WHAT IS OVER FEEDING?

[Christy84065]

I am so curious what everybody considers to be over feeding. My
thought has always been that if the fish eat it they are hungry or
need the food. I feel bad if I selfishly give them less so that they
don't poop too much so I have less work to do. Clearly if they can eat
it they need it and/or are still hungry. So, I guess I need some more
clarification on this issue. Thanks to all your input in advance.

[chas good]

On 29 Jun 2004 21:27:14 -0700,
(Christy84065) wrote:

>I am so curious what everybody considers to be over feeding. My
>thought has always been that if the fish eat it they are hungry or
>need the food. I feel bad if I selfishly give them less so that they
>don't poop too much so I have less work to do. Clearly if they can eat
>it they need it and/or are still hungry. So, I guess I need some more
>clarification on this issue. Thanks to all your input in advance.

Some fish are like dogs and can eat way more than they need if given
the chance. Gorging is not healthy and adds extra poop to the water.
Tiger Barbs are like this. Pigs is what they are.

But most of the time overfeeding means food sinking to the bottom of
the tank uneaten. To much or to much to fast.

I feed as much as they can eat in a few minutes twice a day. Once in a
while 3 times a day. I use three foods and just rotate at each
feeding.

[Dick]

On 29 Jun 2004 21:27:14 -0700,
(Christy84065) wrote:

>I am so curious what everybody considers to be over feeding. My
>thought has always been that if the fish eat it they are hungry or
>need the food. I feel bad if I selfishly give them less so that they
>don't poop too much so I have less work to do. Clearly if they can eat
>it they need it and/or are still hungry. So, I guess I need some more
>clarification on this issue. Thanks to all your input in advance.

I know how you feel about wanting to see all my fish get enough to
eat. However, I am also aware of experiments that indicate animals
that are underfed live longer. I am also aware that what goes into my
fish comes out and the system is healthier if there is a balance, too
much waste is a way to imbalance.

I feed twice a day, flake food only. I watch as I add pinches of
food, to see if the fish are really actively catching it. When flakes
start hitting the gravel, I stop adding food. This takes less than
two minutes.

I know the fish can go for days without food and not have anything bad
happen. I also have seen perfectly healthy fish not eat, in fact my
large black angelfish went for about a month without eating the flakes
so far as I could tell, then one morning returned to her old eating
habits. She waits at a place with no food for me to put some there
just for her. She is one of my special pets, so you can imagine my
anguish while she was "fasting!"

dick

[NetMax]

"chas good" > wrote in message
...
> On 29 Jun 2004 21:27:14 -0700,
> (Christy84065) wrote:
>
> >I am so curious what everybody considers to be over feeding. My
> >thought has always been that if the fish eat it they are hungry or
> >need the food. I feel bad if I selfishly give them less so that they
> >don't poop too much so I have less work to do. Clearly if they can eat
> >it they need it and/or are still hungry. So, I guess I need some more
> >clarification on this issue. Thanks to all your input in advance.
>
> Some fish are like dogs and can eat way more than they need if given
> the chance. Gorging is not healthy and adds extra poop to the water.
> Tiger Barbs are like this. Pigs is what they are.
>
> But most of the time overfeeding means food sinking to the bottom of
> the tank uneaten. To much or to much to fast.
>
> I feed as much as they can eat in a few minutes twice a day. Once in a
> while 3 times a day. I use three foods and just rotate at each
> feeding.


Exactly what I do. Many people also include a fasting day, once a week.
Once a fish's health is stable and it's well acclimated to a stable
environment, it's health will be far better if fed too little than too
much. A couple of things to consider. In nature a significant amount of
their life is dedicated to the hunt for food. Their very-evident
enthusiasm has more to do with instinct than with real need. Another
consideration is that they are highly efficient in their use of energy.
With people, I would estimate that the majority of the calories we burn
are consumed for either motion (ie: walking), or generating heat (to
maintain a steady body temperature).. and for digestion to maintain this
level of energy usage.

With a fish's streamlined body, motion requires minimal effort (flick a
fin & coast). By closely tracking the water temperature, they use very
little energy in regulating their internal temperature. A small meal can
go a long way to maintain them. Sometimes, the key is meal size. Some
fish have higher metabolisms or short intestinal tracts, so they need to
be fed more frequently than others, but the quantity they need can be
very small, much much much smaller than what they want ;~)
--
www.NetMax.tk

[McEve]

"Dick" > wrote in message
...
> On 29 Jun 2004 21:27:14 -0700,
> (Christy84065) wrote:
>
> >I am so curious what everybody considers to be over feeding. My
> >thought has always been that if the fish eat it they are hungry or
> >need the food. I feel bad if I selfishly give them less so that they
> >don't poop too much so I have less work to do. Clearly if they can eat
> >it they need it and/or are still hungry. So, I guess I need some more
> >clarification on this issue. Thanks to all your input in advance.
>
> I know how you feel about wanting to see all my fish get enough to
> eat. However, I am also aware of experiments that indicate animals
> that are underfed live longer. I am also aware that what goes into my
> fish comes out and the system is healthier if there is a balance, too
> much waste is a way to imbalance.
>
> I feed twice a day, flake food only. I watch as I add pinches of
> food, to see if the fish are really actively catching it. When flakes
> start hitting the gravel, I stop adding food. This takes less than
> two minutes.
>
> I know the fish can go for days without food and not have anything bad
> happen. I also have seen perfectly healthy fish not eat, in fact my
> large black angelfish went for about a month without eating the flakes
> so far as I could tell, then one morning returned to her old eating
> habits. She waits at a place with no food for me to put some there
> just for her. She is one of my special pets, so you can imagine my
> anguish while she was "fasting!"
>
> dick

I feed once a day. I have a home made prawn/veggie frozen mush which I feed
them every second day, then cycle through flakes, bloodworms, artemia and
maggots the other days. I also put about 1 inch of parboiled zucchini in the
tank once a week. Depending on the type of fish, I have as a rule that all
should be eaten within a few minutes, and nothing visible settling at the
bottom.

Fish can definately overeat, just like a dog or cat. One of my clown loaches
are FAT, while the other fish seem to be able to control themselves a bit
better - like the angels, and the cat fish.

My Pecoltia did what your angel did Dick. She used to be the first one in
line for the food, but suddenly I didn't see her for almost a month! I was
*very* worried, but didn't want to dig out the whole tank (lots of plants
and hideyholes aranged) as long as everything looked normal otherwise. And
sure enough, about a week ago she emerged, and she had grown! My cute little
Pecoltia is now a quite large and manly pecoltia - but still beautiful :)
She had simply taken a fasting period, and surtainly not taken any damage
from it either. She's now back where she used to be, first in line when
there's food.

[Christy84065]

I really appreciate all you have had to say that really helps my understanding.