Feeding once per day??? Every other day?

[Crusty Old Shellback]

Dolfan,
I do agree with you on that point. And I think most people do that.

However, in my tank I guess I don't feed enough then because even without reducing the flow, I can watch the fish chase the food all over the tank until it's all gone. What little bit dosen't get eaten, usually goes over the overflow and into the skimmer where it's removed. I see little to no food on the bottom of my tank after feeding.

In my small reef, I use the frozen cubes (the big tank gets pellets as the fish in there won't touch the cubes ) that have a gel to keep them together. I have seen the cube sit on the bottom of the tank for about half a day. The fish will throughout the day return to that cube and "snack" on it during the day.

[barrysalt]

Tryppl--although I respect your opinion, to which you are entitled, it still is just your OPINION, not based on facts. Obviously from all the response to these threads, some people and their livestock do just great feeding sparingly; if you want to feed more frequently, do it. But don't get semi-hysterical that less than your method is either wrong or cruel. With so many variables involved with every tank, a "one size fits all" philosophy of feeding is just not, well, justifiable. IMO.

[Clown-lover]

I feed small amounts (all they can eat in about 10 secs) 3 times daily.

[SDguy]

I think the type of fish you have will dictate how much feeding should be done. No way will you have long term success with anthias feeding once every 3-4 days (unless you have a HUGE fuge). Nor do I think clowns, for example, will spawn on that schedule, but mine seemed healthy for over a year on once every 4-5 day feedings. I think reefs with fuges can get away with fewer feedings...again, depending on the fish though.

Today I feed 1-2 times a day, pretty heavy. But never is there left a peice of uneaten food. Just my experience.

[Agu]

Originaly posted by sci fi

But get out of the once a day habit fast. Unless you are cycling you are almost for SURE having an algae problem b/c of overfeeding. I know

I must be the exception .

Ten gallon with no mechanical filtration, no fuge, no skimmer, and no nuisance algae (except coraline ) in three years. And I've been feeding two or three times a day for all three years.

Each tank is different and what works for me may not work for others. However that doesn't justify underfeeding pets because a person is having problems with their system or it's maintenence.

jmo

[KevinFJB]

Originally posted by SCIFI_3D_zoo
Do you have corals?? They're more sensitive to water quality than fish. So if you do then you should be much more concerned with overfeeding b/c you'll foul your water up QUICK. It's one of the most abused habits in reefin... OVER FEEDING. First thing you should do is think about feeding once every 2-3 days. You can alternate 2 and 3 if you want. But get out of the once a day habit fast. Unless you are cycling you are almost for SURE having an algae problem b/c of overfeeding.

Agree that overfeeding can cause major water quality issues, but generally disagree with the rest.

You can't generalize a feeding regimen - it depends on the tank and its inhabitants and the equipment.

I feed 2 to 3 times per day between 6pm and 11 pm - flakes, frozen cubes and nori...not all fish eat all of the above, some do, but not all. Anthias need to be fed at least once per day; they expend a lot of energy and need the protein and nutrient. My Achilles tang is nuts and moves constantly, and needs energy to do that. We could get by eating every other day, but its better to eat 5 small meals per day according to expert opinion, isn't it.

Tanks with big skimmers, ozone, and large water volumes are not automatically fowled if you feed more than once every few days.

How do you know if a fish feels hungry? They lose body fat and waste away and it would make sense that the need for nourishment will drive their behavior to graze/catch food.

I have 20 fish and over 60 individual SPS pieces in a 112g tank, run with a good skimmer, sump/refugium, and ozone and have never had hair algae over 2 years and have thriving and colorful acros.

[trippyl]

Originally posted by barrysalt
Tryppl--although I respect your opinion, to which you are entitled, it still is just your OPINION, not based on facts. Obviously from all the response to these threads, some people and their livestock do just great feeding sparingly; if you want to feed more frequently, do it. But don't get semi-hysterical that less than your method is either wrong or cruel. With so many variables involved with every tank, a "one size fits all" philosophy of feeding is just not, well, justifiable. IMO.

