Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
MUSKYMAN1011

How Often do Muskies eat?

8 posts in this topic

I have read many different opinions on this but I thought I'd put it on the board and see what you all think?

In Africa if a Lion makes a Kill on a Zebra and gorges itself it can go for several days before eating again.

Would this also hold true when a 48 inch 28 lb Musky eats a couple 3 lb suckers....would the big ole female go days before eating again?

Or if a Muskie eats a small perch would this mean the muskie would have to eat several times a day to get a Stomach full?

I have a friend who eats like 5 times a day (smaller meals) but I also have a friend who can "gorge down" a Large Pizza and wash it down with a medium size pizza all by himself.

FYI: The Pizza eater is a BIG MAN!

the friend who eats 5 times a day is on the slim side!

Any theory’s out there?

Thanks

Brian K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the lion analogy is tough to use because they are warm blooded. They're metabolism changes based on age/growth and minimally on climate. Compared to cold blooded fish who's metabolism dramatically increases with temperature.

I've seen schools of "bait" fish getting chased all over the place for quite extended periods of time. I'd imagine the kill/catch ratio is pretty good for esox, so maybe their multiple feeding? Then I start pitching a lure in there and catch a fish after say 20 minutes of chasing the pod of bait. I caught an upper 30's pike a couple weeks ago and I could feel and see the bluegill/sunny/etc in it's stomach and it came right after my bait within 5 minutes of the bait jumping around.

At the end of the day, they are and have to be oppurtunists to survive. Where's an 800lb gorilla sit? Anywhere he wants. How often does he eat? As often as he wants....

-Jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd imagine a couple times a day, depending on the forage. If it can eat a big sucker maybe once a day, but if it has to feed on 6" perch and gills several times a day. They can certainly survive longer without food, but they'll want to eat again pretty soon.

And if it's my pet bass, it's always feeding time. It surprises me how much something that never has to move more than 2 feet to eat is capable of eating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've all either seen it or had it happen, where we catch a fish (pike usually) and their gut is bursting and the tail of the fish they just ate is still sticking out of their gullet - yet they tried to eat our lure. I think Jeff's thoughts on muskies being opportunists is probably correct. In Indiana this spring, we saw two muskies chasing shad right on top. We saw one of them t-bone an 8-9 inch shad. I threw in immediately and hooked a fish. Didn't know if it was the one, but when I got him close to the boat and lifted up on him a bit and he opened his mouth, a shad popped out and swam away. So I think when they're in the mood and the opportunity presents itself, they keep feeding. On the one hand I hope the fish I'm fishing for are gorging on big oily ciscoes and suckers so they get big and fat, but on the other hand we'd probably catch more if they had to work to feed themselves on 6" perch - I think they'd be a lot more likely to also try to eat our baits than if they had just eaten a bigger meal. But I think the comparison has some merit when describing your big friend - our quarry is not going to keep her girlish figure by only eating once every few days - I hope!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a grass pickerel in a tank growing up, and I'd feed it a dozen goldfish every week. It was only 7-11 inches long during the time I had it, but it would absolutely go ape nuts over these goldfish. Once it slammed 7 in a row (these are 1-2 inch feeder goldfish) and had them in his gullet, mouth, and everywhere in between. But then he'd be fine not eating for a week or even two. I think they're just all opportunistic predators that eat as much as they can whenever they can get it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think these three pics show a lot. Look at the beer gut or lack there of depending on the fish.

46 that was pretty empty--

Misc069.jpg

44 that was FULL--

Opener.jpg

48 that was probably empty, but the hold could be deceiving. (and the fish looks empty too! :-P)

resize800_WB_48_DCG.jpg

My point is they all ate pretty big lures, even the 44 that looks like it just ate a school of perch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a grass pickerel in a tank growing up, and I'd feed it a dozen goldfish every week. It was only 7-11 inches long during the time I had it, but it would absolutely go ape nuts over these goldfish. Once it slammed 7 in a row (these are 1-2 inch feeder goldfish) and had them in his gullet, mouth, and everywhere in between. But then he'd be fine not eating for a week or even two. I think they're just all opportunistic predators that eat as much as they can whenever they can get it

My bass ate a minnow that was the same size as it (only about 2" at the time). Literally the tail was sticking out of its mouth until it digested the first half, then it swallowed the second half. Currently it eats a half dozen worms a feeding (normal size you would have a kid use as bait). The fish isn't even 6" long yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's temperature based in all cold blooded animals and aquatics, warmer means more food to sustain a faster metabolism.. how much is... when they are satisfied... and how often is... whenever they are not satisfied. simple huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Posts

