Aquamax differences feeding pond boss forum kite electricity generation

############

IMO going through feed faster is probably due to better flavor and fish eating more of the feed and some due to more fish eating feed. Be careful to not allow fish to become overly abundant. IMO it is better to have fewer larger fish compared to more smaller and or larger fish who may be too crowded. Crowding results in problems – often unseen or unrealized problems.

Also, the old feed required a much longer amount of time to hydrate fully hp gas kushaiguda phone number. I use a gallon ziplock bag, add the water and lay it out flat, turning it over after about 10 minutes time. If the concrete where I lay it out was hot, it would soften much quicker. Now, temperature doesn’t seem to matter nearly as much. I fed this past weekend, in the rain, on a cooler, overcast day. The old feed would still be hard as BB’s after five minutes hydration, but the new is nearly paste after that time frame, in spite of the cooler temps.

It smells remarkably like dogfood to me, and seems to spoil? quicker… As an example, I have fed the same way for three years. Dispense the hydrated feed from the ziplock, and return the empty bag to the bulk feed container. There would usually be a little residue left in the bag, no liquid present, just a few remnants. Repeat process the next evening, with the same ziplock. No problems ever, and no smell. I could use the same bag for a couple of months.

I don’t hydrate pellets in bags, that is a CB1 method. IMO bag hydration tends to be too messy and you have less control of what you are doing and how the pellets are hydrating. I prefer a 1.5 gal fairly rigid plastic container with snap lid. When the container collects some dried residue I simply wash it. With the proper amount of water, I basically get a dry electricity usage calculator spreadsheet container when I am done feeding the pellets. There should be no residue after feeding. With residue try using less water to hydrate. EAch batch of pellets will often require slightly different amounts of water to pellet ratio.

You are very correct in observing that the pellets hydrate faster if warm or at higher temps. I sometimes put them in the microwave after they have absorbed all the water as sit for 5-10 min. This fairly quickly gets water to the center of the pellets based on pellet diameter. I have pellets soaking now at 1:15pm for the evening feeding. Soaking the day before also works for me. I can store uneaten food in the frig for 1-2 days without it molding. After day one the AM pellets electricity voltage in china will usualy not mold into shapes, but Zeigler and Silver Cup pellets will still mold okay. Dr Griffin from Purina told me that was probably due to the amount of gluten and the heating process of making the pellets.

I talked to the nutritionists at Purina® Animal Nutrition and they said the color of AquaMax® 500 and 600 may show a slight change because these products were recently manufactured at Macon, Mississippi until they can bring all production back to Richmond, Indiana, AquaMax’s home. The change in color is due to a shift in grain source from primarily wheat and wheat products to corn. Grain is required in floating fish diets for proper manufacturing. Without starch, they can’t extrude the feed to make it float. When shifting physics c electricity and magnetism formula sheet production from one manufacturing plant to another, slight changes in the formulas are sometimes necessary to compensate for slight differences in the availability, source of ingredients and their nutrient content. The actual amount of grain between the old and new formulas is very similar. In the case of the fish food produced in Macon, instead of splitting the starch over several grain products, all starch electricity questions grade 6 here comes from corn, because that’s what they have. The amount of fish meal and other animal proteins are also very similar to the original products made in Indiana. The ingredient statement on the labels/tags listed corn as the first ingredient because the amount of corn in the diet is actually slightly more than fish meal. However, if you add up all the animal-protein ingredients, they are well over half the formula and considerably more than twice the level of corn. AquaMax® contains over 40% protein. Since corn only contains approximately 7.5% protein, there is much more animal protein ingredients in the diet than corn. The formulas have been adjusted so that Fish Meal will be listed as the first ingredient on future production runs of these formulas, when the grain products are again a mixed bag. Purina® Animal Nutrition apologized for the confusion.

So, here’s the bottom line. Purina asked another of their mills to help keep the supply chain moving. That gas vs electric heat mill doesn’t have the same grain ingredients as the AquaMax home mill in Indiana. As soon as they catch up with their supply chain, the manufacturing of AquaMax® diets will be moved back to Richmond and the appearance will return to normal. The color change is because corn is lighter color and wheat is darker. That’s it…they haven’t changed the backbone of the formula, especially what’s most important to us…fish meal.

Perhaps the skeletal structure is intact, but there’s definitely been some changes to the internal organs that makes the thing tick. In the end, my fundamental question has been addressed, if not outright answered. Hopefully, all will be well when production shifts back to Indiana. The difference in color, while probably the characteristic most likely to be noticed by the average user, was only one of the changes I noted, and arguably the least consequential. I am not well educated in these matters, certainly not so much as many here, so if Purina tells me that the differences in smell, hydration qualities, physical size, and the sheer amount of loose grit in the feed is due to an influx of corn, then I am bound to accept their explanation. At least until a better sounding one comes along.

I have absolutely no doubt that a formula exists within Purina that specifies that when (X)amount of wheat is removed, then (Y)amount of corn should be added (along with other ingredient changes) to compensate. And I’m sure it looks good on paper. I wonder though, if any of this new formulation was tested in a real world environment, by folks who handle this feed everyday, and not just by a well meaning group of nutritionists. I knew the gas bike alley second I opened that bag that the feed was different. A heads up from Purina beforehand, would’ve been nice.