Live Foods.

[puddle_inc]

yeah, but to take a big fantail, that was breed and ment to be in a home aquarium or pond, it just isn't right. it's like taking a fancy rat instead of a feeder rat to feed to a python.

one thing that wasn't right, and most of you will agree with me, i saw someone feed a pet LIZARD, a cute gecko type thing, and put it in a tank. it was trying to swim, but it was drowning, and oscars came up and started biting at it. it just wasn't right. that lizard drowned and slowly got eaten that day by oscars. those poeple need drown, shot, hung, shot again, stabbed, cut open, thrown off a cliff, and then killed.

it was so sickening and sad to see that lizard drown and die

i need to stop looking for fish videos

 

[OohFeeshy]

yeah, but to take a big fantail, that was breed and ment to be in a home aquarium or pond, it just isn't right. it's like taking a fancy rat instead of a feeder rat to feed to a python.

Nowt wrong with that. It's far better for the predator- feeder creatures are called that for a reason. They are poorly bred, low quality and usually full of disease- it's like comparing an organic free range egg to a battery one. The former is far superior.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

yeah, but to take a big fantail, that was breed and ment to be in a home aquarium or pond, it just isn't right. it's like taking a fancy rat instead of a feeder rat to feed to a python.

one thing that wasn't right, and most of you will agree with me, i saw someone feed a pet LIZARD, a cute gecko type thing, and put it in a tank. it was trying to swim, but it was drowning, and oscars came up and started biting at it. it just wasn't right. that lizard drowned and slowly got eaten that day by oscars. those poeple need drown, shot, hung, shot again, stabbed, cut open, thrown off a cliff, and then killed.

it was so sickening and sad to see that lizard drown and die

i need to stop looking for fish videos

Hmm, i don't see whats wrong in feeding fish which are bred to be in a home aquarium or pond because this is what the vast majority of fish are bred for anyway. IMHO (in my honest/humble opinion), as long as it can be killed humanely and quickly by the predatory fish in question and as well as the various other things/factors i have mentioned in my posts in my thread, then thats the main thing. I mean, most aquarium fish sold in petshops are only semi-domesticated (relatively tame but not completely trusting) which is the same level of domestication as feeder rats.

All the cruelty video's on youtube and other sites are bad, i'm not agreeing with what they do at all and i think its just down right irresponsable behavior, but there's not an aweful lot you can do to stop it except educate people about such things.
A lot of people are just very ignorant and arrogant and see no wrong in forcing fish to go through much suffering and pain in long chases and attacks in their tanks from predatory fish because they believe things like "fish aren't as important as other animals", "fish are stupid", "fish don't feel pain" etc. All of which assumptions are not true (except from posibly the pain thing because it is not as simple/clear cut as "fish feel pain" or "fish don't feel pain" because according to researchers and scientists, the amount of pain receptors and ability to feel pain varies from certain types/species of fish a lot- some fish may be able to feel pain in certain parts of their bodies but not other parts, some fish are more complex/evolved than others etc). With the pain thing though, i think its better to be on the safe side though and not put fish through things which could cause a lot of long suffering etc.

 

[puddle_inc]

so your saying let thee poor feeders set in an overly stocked tank to rot and die and then get the fish breed for home aquariums? to buy nice ones that kids want to have as pets?

those feeders don't have very long lives, so it's bets for them to be bought now before they just die. i'm gonna have tubs sometime next summer, and buy tons of feeders, let them live in my tubs, get healthy and then sell them cheap as healthy pets. i just don't see why we should let them set there in overstocked tanks to die and get eaten by there siblings.

