Why are feeders such as common guppies bad?

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
Lets consider how feeder fish are raised, and their value.
Where I lived, feeder guppies and feeder goldfish went for @10 for $1 at a LFS, and if that's they sold them for, how much did the LFS pay?.
Do you imagine the profit made selling to a LFS would cause the feeder fish provider/breeder to use good quality food, and provide optimum conditions?

And from what that guppy is fed, is it providing high nutrient value (or not) to your fish?

And then consider other conditions it is raised in.
To me dumping some fish raised in (probably) the cheapest, crammed conditions possible to make some sort of profit, is fthat feeder given to your prized fish, a good idea.

And how long to you think a proper QT would be for you to give such feeder fish?
Many diseases do not become apparent in a week, some a month, some even 3 months.
When I QT a new fish, it usually is for a miminium of 3 months, because it often takes that long to notice a number of diseases.
Do you have the time, or space to keep enough feeder QT tanks.

So if you are doing it right, keeping feeders in a proper conditions, and gut loading them with a high nutrient diet, so your fish are getting those nutrients would seem good practice.
Then how many QT feeder tanks would an conscientious aquarist need, 10, maybe 20 to QT tanks.

As said in posts above, with all the proper nutrient pellets available today, is it worth the disease risk to feed feeders?
And "are" other fish really the natural and preferred diet of your fish?
I know many (especially noob) fish keepers feed any cichlid (oscars included) other fish.
But is that what they have really evolved to feed on?
Many cichlids are in reality omnivores, that barely ever are able to prey on other fish, and there are few that are mainly piscavores.

there was a post the other day about a Vieja that the 1st owner fed almost exclusively feeders to.
But the reality is, In nature Vieja diet is mainly algae, fallen fruit, seeds, detritus and insects.
 
Last edited:
Just because it happens in the wild does not make it right. Yes in nature its either kill or starve but the wild isn't something to aspire to for civilised humans in a civilised society. Nobody will convince me its OK to visit pain and suffering on other people or animals. We have this capability for when there is no choice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jjohnwm
The idea of using feeder fish is undeniably risky from the standpoint of disease transmission; as stated above, there is very little concern for the proper health, nutrition or general maintenance for fish that cell for pennies apiece. It's Russian Roulette; you may win once, or many times, but the odds are that you will eventually lose...and like Russian Roulette, there may very well be no coming back.

But the ethical question should also be considered. Are you really going to use the argument that it happens in nature to justify feeding one living creature to another? There are all kinds of things that happen in nature. Animals are eaten alive; populations rise and fall due to weather, disease, predation; virtually nothing dies of old age in the natural world. Do you want that in your aquarium as well?

Predators kill and eat other animals in nature because they must; in fact, the vast majority of "predators" would be happy to scavenge dead animals but if they can't find enough they must grudgingly kill them for themselves. I say "grudgingly" because pursuing and killing a prey item is a high-energy-cost endeavour, and one that puts the predator itself in danger of sustaining an injury that may result in its own death.

There are virtually no aquarium fish that "need" live food; most will eat prepared food with no coercion, or at most a few days of hunger-induced persuasion. A few require some small effort on the part of the aquarist to train them to recognize and accept non-living foods.

I've said it before and will say it again: feeding live fish to other fish is done strictly for the "entertainment" and perhaps for the convenience of the aquarist. Don't even get me started on those guys who think it's cool to post pics of piranhas dismembering live mice, frogs, etc.
 
...feeding live fish to other fish is done strictly for the "entertainment" and perhaps for the convenience of the aquarist.

Did you mean "strictly for the entertainment OR perhaps"...

There are fish that are pretty fragile as fry and aren't going to take pellets without a curiously high attrition rate. One example would be the Peacocks referenced prior and I derive no entertainment value from their feeding. I understand that you're against the concept but to say that all who do it are pleasuring themselves is incorrect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jjohnwm
Did you mean "strictly for the entertainment OR perhaps"...

There are fish that are pretty fragile as fry and aren't going to take pellets without a curiously high attrition rate. One example would be the Peacocks referenced prior and I derive no entertainment value from their feeding. I understand that you're against the concept but to say that all who do it are pleasuring themselves is incorrect.

Point taken, and I apologize. I will modify my comment to add the words "on a continuous, on-going basis". I certainly agree that there are instances, especially with young or fresh-from-the-wild fish, that live foods are beneficial or even temporarily necessary.

And, of course, if one is to be precise, my logic can be carried all the way down the line to include worms, brine shrimp, insects, etc. Now, I will admit that I kill grasshoppers and crickets, which form a significant portion of my fish food regimen in season, rather than feeding them live. But this is largely a matter of convenience; it's easier not to keep them alive and prevents escapes indoors. I also admit that earthworms are dropped into the tank live and wiggling.

Yikes...opinionated and hypocritical...
 
MonsterFishKeepers.com