Trout Pellet used to exess?

I'm not sure if it has been covered before or not, but can somebody tell me what affect on a 6-8 acre lake would trout pellet have over a period of time, and why?

Yes, increase in nitrate content in the water. Carp can only utilise about 30% of the oils and fats in their diet and trout pellets (etc.) can contain up to 50%.

Only if they are used to excess though: eg 50 anglers each using 1 kilo of pellets every day on your water - bad! 6 anglers using 4 kilos of pellets each once or twice a week - good.

Fish do well on them, it's just the waste they can't use that causes the problem.

Thanks woody.
I appreciate your help, and I don't doubt you at all. I don't mean to sound thick, but can anybody expand on this information.
If I got an average figure of anglers per week, would it be feasible to to work out some kind of calculation? It's much the same as Woody has just said, but any advice or information would be appreciated.

This is the sort of issue that really concerns me Baz and that's why I posted the thread Should We Be Alarmed?

Not sure if you saw it butit was in response to an article in Southern Angler afer they'd interviewed a chap who was launching an organic pellet I believe and he'd made all sorts of claims about the fishmeal based pellets that we all use. Some of it seemed believeable to me but the upshot is that even without any potential damage to the inland waters it's a moral question as to whether we support that whole 'fsihmeal' industry in that it depletes fish stocks in the sea. Our use is small compared to where else the fishmeal products go but still - it depends on if you want to but into that or not.

Phil Hackett seemed to have quite a strong opinion on it and it was quite a good debate while it lasted. Perhaps it could be said we shouldn't let it disappear as an issue?

Sorry bout grammer - its the midel of the nite shift en it

Baz here?s the calculation you need to do
Numbers of anglers and the amount of TP they use per week times. Times the total biomass take up of them.
And for those who didn?t get it last time I said total biomass, that?s everything in the water from single cell organisms, plants, invertebrates, fish and through to diving ducks. All in someway eat TPs either chemically or as food.

Have fun Baz working out the total biomass of the water as it should keep you quite busy for about the next 5 or so years ;0)
If you succeed in this quest, I?m absolutely sure one of the redbrick universities will offer you at the bare minimum a PhD and possibly a residence as a professor for it.

Now let me see how many kilos of nitrate do plants take up per annum???????????
More to the point how many kilos of weed is there in this water??????
Then there?s working out the how much a water hog-louse eats per year?.then there?s the bed surface grazers, sub surface grazers deep mud grazers?..mustn?t forget the single cells, nearly forgot fish, all species??.diving ducks how much do they eat per day????? Will I be there to see them eating? How will I know they?re eating pellets?..Siht! I need a robotic underwater 24-7 video camera just to find that out.

Oh bollox to it, its turned into the mother of all research projects!!!!


For the moralists I take it, you are now all full committed to eating only truly organic food.

Perish the thought that you are a moralist hypocrite!

Bit of hypocrite in most of Phil I would imagine, only difference between some of us is that some will admit to it.

Seeing data like the amount of fish taken from the sea for the various end products and then deciding to not partake yourself is not something to be ridiculed over Phil. I take your point just like I did on the other thread that calculating this all out and knowing everything scientifically is beyond reach but as to the source of these products - well then yes I can say that I won't use them as well as the others who participated on that thread who thought the same. And yes my garden does only have organic produce in it and I try to buy organic meat whereever possible. I might not always have it right but at least I/we can try. Not bothering is the wrong thing to do....

'Only if they are used to excess though: eg 50 anglers each using 1 kilo of pellets every day on your water - bad! 6 anglers using 4 kilos of pellets each once or twice a week - good.'


Woody - Good? As opposed to not putting this amount of the muck in there in the first place? This would surely be better?

Thanks lads.
I thought I had seen an article on this subject but wasn?t sure.
I think it would be fair to say that the use of any bait would have no harmful effect on a water if used in sensible quantities? (But therein lies the problem).
As then we would have to know exactly how much of a certain bait was going in, and all the rest of it as Phil explains.
One water I know of has excessive weed growth where pellets are being used.
I also know of another water, which has heavy weed growth, but would find it hard to believe that pellets were the cause.

(I think I'll propose a total ban to be on the safe side )-:

but the excessive weed growth couldn't possibly have anything to do with introdcution of industrial fertilisers from runoff from fields could it, nah that never happens.
it must be the pellets, as we all know pellets are just the correct balance of nitrates and phosphates require by weed to grow.

My concern, especially for river fish, is that we create an unrealistic feeding environment for the fish. In the wild they'd get their nutrition by eating insects, weed etc. They have to work hard to get enough to eat.

Now they sit there and get fat on the the pellets that we chuck on their noses every day. What happens then when we stop feeding them; either during the closed season or if we decide, for whatever reason, to stop using pellets. It must be like telling us that all the supermarkets are closed and we should go forage for our food like we used to do!

Mr Uncredible - I was saying "good" in that it provides a balance of fats and proteins for the fish whilst at the same time creating little polution of the water when used in moderation.

About the use of fishmeals in general though, try fishing without them these days. The amount we as anglers use must be miniscule compared to what industry uses in all manner of products including other animal feeds. It's there, so use it, with care.

Perhaps you're suggesting we could try an environmentaly friendly diet of nettle soup with gluten free bread and whole grain GM free rice for a couple of months. Might keep you regular, but that's about all.

Now I wonder whether this thread will turn into what level of hypocrisy is acceptable or not???

Baz if it?s the Mist then you might want to look at what is leaching out of the landfill next to it. Plenty of NPK in there mate!

"Now I wonder whether this thread will turn into what level of hypocrisy is acceptable or not???"

We're all hypocrits during our every waking moment.
We know our car exhausts are polluting the atmosphere but we use them for the shortest journey's when public transport would be more environmentally friendly and cheaper (for short journeys anyway).
We know that factory farming is cruel and the animals are fed and injected with all kinds of chemicals and other crap but we still feed it's products to ourselves and our kids because naturally grown meat is too expensive so we ignore any harmful affects it may have just to save money.
It's the same thing with using trout pellets. We use them because they produce results in the way of catches and they're cheaper than the safer carp pellets.
Hypocricy is part of modern day life and we're all guily of it.

Phil,
you are right mate, the leak off from the landfill is monitored. there are many factors that can cause exessive weed growth and poor water quality, and I don't think somebody emptying the contents of a goldfish bowl into there was one of them, as had been stated.

How did you know where I was talking about?