 

[puddle_inc]

yeah, but to take a big fantail, that was breed and ment to be in a home aquarium or pond, it just isn't right. it's like taking a fancy rat instead of a feeder rat to feed to a python.

one thing that wasn't right, and most of you will agree with me, i saw someone feed a pet LIZARD, a cute gecko type thing, and put it in a tank. it was trying to swim, but it was drowning, and oscars came up and started biting at it. it just wasn't right. that lizard drowned and slowly got eaten that day by oscars. those poeple need drown, shot, hung, shot again, stabbed, cut open, thrown off a cliff, and then killed.

it was so sickening and sad to see that lizard drown and die

i need to stop looking for fish videos

Hmm, i don't see whats wrong in feeding fish which are bred to be in a home aquarium or pond because this is what the vast majority of fish are bred for anyway. IMHO (in my honest/humble opinion), as long as it can be killed humanely and quickly by the predatory fish in question and as well as the various other things/factors i have mentioned in my posts in my thread, then thats the main thing. I mean, most aquarium fish sold in petshops are only semi-domesticated (relatively tame but not completely trusting) which is the same level of domestication as feeder rats.

All the cruelty video's on youtube and other sites are bad, i'm not agreeing with what they do at all and i think its just down right irresponsable behavior, but there's not an aweful lot you can do to stop it except educate people about such things.
A lot of people are just very ignorant and arrogant and see no wrong in forcing fish to go through much suffering and pain in long chases and attacks in their tanks from predatory fish because they believe things like "fish aren't as important as other animals", "fish are stupid", "fish don't feel pain" etc. All of which assumptions are not true (except from posibly the pain thing because it is not as simple/clear cut as "fish feel pain" or "fish don't feel pain" because according to researchers and scientists, the amount of pain receptors and ability to feel pain varies from certain types/species of fish a lot- some fish may be able to feel pain in certain parts of their bodies but not other parts, some fish are more complex/evolved than others etc). With the pain thing though, i think its better to be on the safe side though and not put fish through things which could cause a lot of long suffering etc.

very well put

i would like to here others thoughts about that lizard. i am sure no one here would say that is right, but i just want to here thoughts on that.

i'm debating on if i should feed fish, like feeder fish in overstocked aquariums, to my eel when i get him. i'm not sure if a lionfish will eat fish. but i am debating on that. because i want it to have a healthy happy life, with the choice of shrimp and frozen foods. but i'm not sure if i should giv him the oportunity to eat occasional live fish or not. what are your thoughts guys? i want him to feel at natural home, but i don't want to feed him fish if it won't change much.

 

[OohFeeshy]

so your saying let thee poor feeders set in an overly stocked tank to rot and die and then get the fish breed for home aquariums? to buy nice ones that kids want to have as pets?

Often better that than feeding them to another fish. As you said, they don't live long, so you have to feed them ASAP- feeding a predator on the equivalent of McDonalds meals isn't something that I would like to do, no matter to the moral implications. Indeed, the other way around would be better- if better quality fish were fed and lower quality fish raised up to how they should be. Besides which, you simply don't get variety with feeder fish. In the US, it's usually either goldfish, guppies or minnows- and when you rule out the really unhealthy goldfish, you're left with an unvaried and unbalanced diet.


And don't forget feeder fish don't exist in the UK at all. The yummy bright tails on fancy guppies do attract predators nicely, however

 

[puddle_inc]

Neat. Is there any way you can suction cup a little platform with a plant leading up to the platform so the crabs could climb up to the platform? I guess you'd have to monitor the water level carefully, otherwise they could just climb out of your tank and end up dead and rotting somewhere in your house. Might be neat to do a archer / crab brackish setup someday.

-Darke

glad i live in the us, i don't really wanna feed nice guppies, since i am breeeding them (kinda) i would end up keeping it probably.

i am trying to think of a good program. like get tons of feeders, let them live nice healthy lives, and then change them to nice small goldfish to sell as cheap pets, and then have babies grown up healthy from a small age, so theygrow up nice and healthy, and use them as feeders. so the feeders, most of them, will have long hjealthy lives and get new homes in aquariums, an then there babies will be even healthier feeders maby? would that be a good program for puddle inc?

btw, i'm gonna make a thread in a sec about feeder goldfissh in a pond, so i'll link in a sec and have a live food question there.

