Re: [RML] Food for thought

Bruce Hansen (bhansen at ozemail.com.au)
Tue, 17 Jun 1997 08:35:13 +1000

Perhaps we should be trying to find out what the aquaculture folk are
feeding their broodstock which they will need to keep going for longer
periods of time, as well as maintain good fertility.

Meanwhile maybe we should also rethink our approach to diet by going back
to basics like any examinations of stomach contents of wild-caught fish to
provide some clues. Also the old dictum that "structure echoes function" -
what are the external teeth on the lips of the trifasciatas for? Perhaps
for grazing algae and benthic organisms from the rocks etc?

Bruce Hansen

----------
> From: Adrian R. Tappin <atappin at ecn.net.au>
> To: rainbowfish at pcug.org.au
> Subject: Re: [RML] Food for thought
> Date: Monday, 16 June 1997 18:20
> This is the big problem - most fish nutrition research is based on
> aquaculture for food fishes and very little, if any research has been
done
> on ornamental fishes. Even in Singapore, they have based a lot of their
work
> on previous aquacultural studies. Aquaculturists only want to grow their
> fishes to table size as quickly as they can at the cheapest price. Us
> aquarists on the other hand want to keep out fish alive and well for as
long
> as we can. I'm going to reduce the amount of food I have been feeding my
> fishes and see what develops. Probably also increase the vegetable
matter,
> especially for the trifasciata.