    •     I believe you said it was "libertarian" drivel, actually, so you dismissed it out of hand...          
    •   You posted about neither.     But if you would read the article, my commentary and TJ's commentary you would know that's not really what the article is about.     You have to be kidding, right? Just about everyone who has an opinion on politics at all is this sort of person. Do you look at social media at all?
    •     Ok, now getting back to whether Trump will win the War on Drugs, do you think he will take any steps at all to decriminalize drugs, such as reclassifying marijuana, and recognizing state laws and programs designed to move towards the decriminalization of drugs?   Or do you think he will take steps to protect vested interests, such as prisons and the pharmaceutical. industry?   Just going off his rhetoric and his choice for a drug czar, I'm guessing he much prefers the latter, and will end up spending a bunch of taxpayer's money, and actually lose ground by continuing on with the brute force/criminalization approach.        
    • Because at the time, I don't have anything better to do.   I posted about the article, and you wanted to talk about the topic.  I posted about the topic and you want to discuss the article.    Which is it?     I support a particular candidate because their positions, taken as a whole, are preferable to me as compared to the other candidate(s).   In a few years I get to do it over.     I don't think there are really that many ardent "rah rah for my party" type folks out there, in spite of what we see on TV, or the occasional people we meet.     So the article is basically drivel, as I said before, based on a false premise.   
    • Borch I just signed up Ryan, Morgan, and me but I only see my name listed in the summary. Do my kids not show up because they don't have hso usernames?  Or did I not enter it right?     Please let me know how to fix it and I'll do so.  Thanks!
    •   Because I think self reflection is good for all of us from time to time.   If you don't wan't to discuss this article, why do you persist in posting here?           No one is disputing that at all. The premise of the author's article is in regards to the hypocrisy of then justifying everything your chosen candidate or party does blindly while vilifying the other candidates or party. It's the "all in" sports like mentality that is being discussed here.  
    • There is a really excellent book called "The Righteous Mind" that approaches this tribalist mindset from an evolutionary psychology standpoint. The author, Jonathan Haidt, does a remarkable job of unpacking why people persist in truly irrational defense of the indefensible - when it's their team doing the stupid stuff. I highly highly highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in lessening the hyperpartisan idiocy we have today.

      The trouble is that the closed-off mindset that lends itself to reflexive support for Obama/Hillary/Trump/whomever also tends to preclude any serious engagement in self-examination that the book is designed to provoke. Really good read, though.
    •   I get what your saying here but I think what Dave is talking about is the willingness of some to blindly follow, without question, their party or candidate. I saw this first hand during the primary with some of my own relatives, for example. I had a SIL who was a huge Bernie backer. The things she said about Hillary were worse than anything said here. As far as she was concerned, Hillary should be tarred and feathered and ran out on a rail. Then Bernie loses the nomination. She then became Hillary's biggest defender. Everything she said about her during the primary was instantly washed away. Even her own husband called her out. She wasn't simply voting for her because she found Trump worse. That's understandable. She defended or at least tried to deflect the issues with Hillary when just a few months prior, she said things that would make even Cooter or Bill say, "man you're harsh on her."   I don't think this is a new phenomenon. I also don't think it's widespread. Like everything else, access to more and diverse information just makes it possible to hear more about it than before. I think human nature causes people to internalize candidates and/.or elected officials. It's a "if you're critical of my candidate, you're critical of me," kind of thinking.   I don't fault anyone for voting for a candidate that one feels best represents their line of thinking. Or even defending their candidate from detractors. I don't think that is what Dave is talking about here. It's also the flipping of political opinions just because the candidate you voted for or support is supporting certain positions. For example, many conservatives opposed BHO's stimulus, including myself. It didn't work  as promised and we just added more on to the debt. So on the campaign trail, Trump also spoke of a stimulus plan that was even more expensive than BHO's and  those same people not only supported it but are justifying it. In summary, one can vote for a candidate without defending everything that person does        
    •  Come on.   The world, life is a bit more complicated then that.          Quit passing the blame. Your whole thesis is on choice and owning it.   Let me guess, you hate big banking also since they made it easy to refinance and purchase.   It just proves that general society is incapable of making the right decisions as a whole.   Sorry, you go down with the ship.    
  • Our Sponsors