Thanks for labelling me semi-hysterical. The reality here is that I am not saying one size fits all, I am responding to others who are saying that. When i had tangs, I would feed them as they needed (nori all day, feedings twice a day, live algae every week or so), my anemone gets fed two times a week, because that is right for him.

The person I was responding to said that we should get out of the habit of feeding daily. Now THATS a one size fits all.

The sad part of this thread is that some people actually took this advice and their poor fish have to live with the results of this ignorance.

[barrysalt]

Sorry, Trypple--didn't mean to get so judgemental....just trying to point out, as I think you were, that there seems to be a large window of acceptable feeding routines, depending on many factors. And within that "window" livestock seems to thrive, whether it's several times/day feeding, or several days without feeding. Whatever works for the benefit of the livestock. LOL

[SCIFI_3D_zoo]

Trippyl:

Originally posted by trippyl
Whats your point exactly? Sounds to me like if you are so concerned about the corals, you shouldn't be keeping fish. You wouldn't feed a cat dog food. You wouldn't house a lion with sheep.

I've gotta say that to air the assumption that these animals don't feel is the most offensive point of view of all. May karma never find you.

Feed your fish. If they are eating pods, great. But make sure they get enough food, and the right quantities at the right times. Otherwise, don't take on the responsibility of keeping them.

I don't think there's a conspiracy on feeding here. I think it is true over-feeding is a big problem. IF you are a animal lover then you should be concerned b/c many things die every day b/c of over-feeding. IF you get away with doing it everyday then we should analyze your tank and feeding methods... it's interesting. But lets be reasonable here. We all know how reefin is. Ideally fish scavenge all day long so you'd think it's a SIN to not imitate this. If you wanted to be technical about it then NOBODY should have fish, coral, or just about any other animal since they are all much better off in the wild. BUT if we're gonna keep these animals the best we can do is try to keep them alive and healthy. We are all operating under conditions that are NOT exactly imitating the natural home of these creatures. So it's NOT really a valid argument to use that as your main point. There's obviously a RANGE of feeding patterns is that is acceptable and will work. But the point remains the same... be very careful about over-feeding. If you feel guilty and think your fish are depressed then go ahead and feed all you want and see if it works for you. Come back and let us all know how it goes. Maybe a more established reef with lots of good bacteria and detrius critters can handle all that waste?? I think we can all get along and discuss stuff like this without the "fish police" telling us what the "feeding ethics" are.

Somebody else commented on this "fish feel" thing too. Karma? I'm an educated, well read, open-minded American. I'm not from India or something so I don't believe I will come back in another live as an under-fed fish. Some people believe in stuff like that I know. I've spent most of my young life reading and watching about animals. And not only does my knowledge cover animal treatment, ethics, habitat destructions, extinction, etc .etc. but is also includes information from studies on animal behavior, intelligence, social life, etc. And there is specific science that says animals are NOT self-aware. There is documented proof that dolphins can see themselves in mirrors.. maybe a primate too? But every other animal tested so far demonstrates no self-awareness. You could lop off the top of our heads and leave nothing but the brain stem and we'd still react just like an animal. It's purely nerves and motor reaction. To think and feel are very specific to the human SPECIES only. Does that scare some animal loving PETA type people?? Probably. Maybe they're scared any such attitudes will lead to more animal abuse or something. I think we can all understand that concern. But fear only leads to irrational and illogical attitudes and behavior. I think I've really done all I can to explain this scientific concept. It's only with emotions do we find ourselves dealing with the irrational behavior of "liberals". Hence... ROME passing a law banning gold fish bowls b/c the fish are unhappy in them.

If you take a fish and poke him with a needle, then poke me with a needle you may find both subjects will move away from the source of pain AND exhibit a pain reaction like... making a facial expression, verbal noise expression, etc. But to say we both had the same experience is unscientific, illogical, irrational, and full of liberal animal-loving emotion. I'm an animal-loving god-loving creature myself but I don't go so far as to let that affect my rationality. I think we should respect animals and share the world with them. But I do NOT put them on the same level as humans. Lets face it. They were put here for us to enjoy, eat, and as a part of our cycle of life. And animals like primates, dolphins, etc. should remind us of ourselves so much that we should respect them more than any other animals. But to put me as a human on the same level as a clown fish is just ridiculous. We worry about feeding b/c we want the best care for our fish and corals.

