Fish Nutrition

[RD.]

That is correct Bas. The anti-nutritional matter found in terrestrial based plants such as peas, soybeans, etc are built in defense substances to protect their survival. Animals will generally not eat bitter tasting plants, will pass on them for more tasty succulent plant matter, ensuring their survival. These are not foods that any fish would eat on a regular basis in nature.

how about this.. RD you are agreeing with them saying that plant based carbohydrates and starchs are better than terrestrial based ones... they are advocating the same thing.. but you're saying that instead of having NO carbs, starchs you should just have aquatic ones.. maybe a suggestion of which to use in place of the ones you dont like in their product lines would be helpful? also how do you feel about eggs being used as a binder instead of those grains?

Yes, we clearly agree on some points, but apparently not so much on carbs, starch, and/or the various plants that they are sourced from. Unlike your friend that you contacted about this thread, I would not feed my fish nor advocate the use of a food where the main ingredient listed by dry weight was terrestrial based plant matter. (such as peas or soybeans) I would also not feed my fish any food that contained soybean meal, period. There are far better alternatives, and the only reason that those types of ingredients are utilized is to spare production costs.

Through many years of keeping & feeding fish I have found wheat flour to be a very safe & very effective binding agent, which is why it is still being utilized in so many commercial foods today. Unlike some of the more recent concepts wheat flour has a safe track record that is several decades long. There are also algaes that can be used to perform the same task, which some manufacturers are also now using - some use a bit of both. But again, too much of any one thing can be a negative in a food, including wheat, and for that matter even algae. It's all about balance.

Every raw ingredient will have its pros & its cons, you have to weigh them against each other & decide which way is best to proceed. Some companies get it right, or at least close to right, others not so much.

[zoeawar]

I dont personally feed beefheart to any fish ive ever kept but i have friends that raise and rbeed flowerhorns and the beefheart has shown to be better in comparison to the pellets she used. I dont necropsy my fish i mostly do breeding, and even then i dont cull my fish. i can see we dont agree but to each his own opinion.

[premiumgreen]

I can see I have been away for too long. My apologies as I have been finishing up a contract job this week. Just to clear the air about my financial motives. I design HVAC for a living. This is just something I enjoy doing.

More later as for all practical purposes this is my last day here and need to get things wrapped up.

Clay

[premiumgreen]

RD,

So you are no longer an NLS distributor. I guess that makes you a washed up NLS distributor.

As long as Pablo "The Pioneer" says that his carb bound food is good for carnivores I will continue to give him what he so richly deserves.

Does Pablo still coat his food in hydrolized krill to get fish to eat it? I take a different approach. I put enough krill in the food that the fish eat it.

Clay

[RD.]

Clay, unless you are giving your food away for free, you have a financial motive every time that you start one of these posts on a public forum. Obviously you don't make or sell enough fish food out of your basement to earn an actual living.

I had a heart attack several months ago and after a couple of operations & certain restrictions placed on me by my doctors (and my wife) I decided to get out of the fish food business. If you would like to refer to that as being washed up, that's fine by me. Whatever floats your boat.


Your biggest problem Clay, is that as a whole you generally don't have a clue what you are talking about. Such as stating that Pablo uses hydrolized krill. I have no idea where you got that bogus info from, or why you can't just leave other manufacturers names out of your little public manifestos and stick to the facts.

The fact is, you have absolutely no evidence that proves how much carbohydrate any species of warm water ornamental carnivorous fish can or cannot assimilate. What I offer in proof, Clay, is numerous examples of very long lived fish kept in captivity that remained healthy for as long, or longer, than what those same species ypically live in the wild.
Excellent color, excellent shape/size as one would expect in a wild specimen, and actively breeding. I can't ask much more out of a food than that. And many of those fish are very large carnivorous species, some in the 2-3 ft range. They don't grow to monster sizes like that by being nutrient starved. lol

If you stopped skimming, and tried to absorb some of what I'm attempting to explain you just might understand. Such as these previous comments.