 

[pica_nuttalli]

i am trying to think of a good program. like get tons of feeders, let them live nice healthy lives, and then change them to nice small goldfish to sell as cheap pets, and then have babies grown up healthy from a small age, so theygrow up nice and healthy, and use them as feeders. so the feeders, most of them, will have long hjealthy lives and get new homes in aquariums, an then there babies will be even healthier feeders maby? would that be a good program for puddle inc?

i don't really think that idea will work, puddle. first of all, buying immense numbers of feeders only stimulates the store to order more of them, since "obviously" there's a big market for them--you'll just be encouraging the system. secondly, most people that want a "cheap pet" goldfish just get a Walmart goldie or a feeder anyways; most goldfish are also kept in inadequate housing anyways. unless large garden ponds are intensely popular where you live, then you'll have a hard time finding 100 good homes for all of your rescued common goldfish. finally, even healthy goldfish are a bad choice of feeder fish because their bodies contain an enzyme that ultimately makes predators sick (see the pinned topic in Oddballs for a complete explanation). really, the only good choices for feeder fish are livebearers and cichlids (although cichlids are spiney fish, which can make them a risky choice for some fish).

as oohfeeshy mentioned previously, even feeding fish pellets doesn't escape accusations of cruelty. "fish meal" is just like "corn meal": its little particles of ground-up pisces. feeding bite-sized live fish is probably less cruel than tossing live or asphyxiated fish into a grinder.

the real arguement against the feeding of live foods is the difficulty in achieving actual nutritional balance. modern fish food is calibrated to meet the nutritional needs of specific groups of fish; thus you can get algae wafers, livebearer flake, cichlid pellets and color-enhancers (although that last one is mostly designed with people in mind and should really just be used as a supplement). predominantly feeding store-bought feeders mostly ensures that your pet fish will be malnutritioned and regularly exposed to infectious disease. feeding home-grown feeders is better with regards to the disease aspect, but you still run the risk of malnutrition unless you carefully gut-load your feeders and feed more than one kind of feeder fish (NOT goldfish or minnows, however). if you are just bound and determined to feed live foods, a nice mix of invertebrates is probably the best choice for larger predators; since inverts generally outnumber vertabrates in most foodchains, this is a more "natural" diet anyways.

the best thing that you can do for the nutrition of your fish is to get them feeding on processed foods. period. concerns such as the "naturalness" of feeding are really up to the individual, but i would strongly encourage one to explore the "naturalness" of the tank size first. it generally doesn't hurt to feed a live fish as a treat once in a while, although it does encourage predators to "hunt" smaller tankmates. and live inverts are a great supplement/stimulant. but you really ought to use an appropriate processed food as a staple diet.

(and t1tan, you keep a breeding pair of convicts in a 10g with no filter? that's disgusting and ridiculous. at least put those poor fish in a 20g. convicts might be able to live through hell but there's no reason to subject them to it. )

 

[t1tanrush]

yeah, but to take a big fantail, that was breed and ment to be in a home aquarium or pond, it just isn't right. it's like taking a fancy rat instead of a feeder rat to feed to a python.

Nowt wrong with that. It's far better for the predator- feeder creatures are called that for a reason. They are poorly bred, low quality and usually full of disease- it's like comparing an organic free range egg to a battery one. The former is far superior.

Both rats deserve life equally, you can't decided one life is suddenly worth more than another by a pet store label.

so your saying let thee poor feeders set in an overly stocked tank to rot and die and then get the fish breed for home aquariums? to buy nice ones that kids want to have as pets?

those feeders don't have very long lives, so it's bets for them to be bought now before they just die. i'm gonna have tubs sometime next summer, and buy tons of feeders, let them live in my tubs, get healthy and then sell them cheap as healthy pets. i just don't see why we should let them set there in overstocked tanks to die and get eaten by there siblings.

Yes, maybe they will stop carrying those, and instead carry more fancy varieties, which is good for the kid who wants the pet, as well as the person who needs some live food.
Oh, and since when do feeders not live very long? I've talked to people who have had feeder rats who have lived incredible lives, people who have a common feeder goldfish that lived a very long life. I believe the record for a goldfish was 43 years, in a bowl, water changed once a week, and it was a feeder won at a fair I think it went. I think your a little misinformed to be honest.

so your saying let thee poor feeders set in an overly stocked tank to rot and die and then get the fish breed for home aquariums? to buy nice ones that kids want to have as pets?

