How does it hold up against similar products (e.g., AquaOptima’s Vortex or Arvo-Tec’s drum screens)?
| Feature | Nu West Leda FCV 150 | Standard Bottom Drain | Sidewall Drum Filter | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Feed Waste Capture | Excellent (surface skimming) | Poor (feed rots before sinking) | Good (requires pump) | | Fish Stress | Low (no hard suction) | Moderate | High (fish hit screens) | | Maintenance Interval | 1-2 weeks (wipe cone) | Daily (unclogging) | Weekly (drum cleaning) | | Cost | Medium ($1.5k - $3k) | Low ($200) | High ($10k+) | Nu West Leda Fcv 150
For recirculating systems where feed conversion ratio (FCR) is critical, the Leda FCV 150 wins due to its ability to retrieve uneaten feed for drying and re-use. How does it hold up against similar products (e
By skimming only the top 10cm of the water column, the Nu West Leda FCV 150 does not compete with the bottom drain for suction. This allows farms to run lower pump head pressures, saving up to 20% on energy costs compared to side-draw screen filters. This allows farms to run lower pump head
The industry is moving toward automated feed control. The Nu West Leda FCV 150 is uniquely positioned for this shift. By integrating a load cell under the floating cone (a modification offered by some engineering firms), you can measure in real-time how much uneaten feed returns to the sump. This data allows automatic feeders to reduce portions instantly, slashing FCR by 5-10%.
Furthermore, as regulations tighten on phosphorus discharge, having a mechanical collector like the FCV 150 (which removes solids before they dissolve) keeps your effluent within legal limits.