and build on there knowledge and experience.
That's why where on the computer; either that or I would still be arguing with you that my spear head is better than yours.
Good Luck
Glen.
who cares
just tell me what food i should stock............ :P
kev
OK. This is the test I want to do:
[quote:bea9688901]I think I have found a test wich may answer these questions:
Could feeding my fish X frequency per day be enough?
Could feeding my fish for X minutes be over feeding?
Can fish become "overweight"?
Only two groups:
Group A: Diliberately try to make the fish over eat and become "overweight". eg: 2 x 5 minute feedings per day.
Group B: Same amout of feed as group A, just split up so the fish is less likely to be over eating. eg 5: feeds per day.
If group B gains more % of body weight than group A, Group B will have used more of the calories for cell repair instead of storing it as fat.[/quote:bea9688901]Any objections?
[quote:34d162e47c]Eating once per day wont make you fat, unless you over eat and cant burn off how many calories you over ate by. If you only ate once per day your body would go into a catabolic state due to lack of calories being supplied. When your body gets into a catabolic state, it not only uses fat for energy but it also breaks down skeletal muscle tissue. When you have less skeletal muscle tissue your metabolism slows and you are more likely to store calories as fat. Get it? Not a good thing at all. [/quote:34d162e47c]
Catabolic state can happen if you have multiple meals a day too :!: Right :?: :idea:
You can get fat off one meal a day. You can also not eat enough on one meal a day too. It comes down to what you eat, to what you do. Well done :roll: Being fat, skinny....can happen from multiple meals too.
Body Buiders, athletes... have to be very careful with this "Catabolic state" thing. As basic as I can; If your diet is high in sugar, no protein & high in fat & you work out alot, play alot of sport or just active. Your body will use gycogen muscle. Quite simply put, from the perspective of our cells, it is metabolically more efficient to metabolize (chemically break down) muscle tissue, than fat tissue, regardless of whether or not it is beneficial for the next stage of the process. Breaking down fat is a more chemically complex process. While sitting down you burn fat rather than muscle. But if your in starvation{3 or more days} then your body will turn to muscle, because then it becomes a calorie issue.
Anabolism and catabolism are both always happening in your body.
eg; If you meet someone who works out, but is getting no where. When he/she works out one muscle group, the body is taking more likely from another muscle group.(Catabolism) So he builds the one he is working on.(Anabolism) So he/she is basiclly going around in circles, or more than likely getting smaller, or they get big in one region & smaller in others. Look at long term inmates. Usually they can only do free weights, so they end up with the triangle effect or V shape = Good upper body with no legs.
Sure they might eat alot but as I said Ana.. & Cat.. are always happening.
Then again blood type can effect results.
Hormones can also have a part to which gets used first, stress can also play a part too.
So, I think I got it :?:
So you were saying :?: Whats your point :?:
Also with your test; What if you have a nice dominant fish that chases all the fish away from the food in group A :?: You will have one fat bastard that will drop dead & so many skinny ones that couldnt get any food and probably suffer from Catabolic wasting & die. :lol:
Frenchy :D
As long as the test has some statistical signifigance who gives a crap. A lot of the theorys today are based on results without an statistical signifigance. All I say, do some chi-sq tests or related and i'll beleive you.
Mitch
Oh I don't give a shit, just having some fun :lol:
Frenchy :D
I was thinking of using a larger growing live bearer, then I could have all virgin females. Not very agressive or dominating.
Most inmates are stupid. They get hypertrophy in the upperbody and they dont give a crap about the atrophy in their legs. Imagine the amount of Calories a pro bodybuilder would have to eat. Probably 10,000+.
[quote:79d8f20473]Catabolic state can happen if you have multiple meals a day too[/quote:79d8f20473] It sure can. But it is more likely to be sped up when feedings are spread further apart.
[quote:79d8f20473]it is metabolically more efficient to metabolize (chemically break down) muscle tissue, than fat tissue[/quote:79d8f20473]Then at the next over feed, even less calorie go towards cell repair and even more into fat.
[quote:79d8f20473]It comes down to what you eat, to what you do[/quote:79d8f20473]Yes. calories in vs calories out. Both tanks will have identical water curents.
This test will test the 5 minutes twice a day recomendation on lots of fish feed labels. If the result is the same for both groups, feeding 5 minutes twice a day is no worse off than feeding the same amout more often for this species.
Finally,
Inmates don't have a choice. I think some have gyms, with limited equipment, not sure on that.
Weights can be used as weapons, so free weights are banned in prisons. So mostly all they can do is chin ups{various ways}, press ups, sit ups...unless of course you get to the farms, home made weights are then an option, but must be kept well hidden.
Bodybuilders are just an example, replace with Joe Blogg's, Tim, Dick or Harry...anyone who plays sport, goes to gym, or a runs the dog, if the diet is poor...
Good luck with the test...let us know how it goes.
Frenchy :D
I think your all missing the point, Inmates are criminals LOL.
:idea: I have found a flaw.[quote:32c9c37ebb]Group A: Diliberately try to make the fish over eat and become "overweight". eg: 2 x 5 minute feedings per day.
Group B: Same amout of feed as group A, just split up so the fish is less likely to be over eating. eg 5: feeds per day.
If group B gains more % of body weight than group A, Group B will have used more of the calories for cell repair instead of storing it as fat.[/quote:32c9c37ebb]This is only true in short term, but in the long run group B will plateau and group A will continue to gain fat. We are going to have to wait a bit longer to see results. Im not too sure how long this test will have to run for. I will send a few emails out to some people in the know.
& if you choose to use guppies, they have a remarkable digestive tract, as in they can pass all food in 25-30 mins. So they might not be a wise choice. You can still manipulate the diet for guppies, usually have better results with what u feed them.
Frenchy :D
Just out of interest what sort of fish are you going to use? Like French said guppies have a very fast metabolic rate. Also some fish (like Oscars) are gluttons, and some are very picky as to the food that they eat.
I'm still undecided. If I go livebearers its either all female Mollies or Swordtails (females dont grow the long tail), because these two grow larger than other Livebearers. I currently own a few mollies and they can realy eat. Lots of scientific tests have been conducted on swordtails, Im unsure why, but they do tend to eat more live foods than mollies in the wild. This test would be amplified if I can find a fish that can eat a large volume of food in 5 minutes and digests it quickly. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Also running the temperature high may also amplify the result ...hmm, not so sure.
Well, the emails have returned. If there is a difference both groups will eventualy plateau, but at different times. Basically the longer the duration the better.