Often better that than feeding them to another fish. As you said, they don't live long, so you have to feed them ASAP- feeding a predator on the equivalent of McDonalds meals isn't something that I would like to do, no matter to the moral implications. Indeed, the other way around would be better- if better quality fish were fed and lower quality fish raised up to how they should be. Besides which, you simply don't get variety with feeder fish. In the US, it's usually either goldfish, guppies or minnows- and when you rule out the really unhealthy goldfish, you're left with an unvaried and unbalanced diet.


And don't forget feeder fish don't exist in the UK at all. The yummy bright tails on fancy guppies do attract predators nicely, however

Good illustration of mcdonalds, and yes your right we only have guppies/minnows (same thing) or goldfish. I use minnows, but after that illustration I am going to be looking for another cheap live food fish that would be a bit healthier!

 

[oddball_lover]

With regards to the people who say that 'the fish may enjoy the thrill of the chase' or 'they may enjoy hunting - it's their instict' etc. etc. etc....

Well, the same applies to dogs and cats - but you wouldn't deliberately fence a dog and a rabbit in the same pen, just so the dog could enjoy the 'thrill of the chase' would you?

I agree that there are certain fish that are wild caught and initially may not take dead food...but as stated by others, these fish can normally be eased onto dead foods. So there is absolutely no need to feed live fish as a permenant routine.

Unless of course you so strongly believe in natural feeding that you would happily feed live rabbits to your dog, live mice to your cat, and perhaps go out and hunt a cow yourself with a large blunt stick?

I just feel that it isn't humane to feed fish live when there are alternatives. We have no idea how quickly or slowly the feeder fish die, especially if they are swallowed whole - who knows how long they suffer for?

I mean, most aquarium fish sold in petshops are only semi-domesticated (relatively tame but not completely trusting) which is the same level of domestication as feeder rats.

Luckily we do not have 'feeder rats' in the UK. The only 'feeder rats' available are dead and frozen

 

[t1tanrush]

With regards to the people who say that 'the fish may enjoy the thrill of the chase' or 'they may enjoy hunting - it's their instict' etc. etc. etc....

Well, the same applies to dogs and cats - but you wouldn't deliberately fence a dog and a rabbit in the same pen, just so the dog could enjoy the 'thrill of the chase' would you?
No, but they usually do that on their own, by chasing rabbits/birds/squirrels/mice/rats etc. They do occasionally succeed, and in the case of cats, many cat owners will telly you about how their cat will bring home dead animals sometimes etc. Its not uncommon, there is just not a need to because they have the possibility of catching them on their own, in the aquarium, they can only eat what we give them, they can never just go try and catch food, they are forced to eat our blocks of prepared food.
I agree that there are certain fish that are wild caught and initially may not take dead food...but as stated by others, these fish can normally be eased onto dead foods. So there is absolutely no need to feed live fish as a permenant routine.
So your saying that feeding feeder fish once a week/2 weeks is not needed? Have you ever seen a fish that just eats pellets compared to a fish that eats feeders now and again? The feeder eating fish is more active and always much more alert for the next meal. A fish on pellets just swims up, eats the pellets and goes on about life. Behavior is completely different and much more interesting in most cases with fish that eat feeders.
Unless of course you so strongly believe in natural feeding that you would happily feed live rabbits to your dog, live mice to your cat, and perhaps go out and hunt a cow yourself with a large blunt stick?
You seem to follow the extremes, animals are much more primordial than we are, they follow their instincts. As much as we would like to believe they think like we do, they don't. They still have the instincts to look for a food source.
I just feel that it isn't humane to feed fish live when there are alternatives. We have no idea how quickly or slowly the feeder fish die, especially if they are swallowed whole - who knows how long they suffer for?
The feeder fish is dead within seconds/instantly in most cases, would you rather this fish live longer and die slowly of lets say some internal infection? One is quick, the other is slow and painful. Both are natural, and if you want to provide the best for the particular fish, the first option is obviously the most stress/pain free in the end. Tell me, do you only eat processed food from a box/can? Stuffed with preservatives? Or do you eat some more natural foods as well? Same thing with fish foods, sure there is alternatives, but that doesn't mean we need to cut out what the fish does naturally..hunt.

