Live Foods.

[fry_lover]

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.

*quickly turns of Animal Planet* hey are you spying on me, who's that outside my windows LOL (joke)

I merely meant that the NUTRITIONAL aspect must be the main reason (in my opinion), and no i wouldnt look down / judge someone if they merely found it "interesting" see further explanaition on this now. My point is, i would find it wholly wrong (not that many peeps would admit to this) IF the "thrill or excitement" was the main priority of using feeding fish (see You Tube, we all know its rife in the world of fish keeping) - in fact i would even say that if the priority is of "interest" then its wrong (in my opinion) BUT, if peeps are telling me its for the health and nutritional blessings it brings for their animal (fish, frog whatever) then i respect that, i am not convinced, but i respect it.

 

[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.

*quickly turns of Animal Planet* hey are you spying on me, who's that outside my windows LOL (joke)

I merely meant that the NUTRITIONAL aspect must be the main reason (in my opinion), and no i wouldnt look down / judge someone if they merely found it "interesting" see further explanaition on this now. My point is, i would find it wholly wrong (not that many peeps would admit to this) IF the "thrill or excitement" was the main priority of using feeding fish (see You Tube, we all know its rife in the world of fish keeping) - in fact i would even say that if the priority is of "interest" then its wrong (in my opinion) BUT, if peeps are telling me its for the health and nutritional blessings it brings for their animal (fish, frog whatever) then i respect that, i am not convinced, but i respect it.

Chances are, that if the fish is more active, eating more regularly on their own time, and are obviously growing more and looking better than it is a healthy thing to do. In the case of my frog I have proven that. It can even be more nutritional when using fish you've bred yourself and gut loaded them to make them healthy.

 

[oddball_lover]

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.

I'm definitely not suggesting that only pellets should be fed. That would be an entirely boring diet!

From first hand experience i've seen the 'excitement' of fish in a tank when defrosted prawns and mussels are dropped in - and, as you say, active and alert, darting about to try and find the little scraps that have been missed. So i'm afraid i'm not convinced on that point, an exciting diet can still be offered without resorting to feeding live fish.

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.

As has been said - we do not have feeder fish in the UK. Therefore any fish bought as a 'feeder' will have come from the tanks of 'ornamental' specimens and therefore will be just as healthy as any other fish
If only other countries got rid of 'feeder fish' in their stores, then there simply would not BE the welfare decision of 'slow and painful' or possibly 'quick' death - the choice would simply be 'life' or 'death'. And, if people were paying the full price for a healthy fish, then maybe the 'thrillseekers' may think twice before buying a feeder for kicks.

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?

Animals on the TV are in the wild, and hunting to survive. The typical aquarium fish would hunt out of instinct, not out of the necessity for survival.
I have no problems with live feeding if the actual survival of the predatory fish in question is under threat.

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.

Exactly...you put that far better than I could have!

 

[t1tanrush]

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.

I'm definitely not suggesting that only pellets should be fed. That would be an entirely boring diet!

From first hand experience i've seen the 'excitement' of fish in a tank when defrosted prawns and mussels are dropped in - and, as you say, active and alert, darting about to try and find the little scraps that have been missed. So i'm afraid i'm not convinced on that point, an exciting diet can still be offered without resorting to feeding live fish.
I've tried multitudes of food, I've even tried pre killed fish on my frog, nothing keeps my frog more active than some live food. Sure, an "exciting" diet can be offered, but its simply not the same, they will learn to recognize this food and it will lose its luster, making you constantly look for a new source of food to keep your fish intrigued, whereas with live fish, they know what it is but they still have to catch it!

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.

As has been said - we do not have feeder fish in the UK. Therefore any fish bought as a 'feeder' will have come from the tanks of 'ornamental' specimens and therefore will be just as healthy as any other fish
If only other countries got rid of 'feeder fish' in their stores, then there simply would not BE the welfare decision of 'slow and painful' or possibly 'quick' death - the choice would simply be 'life' or 'death'. And, if people were paying the full price for a healthy fish, then maybe the 'thrillseekers' may think twice before buying a feeder for kicks.
It would be great if they got rid of feeder fish tanks, not the best choice in my eyes either, but yes I use it as do many, the cheap bargains suck me in..

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?

Animals on the TV are in the wild, and hunting to survive. The typical aquarium fish would hunt out of instinct, not out of the necessity for survival.
I have no problems with live feeding if the actual survival of the predatory fish in question is under threat.
Just because they don't need to hunt to survive doesn't mean they don't need to ever hunt at all? So your saying you don't have a problem with feeding if the survival of the pedatory fish is under threat? I think I'm misunderstanding, please clarify.

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.

Exactly...you put that far better than I could have!

 

[~T~]

My missus has clawed frogs and they are really active.In the wild they feed on carcasses etc so dropping a frozen prawn or mussel in makes them go into a frenzy.The only live foods they have had are earthworms.Wish they would eat baby apple snails though since their tank is infested with them.

