Re: RE: Cyclop-eeze

["William Vannerson" <William_Vannerson@ama-assn.org>]

>>Am I missing something here? Proven feeds like decaps, bbs and gut-loaded Artemia are being abandoned for an exotic-sounding name that's *no less expensive*?<<

One pound cans of BS Cysts are far more expensive than the $20 for Cyclop-eeze, which will last as long if not longer.  Plus there's no hassle of hayching, decap'ing or feeding (gut loading) Artemia.  Lastly, Cyclop-eeze has more nutritional value than BS or BBS alone.  (gut loading adds nutrients, but it also adds additional cost and labor).  

So it's less expensive, easier to use and nutritious.

There are some draw backs.  First, some contend that there are nutrients found in live food (trace minerals, etc.) that cannot be found in any dried food.  Second, you may run into problem fish or fry that won't eat Cyclop-eeze.  But I haven't heard of such a case yet and my experience has proven that my fish relish it.  My small killies start devouring it almost the instant it hits the water.

But of course, YMMV.  

Bill Vannerson
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/william_vannerson



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the apistogramma mailing list, apisto@listbox.com.
For instructions on how to subscribe or unsubscribe or get help,
email apisto-request@listbox.com.
Search http://altavista.digital.com for "Apistogramma Mailing List Archives"!