So you're are trying to tell us if you don't feed a fish as much as they want they are unhappy? AGAIN.. the question is attaching human qualities to animals again. Fish don't know what hunger is. They just have a electrical signal to their brain that tells them to eat more, eat less. NOW we do too BUT there certainly is a lot more to us than that. If you can't see this there's nothing else to say really. You are lost in the emotion and illogicalness of liberalism.

Maybe we should suggest the 2-minute rule again?? What they can eat in 2 minutes but don't dump it all in at once. Just actual eating for 2 minutes. And every professional I've ever talked to even then still says every other day. Trust me.. your fish won't know the difference. They aren't aware they are hungry, they don't know what stress is, and everybody's fish all over the world are doing just fine. If you want to do it everyday go for it. But don't feed twice as much.

I KNEW I'd attract at least one upset person with my comments. But you know what... all I'm doing is repeating what the scientists and people who study animals say about their behavior. I just happen to agree with it. It's a fine line between a "healthy" respect for animals and an unhealthy respect for them. Other than that I don't really want to debate it any further.

Originally posted by trippyl
Wrong, this isnt about what skimmer to use, or BB vs DSB, all of which are fine choices and won't affect the lives that we have under our care. This is about being a responsible owner of pets. FEED YOUR FISH. If your tank can't support the feeding needs of your fish, then give the fish to someone who can. Feeding 2-3 times a week is plain cruel. It's not surprising to me that the same people in this thread who feed so sparingly also have the opinion that fish don't feel hunger. Get a grip

Wrong. I have done many things from feeding a WHOLE lot once a day (2-3 cubes) to one every 3 days. Llike everybody else I'm trying to figure out what is best for the tank as a "WHOLE". You assume I have never fed once a day and that I choose a feeding pattern out of "cruelty". Again... that is an emotional response and it only obscures the logic of the situation from you.

Most of us don't have the ability to feed several times a day. So you are such an animal nut that if we don't do this or have some equipment that can feed them multiple times a day, and with fresh frozen food since flakes and pellets are not natural... that we shouldn't have fish? That doesn't sound extreme to you?? With such rules in place nobody would ever have any type of pet.

IF you want to feed every day fine. But instead of saying that over and over why don't you clarify to the new people what exactly that entails. What type of food, how much, how often do you feed? You certainly don't do a regular multi--cube feeding several times a day do you? Again it depends on what you have in the tank too. A big one with a bunch of large fish might handle several cubes a day right.

One last thing about fish CRUELTY. I've already explained my position with the source of my information (watch TLC, Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, etc.), what the scientific evidence is, etc. I've heard nothing but raw emotion as a basis for defense on the other side. I think you should just say "my opinion" is I think fish have feelings... .... and you can say you disagree with what any scientists or anybody else says. You can be oblivious to any other information on the matter. That's ok. There's a lot of people out there like you. But for those who want to discuss it we should do so in a way WITHOUT emotion. I already know how you feel and what you are trying to say. You just don't have any logic or rationale behind it. I like to discuss and debate things. This whole concept of self-awareness was fascinating and I first heard about it like 20 years ago. But we're not gonna learn anything from each other if we're going to just banter.

I've actually found this thread very educational except for the "fish with feelings" bit. If some of you are doing once a day or more it'd be nice to know if you are putting in one or more normal or large size cubes? Are you just doing one but breaking it up into pieces, etc.? Lets not confuse the new people asking a legitimate question. The consequences could be disasterous.

[SCIFI_3D_zoo]

Originally posted by trippyl
Thanks for labelling me semi-hysterical. The reality here is that I am not saying one size fits all, I am responding to others who are saying that. When i had tangs, I would feed them as they needed (nori all day, feedings twice a day, live algae every week or so), my anemone gets fed two times a week, because that is right for him.

The person I was responding to said that we should get out of the habit of feeding daily. Now THATS a one size fits all.

The sad part of this thread is that some people actually took this advice and their poor fish have to live with the results of this ignorance.