 

[oddball_lover]

Just because they don't need to hunt to survive doesn't mean they don't need to ever hunt at all? So your saying you don't have a problem with feeding if the survival of the pedatory fish is under threat? I think I'm misunderstanding, please clarify.

I mean that if your fish was absolutely 100% refusing to eat dried foods, defrost foods etc. because it was wild caught and not accustomed to such foods (or other similar circumstances) and it was going downhill, then in this case I can see why live feeding would be necessary, to prevent your fish from dying. Of course, that would be the owner's priority.

However, I do not agree with the routine feeding of live fish when the predatory fish in question will take dried and defrosted foods. As with snake owners who try to wean their live feeders onto dead food, I would hope that predatory fish owners would take the same measures and try to encourage their fish to take dead rather than live.

Regarding your first question - referring back to the analogy of dogs - a dog does not need to hunt to survive (as it is fed a ready prepared food) but it will likely hunt on instinct if given the opportunity. However, i'm sure very few dog owners take their dogs hunting as it is not necessary - i.e. it does not need to hunt to survive, therefore they don't need to ever hunt at all.

 

[puddle_inc]

i've not read all the new posts yet, but this thread, i think, was a great idea. everyone seems to enjoy this debate =)

 

[andywg]

So T1, you have researched your frog and give it the occasional feeder because you believe it is natural. Do you ensure that every live feeder you supply is from the frog's natural habitat and has been feeding on its own food that is from the frog's natural habitat to ensure that the frog is getting its natural diet?

If not then any argument towards it being more "natural" is pretty defunct.

I do acknowledge that some people just enjoy seeing fish hunt and feed on live foods. I myself feed live inverts from time to time (such as feeder shrimp or bloodworms) and have a fuge set up on my reef as a breeding ground for small inverts to supply food for my dragonet.

And I can safely say I don't have a major problem with feeding a feeder fish if a predatory fish is not taking dead. I usually start off any new pred fish in a tank with some live feeder shrimp, but if necessary I would intriduce a fish to be eaten, though that would be to make sure the fish has fed, and I would then owrk on getting the fish to take dead food.

 

[OohFeeshy]

Just to note another difference between the US and UK situations- the lucky people in the US usually get freshwater feeder shrimp, whereas in the UK they're brackish. This is a problem if the target fish is slow or whatever- they don't last long in freshwater tanks, meaning if they're not eaten quickly, they die and pollute the tank. And don't move about so no one eats them. Whereas fish live for as long as they need to (before they're eaten), are usually out in the open and swim at all levels.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

How do people know that the fish used in prepared foods are humanely killed though? Most are probably put into a food processor alive. The vast majority of fish foods contain an assortment of fish, crustaceons and molluscs. Not to stir up too much contrversy or anything, but there's only point in defending prepared foods if you know for sure the animals that go into them are humanely killed.

 

[Dany]

people dont honest beleive that each and every frozen prawn, smelt etc is individually, humanely killed do they? on such vast quantities, if captivity bred, the smelt are "sieved" from the water, put into packaging and frozen, probably alive. IF wild caught the smelt are netted and probably left to die in the open air until they reach the destination of the manafacute of these packeted fish.
Dan

 

[Gatorbait]

Hmmm, the last 2 posts, by Tokis-Phoenix and Dany, bring up an excellent point.

Personally, I don't know so it would be nice (and a good learning experience) to hear from those that are against feeding live foods for their perspective on which way is more humane for the feeder fish to die- Live feeding or in processed foods?

 

[WILDER]

Tokis is very good at making excellent points.
She writes very good articles, well done tokis.
Wish I could write like you.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Tokis is very good at making excellent points.
She writes very good articles, well done tokis.
Wish I could write like you.

Thanks wilder !

 

[t1tanrush]

So T1, you have researched your frog and give it the occasional feeder because you believe it is natural. Do you ensure that every live feeder you supply is from the frog's natural habitat and has been feeding on its own food that is from the frog's natural habitat to ensure that the frog is getting its natural diet?

If not then any argument towards it being more "natural" is pretty defunct.

I do acknowledge that some people just enjoy seeing fish hunt and feed on live foods. I myself feed live inverts from time to time (such as feeder shrimp or bloodworms) and have a fuge set up on my reef as a breeding ground for small inverts to supply food for my dragonet.

And I can safely say I don't have a major problem with feeding a feeder fish if a predatory fish is not taking dead. I usually start off any new pred fish in a tank with some live feeder shrimp, but if necessary I would intriduce a fish to be eaten, though that would be to make sure the fish has fed, and I would then owrk on getting the fish to take dead food.

No, its not exactly from its natural habitat, and I will be researching deeper into that farther shortly. However, I do believe a minnow is a bit more natural than a pellet labeled " reptile/amphibian premium sticks ". So I still have a bit more of a natural situation My frog is an active predatory, live fish keep her active, full, and much healthier than if I used only dead.