I mean, most aquarium fish sold in petshops are only semi-domesticated (relatively tame but not completely trusting) which is the same level of domestication as feeder rats.

Luckily we do not have 'feeder rats' in the UK. The only 'feeder rats' available are dead and frozen

 

[fry_lover]

With regards to the people who say that 'the fish may enjoy the thrill of the chase' or 'they may enjoy hunting - it's their instict' etc. etc. etc....

Well, the same applies to dogs and cats - but you wouldn't deliberately fence a dog and a rabbit in the same pen, just so the dog could enjoy the 'thrill of the chase' would you?

I agree that there are certain fish that are wild caught and initially may not take dead food...but as stated by others, these fish can normally be eased onto dead foods. So there is absolutely no need to feed live fish as a permenant routine.

Unless of course you so strongly believe in natural feeding that you would happily feed live rabbits to your dog, live mice to your cat, and perhaps go out and hunt a cow yourself with a large blunt stick?

I just feel that it isn't humane to feed fish live when there are alternatives. We have no idea how quickly or slowly the feeder fish die, especially if they are swallowed whole - who knows how long they suffer for?

I mean, most aquarium fish sold in petshops are only semi-domesticated (relatively tame but not completely trusting) which is the same level of domestication as feeder rats.

Luckily we do not have 'feeder rats' in the UK. The only 'feeder rats' available are dead and frozen

I am laughing here, but i do agree with the way you have put that Oddball Lover, its a classic arguement for peeps who use feeder fish "its nature" and i so admire these peeps dedication to "nature" (LOL), you never know odd-ball lover, maybe some of these peeps do actually go out into the fields each day and with a blunt instrument and bring a cow or sheep back to the table and feed the family?

Nah, the "nature" arguement doesnt work for me, BUT what does work for me "mostly" is responsible fish keepers researching their chosen fish (if it's a predator) and then being very thoughtul around feeding issues (ethics, other choices available, suffering of fish, what (if any) of their own desires and thrills are involved in the feeding of live fish etc) - I SAY what (if any) i dont think it applies to everyone, perhaps some and hopefully only a minority.

However, all sarcasm aside, i too do acknolwegde that there are some responsible fish keepers as perhaps highlighted by some on this thread, that do take it seriously and only use feeder fish if they actually "feel" they have no choice, whether they do have "choice" or not is another debate, but i respect it when an experienced and thoughtful fish-keeper actually tells me "the fish will die / starve" without live fish food.

 

[fry_lover]

I agree that there are certain fish that are wild caught and initially may not take dead food...but as stated by others, these fish can normally be eased onto dead foods. So there is absolutely no need to feed live fish as a permenant routine.
So your saying that feeding feeder fish once a week/2 weeks is not needed? Have you ever seen a fish that just eats pellets compared to a fish that eats feeders now and again? The feeder eating fish is more active and always much more alert for the next meal. A fish on pellets just swims up, eats the pellets and goes on about life. Behavior is completely different and much more interesting in most cases with fish that eat feeders.

T1TANRUSH - you seem to assume that if we dont use feeder fish we are just using "pellets" or thats the impression i get from your posts. There is a wealth of foods and choices beyond pellets and flake foods. Look, i am no scientist or fish nutritionalist LOL, but i have heard (and believe) the arguements that go a little like this

"in this day and age, with the wealth of fish foods available, especially frozen, there is really no nutritional need to use live fish as a source of food for say 99% of fish kept as pets"

and as i believe and have faith in the above statement, i therefore see no need to use feeders which

1. for me create ethical issues especially as i truly believe its a lot about the owners pleasure and excitement (not all, so i am not judging you personally)

2. will carry a greater risk of disease

 

[t1tanrush]

I am laughing here, but i do agree with the way you have put that Oddball Lover, its a classic arguement for peeps who use feeder fish "its nature" and i so admire these peeps dedication to "nature" (LOL), you never know odd-ball lover, maybe some of these peeps do actually go out into the fields each day and with a blunt instrument and bring a cow or sheep back to the table and feed the family?