AH... good point. Some say to give your Tangs some seaweed or something everyday. How much? What I do is do frozen foods one day, greens the next day, back to frozen. So in general I still do every other day with exceptions... NOT including coral diets. Like I said.. you can feed them 10x a day if you want... but that doesn't mean 10x a normal feeding. So if you did 1 cube a day... then do 10 a day. So the question then again is how much and how often. I still think you should AVOID being sensitive and guilty and emotional about this. Some fish have specific instructions that they be fed everyday. I would still say be very careful with feedings and do so in a sparingly manner. If everything is ok... and they still seem hungry add a little more. Maybe some people too don't have a well established tank to handle excess waste?? Maybe that's why it's such a big problem for new people. New tank, inexperience with feeding.

[Crusty Old Shellback]

OK here's exactly what I feed and my inhabitants.

45G reef
scooter bleny, red head bleney, red spot wrasse, red coris wrase, purple fredimani, coral beauty angle. I drop one cube of frozen food a day into the tank and let them all go after it.

400G soon to be reef.
pair of phsyidalic mandrins
pair of spoted mandrins
3" blue hippo tang
7" foxface
8" female Naso
10" male Naso
10" sailfin
13" Vlamingi
7" pink tale trigger.

I feed 1/2 cup of a mixture of small, medium and large pellets twice a day. I also feed a 8" X 10" sheet of Nori a day as well.

[trippyl]

Originally posted by SCIFI_3D_zoo
And there is specific science that says animals are NOT self-aware. There is documented proof that dolphins can see themselves in mirrors.. maybe a primate too? But every other animal tested so far demonstrates no self-awareness. You could lop off the top of our heads and leave nothing but the brain stem and we'd still react just like an animal. It's purely nerves and motor reaction. To think and feel are very specific to the human SPECIES only. Does that scare some animal loving PETA type people?? Probably. Maybe they're scared any such attitudes will lead to more animal abuse or something. I think we can all understand that concern. But fear only leads to irrational and illogical attitudes and behavior. I think I've really done all I can to explain this scientific concept. It's only with emotions do we find ourselves dealing with the irrational behavior of "liberals". Hence... ROME passing a law banning gold fish bowls b/c the fish are unhappy in them.

If you take a fish and poke him with a needle, then poke me with a needle you may find both subjects will move away from the source of pain AND exhibit a pain reaction like... making a facial expression, verbal noise expression, etc. But to say we both had the same experience is unscientific, illogical, irrational, and full of liberal animal-loving emotion. I'm an animal-loving god-loving creature myself but I don't go so far as to let that affect my rationality. I think we should respect animals and share the world with them. But I do NOT put them on the same level as humans. Lets face it. They were put here for us to enjoy, eat, and as a part of our cycle of life.

Science has not proven that animals are not self aware. It's proven that animals are not self aware the way we are self aware, as that is all science can do at this point. But even those tests that you speak of are so limited, that the whole point is moot. Scientists just recently agreed that dogs and cats have feelings - something dog and cat owners have known for years. Clearly the "science" here is a bit immature.

Judging fish behavior, they are self aware, else they wouldn't eat so greedily, hang out with other species from other oceans, or do any of the other interesting behaviors that they do. Don't try to talk to me about instincts - I find it funny that people who think animals are somehow "lesser" than we also tend to think also think humans have no instincts. We are ALL animals, no more no less and we are all equal whether you want to admit it or not. They are not here "for our pleasure," we are all here for whatever reason. Ask a bear whether he is here for your pleasure or vice versa, you may be surprised by the response you get.

Do animals ponder the inequities of life? No. Do they think, wow that weird looking fish with legs is starving me to death in this glass JAIL? Yes.


To answer the questions about what I do, well I feel about 1.5 cubes in the morning, and about 1 cube or less at night. It's important to note that it's not so important how much you feed at each feeding, just that you do feed something. I also am very careful about how I feed, I don't just throw the cube in. I rinse it, and feed small amounts of the cube until it's all gone, or until the fish seem less than interested. I don't have tangs now, so I don't have to feed as often as I used to, or provide nori.

[mm949]

i never feed the fish in my reef tank....you can grow everything your corals and fish need in your tank....my predator 750gl gets fed once a week

[GMGQ]

Well I break off a small piece of frozen mysis shrimp and feed my tank daily. I recently got a Sun Coral, so I feed each poly daily as well.

But I dont care how big your tank is (well maybe 450 is pretty BIG). But on average, I'd say our tanks are about 100Gallons. That is compared to the whole ocean for the fish to "graze" from. Personally, I dont think these specimens find enough food in one day in our tanks, than they would in the wild. Even if you have a large pod-filled refugium, the live food in the wild is much more plentiful. Also, a lot of fish may not be noctural grazers, which is when most pods come out. (I know my clowns tend to hang out in a calm corner of my tank at night). So they'd have to try and adapt to stay alive in your tank. Hence when you skip a day or two of feeding, you're actually starving them, albeit by a small factor.

It's like keeping Mandarins. The Mandarin Police say we have to have healthy, pod-filled refugiums in order to keep Mandarins, or else they'll starve to death. Nobody denies the numerous of Mandarin deaths due to starvation. They just cant find enough food sometimes.

Sure they may "look" all fine and dandy, but you would too if you skipped a meal here or there. (I dont know the anatomy of fish, but I'm sure their stomaches dont look concave until they're totally starving and near death). But they would be much more comfortable and stress-free if they were fed more often than not. I know I'm misplacing these 'fish' in the food chain, but it's a basic principle of life. We're taking these creatures from their natural habitat, we've all accepted that. So the least we could do is make life easier on them.

[trippyl]

Well said Gary.

[KDodds]

This:

Originally posted by SCIFI_3D_zoo
Somebody else commented on this "fish feel" thing too. Karma? I'm an educated, well read, open-minded American.

Followed by this:

Originally posted by SCIFI_3D_zoo
I'm not from India or something so I don't believe I will come back in another live as an under-fed fish. Some people believe in stuff like that I know.

Is either the definition of closed-minded, oxymoronic, or one negates the other.

Originally posted by SCIFI_3D_zoo
And there is specific science that says animals are NOT self-aware. There is documented proof that dolphins can see themselves in mirrors.. maybe a primate too? But every other animal tested so far demonstrates no self-awareness.

And it neither proves nor disproves the tested animals' self-awareness. All it proves is that they are not self-aware to teh limits of the test and our interpretation of the tests. Tests can be flawed, inherently. Reflection tests require a certain level of abstract intelligence that an animal may not have, but that does not mean it is not self-aware.

Originally posted by SCIFI_3D_zoo
You could lop off the top of our heads and leave nothing but the brain stem and we'd still react just like an animal.

Not quite. People with 0 high brain function are not able to decide whether or not to move from one place to the next, to eat, to excrete, to reproduce.

Originally posted by SCIFI_3D_zoo
It's purely nerves and motor reaction.

Not entirely. If that were the case fight or flight would not be an issue in the case of pain and/or fear. A human with no high brain function may exhibit involuntary nervous reaction, but that human will not make a conscious choice as to what to do about it. They won't flee, they won't fight. Beyond the initial base jerk reaction, they'll just lay there. If anything, your example proves very well that animals DO have higher brain functions.

Originally posted by SCIFI_3D_zoo
To think and feel are very specific to the human SPECIES only.

Only in your opinion. Many primates are able to think, to reason. They can cry and laugh and play games. So can many other mammals. So can some invertebrates in fact. That you choose to define solely YOUR experience, as a human, as the ONLY experience that defines thinking and feeling is pretty closed-minded.

Originally posted by SCIFI_3D_zoo
But fear only leads to irrational and illogical attitudes and behavior.

I find this very amusing coming from someone who quotes religion as scientific fact to define his position, as a human, in the world order.

Originally posted by SCIFI_3D_zoo
I think I've really done all I can to explain this scientific concept.

Other than the mentioning of some vague experiemnts, without reference, I see no explanation of scientific concepts here.