Nah, the "nature" arguement doesnt work for me, BUT what does work for me "mostly" is responsible fish keepers researching their chosen fish (if it's a predator) and then being very thoughtul around feeding issues (ethics, other choices available, suffering of fish, what (if any) of their own desires and thrills are involved in the feeding of live fish etc) - I SAY what (if any) i dont think it applies to everyone, perhaps some and hopefully only a minority.

However, all sarcasm aside, i too do acknolwegde that there are some responsible fish keepers as perhaps highlighted by some on this thread, that do take it seriously and only use feeder fish if they actually "feel" they have no choice, whether they do have "choice" or not is another debate, but i respect it is an experienced and thoughtful fish-keeper actually tells me "the fish will die / starve" without live fish food.

lol? Read my post?
I researched my frog, knew for a fact they could eat pellets without problems, but I find it a bit healthier to provide my frog with some fish to eat. For one, I noticed how much more active she was. I had her on pellets for weeks, she was skittish, sat in one spot most of the time, and really just ate her pellets. It was very hard to get her to stay healthy and active. Providing fish gives her a good source of food. She can follow her instincts and chase them, she is MUCH more active, isn't afraid of anything and is growing at a much more steady pace than before. So it seems that even though she could and would eat pellets, it isn't the right thing and the benefits of the live food are obvious. Oh, and its not desires/thrills, but its also very interesting to watch a fish hunt and consume a prey. Not because its cruel, but because its interesting. So if thats so wrong, I expect you never to watch a snake hunt, or a lizard eat some crickets, or watch much on animal planet etc.

 

[t1tanrush]

I agree that there are certain fish that are wild caught and initially may not take dead food...but as stated by others, these fish can normally be eased onto dead foods. So there is absolutely no need to feed live fish as a permenant routine.
So your saying that feeding feeder fish once a week/2 weeks is not needed? Have you ever seen a fish that just eats pellets compared to a fish that eats feeders now and again? The feeder eating fish is more active and always much more alert for the next meal. A fish on pellets just swims up, eats the pellets and goes on about life. Behavior is completely different and much more interesting in most cases with fish that eat feeders.

T1TANRUSH - you seem to assume that if we dont use feeder fish we are just using "pellets" or thats the impression i get from your posts. There is a wealth of foods and choices beyond pellets and flake foods. Look, i am no scientist or fish nutritionalist LOL, but i have heard (and believe) the arguements that go a little like this
I never said you feed just flakes/pellets, but that is usually the main staple for many, many fish in the hobby, and its a fact that is proven. Yes I know of the other foods, I own many including plankton, tubifex worms, and brine shrimp.
"in this day and age, with the wealth of fish foods available, especially frozen, there is really no nutritional need to use live fish as a source of food for say 99% of fish kept as pets"
As stated in my above post, the benefits are obviously viewable in fish activity levels, its also easier to get them growing at a steadier rate, when they are hungry they eat more, just as in the wild, whereas on our foods they must eat on our time frame and don't grow as they would naturally.
and as i believe and have faith in the above statement, i therefore see no need to use feeders which

1. for me create ethical issues especially as i truly believe its a lot about the owners pleasure and excitement (not all, so i am not judging you personally)
Its interesting, if I find it interesting to see how a fish hunts and consumes its food is unethical, then what about watching animals on TV hunt and you find it interesting?
2. will carry a greater risk of disease
In some cases yes, if you watching your feeder fish carefully watching for disease, and other illnesses and are fully ready to deal with anything that may arise then its really not going to be a problem, especially if you breed your own.