Originally posted by SCIFI_3D_zoo
If you take a fish and poke him with a needle, then poke me with a needle you may find both subjects will move away from the source of pain AND exhibit a pain reaction like... making a facial expression, verbal noise expression, etc. But to say we both had the same experience is unscientific, illogical, irrational, and full of liberal animal-loving emotion.

And to say that you don't is equally unscientific, illogical, irrational, and full of religious dogma.

Originally posted by SCIFI_3D_zoo
I'm an animal-loving god-loving creature myself but I don't go so far as to let that affect my rationality.

Oh no?

Originally posted by SCIFI_3D_zoo
They were put here for us to enjoy, eat, and as a part of our cycle of life.

Can you conceive that there are people that might not believe that animals were "put here", let alone for "us to [use]" as we see fit? They're rational people. Some may be "liberals", some may not. But by letting religion, by definition a non-rational, non-scientific belief system based solely on faith, dictate this position, for or against, is the definition of irrational.

Originally posted by SCIFI_3D_zoo
So you're are trying to tell us if you don't feed a fish as much as they want they are unhappy? AGAIN.. the question is attaching human qualities to animals again. Fish don't know what hunger is. They just have a electrical signal to their brain that tells them to eat more, eat less. NOW we do too BUT there certainly is a lot more to us than that. If you can't see this there's nothing else to say really. You are lost in the emotion and illogicalness of liberalism.

I'm probably one of the staunchest supporters of removing anthropomorphism from animal husbandry, but this just makes no sense whatsoever. It is not possible to determine whether fish are "happy" or even incapable or capable of being "happy". That's not to say the can or can't be happy. I have no clue, and neither does anyone else because, AFAIK, no one speaks fish. The point in removing anthropomorphism is to remove decisions based on emotion instead of observation. The feeling that fish do not feel hunger, are not unhappy if they need to eat is equally as invalid in this context as feeling that they do feel hunger on a higher level and that they do feel unhappy because of it. The point is to remove that entirely and do what is good for the fish based on its observed thriving or failing, not on "making it happy" or denying that it can "be happy". Maybe they're aware, maybe they're not, but taking opposing views on that point, a point of faith, not science, is, by definition, illogical.

Originally posted by SCIFI_3D_zoo
I KNEW I'd attract at least one upset person with my comments. But you know what... all I'm doing is repeating what the scientists and people who study animals say about their behavior. I just happen to agree with it. It's a fine line between a "healthy" respect for animals and an unhealthy respect for them. Other than that I don't really want to debate it any further.

What scientists? The ones who raised monkeys, in a very well-known psychological experiment and PROVED that monkeys raised without parents were severely damaged, psychologically, for life? The ones who teach higher primates sign language and communicate with them? It's very convenient to "happen to agree" with unreferenced studies that "prove" your point, but there really si no way to scientifically determine, with all surety, that a given animal can or can not "feel" or can or can not "think". When motivated, almost any child can do very well in school. When unmmotivated, most children don't do as well, and some do very poorly. To discount what an octopus, parrot, or chimpanzee can do, thinking in the abstract and solving problems, simply because it's motivated only by food, is completely unscientific to the point of being ludicrous. Whatever fine line exists, it's obvious not debatable when a trump card of creationism is pulled.

Originally posted by SCIFI_3D_zoo
One last thing about fish CRUELTY. I've already explained my position with the source of my information (watch TLC, Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, etc.), what the scientific evidence is, etc.

It might surprise you to know that none of those sources are very scientific. Pop-science, at best. I can't even count the number of times of seen something on those channels (and they're the only TV I watch, really) and did a double take, knowing that someone didn't do their research, or that some editor was sleeping on the job, or something along those lines.

Originally posted by SCIFI_3D_zoo
I've heard nothing but raw emotion as a basis for defense on the other side. I think you should just say "my opinion" is I think fish have feelings... ....

It would be advisable, as well, for you to state that your religious position will never allow you to believe anything other than what you do.

Originally posted by SCIFI_3D_zoo
and you can say you disagree with what any scientists or anybody else says.

So, if an octopus that is allowed to examine spacial problems visually, before having access to them, is continually able to perform better and quicker, once allowed access, than it does through tactile trial and error if it is not forced to examine the problem first, does that mean it can think? Whoa... hold the phone, Sam, that's actual abstract thought in action. Oh wait, no, it's only abstract thought if a human does it. If an animal does it, it's instinct. Right?

Originally posted by SCIFI_3D_zoo
You can be oblivious to any other information on the matter. That's ok. There's a lot of people out there like you.

There are a lot of people out there like a lot of other people, like me, like you, like trippyl. But is it really better to "take the other side" based primarily on a point of faith?

Originally posted by SCIFI_3D_zoo
But for those who want to discuss it we should do so in a way WITHOUT emotion.

I assure you, everything I have said here is completely devoid of any emotional interference.

Originally posted by SCIFI_3D_zoo
You just don't have any logic or rationale behind it. I like to discuss and debate things.

I'm sorry, but there's no logic or rationale behind a fundamentally religious belief either. There's no logic or rationale behind asserting an equally unprovable point either. Discussion and debate are great, but it's better, IMO at least, to keep to the facts, not "the facts as we perceive them". Believe it or not, that's all your religious beliefs are, your perception. And, hey, more power to you, you go guy, believe what you believe to your heart's content and to the best of your abilities. But please realize that what you believe about animals is at least a little tainted by that belief.

Originally posted by SCIFI_3D_zoo
I've actually found this thread very educational except for the "fish with feelings" bit.

And I thought it was great as well up until this "god gave us these unfeeling, unthinking lumps of flesh to do with as we wish" bit.

So... back on topic... I feed 2-3x per day and always have. When I've skipped days, when I've tested my hypothesis, I've noticed some things. Aggression levels seem to rise, both territorially and socially. Grazing and picking increase. Sometimes this is beneficial as it increases a fish's propensity to graze on otherwise undesirable (to me) algae. Other times it is detrimental to corals, clams, or other fish. When I had my Niger, every skipped feeding was a recipe for attacks on other fish, half-hearted or full on death threats. I don't think it a coincidence that it killed my Coral Beauty on a day in which it wasn't fed at all. I also don't think my Purple Tang grazing on my Hydnophora during one of these "hypothesis tests" was a coincidence. I know that it's much easier to manage something that isn't alive and doesn't have a set of complex behaviors that I have to figure out. It's easier to manage nutrients, much easier in a healthy system, than to try to manage fish behavior, especially if you want to change that behavior. As such, I do what works, for me, with my tanks. Currently, I feed 2-3 healthy pinches of flake morning and evening and 4 cubes of frozen at night to a Scribbled Angel, Onespot Foxface, Powder Blue Tang, 4 BG Chromis, a Blue Devil, and a Christmas Wrasse. If that helps, great, but it's really an individual thing. Every system is different.

[Psyire]

Well that was very systematic...

[Nem0]

So what about people who keep anthias? Can they be fed once every 3 days? Has anyone tried and still able to keep the anthias alive?

I'm asking because I'm trying to find ways to cut down the nutrient in my tank.

Regards,
Dave

[KDodds]

When I kept Dispars I noticed that even one day without feeding would cause weight loss. JME.

[boxfishpooalot]

If your system cannot feed your fish whenever you want to, dont set it up. My system can support all 20 fish in my 125gal.

I feed my fish at least 5 times a day. if not 10 times a day. People dont always have the time to do that, but i do. My water is fine also.

I feed nori-3-5 times a day.
mysid shrimp 1-3 times a day.
blood worms on occasion
flake food on occasion
and other forms of shrimp when i want.

As long as your system can handle it, go for it.Food is the gift of life.

[moses13]

Kieron, agree with you on all points. Thanks for saving me a lot of typing.

[moses13]

SCIFI_3D_zoo, your comments are neither well-educated nor open minded. Watching popular television does not count as an education.
The reason I no longer consider myself a Christian is that I see modern Christianity as a set of teachings to justify mass selfishness. You comments are a prime example of that.

[KDodds]

Glad to be of help. BTW, Psyire, "systematic", thank you, it was definitely intended to be.

[SaltyNewb]

i feed 2-3 times a day. No problems at all. I feed different kinds of flakes, frozens, etc...