From the From the National Research Councils Nutrient Requirements of Fish;

The nutritional value of carbohydrates varies among fish. Warm-water fish can use much greater amounts of dietary carbohydrate than cold-water and marine fish. No dietary requirement for carbohydrates has been demonstrated in fish; however, if carbohydrates are not provided in the diet, other compounds, such as protein and lipids, are catabolized for energy and for the synthesis of various biologically important compounds usually derived from carbohydrates. Thus, it is important to provide the appropriate concentration of carbohydrate in the diet of the fish species being cultured.

and this ......

http://www.reeis.usda.gov/web/crisproje ... ykiss.html

At the same time, we also raise new questions about the upper limit of feed levels of carbohydrate in this species. Depending on the source and quality of dietary carbohydrate, the aquaculture industry standard of 20% carbohydrate represents a "conservative" value. We documented outstanding growth performance of trout receiving 24% (mostly wheat flour) or even 30% (mostly purified starch) fed aquaculture rations or to satiety, respectively.

And that was for a cold water carnivore - Oncorhynchus mykiss aka the Rainbow Trout.


What part of that don't you understand, Clay?

You spend a couple of years researching via google & breeding a few fish & you think that you somehow got this all figured out. What a farce. The old man that you keep attempting to discredit was breeding fish, and winning awards & trophys for those efforts, before you hit your first set of diapers. He has close to 70 years experience in keeping & breeding fish, and at close to 80 yrs of age has probably forgot more about feeding fish than you will ever know.

Have a nice day.

[premiumgreen]

I feel the need to clarify a few things.

Over the past four years my opinion on fish nutrition has changed. I have been making my food by hand and testing it on my fish. I have also sent my food to friends in the hobby to diversify the base. What I have found is that the food that I make for Piscivores, Carnivores and to a lesser degree Omnivores does benefit them. The results I observed were improved color and less time between spawns and an increased egg count. My opinion has changed because I have learned from making the food and testing it.

RD has long been a message board NLS bully. He does not tolerate people thinking for themselves very well. If you don't tow the NLS line you get ripped to shreds. How is he an expert on fish food when all he has ever done is sell it? As for the studies we all know that you can find a study to support any position you chose to take. Truthfully it is a sad existence trolling fish message boards waiting for someone to step out of line. Carnivores eat other animals. The only carbs found in these animals is found in the plant matter that they have consumed. This accounts for maybe 5% of the prey animal. My question is how can a diet containing 15% - 20% carbs be good for them? Its incredible that you are such an expert having no actual experience making or testing fish food. Unfortunately most of what little personality that you have is bad.

[Jools]

Our two main protagonists appear to have now both dropped to personal insults. Can I remind everyone not to make personal remarks. Next one gets a warning and the topic gets locked to avoid further unpleasantness.

Other readers may also note this post and others.

Jools

[premiumgreen]

Jools,

My apologies for stooping to that level. It won't happen again.

Clay

[premiumgreen]

I would also not feed my fish any food that contained soybean meal, period.

So you don't feed your fish NLS? Soybean meal was in every formula that I bothered looking up. As you have stated repeatedly I am real good at google. That is priceless!!

[prairiefire]

I would also not feed my fish any food that contained soybean meal, period.

So you don't feed your fish NLS? Soybean meal was in every formula that I bothered looking up. As you have stated repeatedly I am real good at google. That is priceless!!

I just checked the ingredients on my buckets, it states soybean isolates not meal. Are they the same thing?

[premiumgreen]

I would also not feed my fish any food that contained soybean meal, period.

So you don't feed your fish NLS? Soybean meal was in every formula that I bothered looking up. As you have stated repeatedly I am real good at google. That is priceless!!

I just checked the ingredients on my buckets, it states soybean isolates not meal. Are they the same thing?

No they are not.

Reference to my statement:
http://www.kensfish.com/aquarium-suppli ... -food.html

I was hesitant to post a link as this site does sell food. The intent is for you to look at the ingredients listed.

[prairiefire]

So you don't feed your fish NLS? Soybean meal was in every formula that I bothered looking up. As you have stated repeatedly I am real good at google. That is priceless!![/quote]

I just checked the ingredients on my buckets, it states soybean isolates not meal. Are they the same thing?[/quote]

No they are not.

Reference to my statement:
http://www.kensfish.com/aquarium-suppli ... -food.html

I was hesitant to post a link as this site does sell food. The intent is for you to look at the ingredients listed.[/quote]


The description on Kens site does not match the ingredients listed on actual NLS labels. Maybe you need to google a bit more.

[Viktor Jarikov]

... i can see we dont agree but to each his own opinion.

As for the studies we all know that you can find a study to support any position you chose to take.

...You know, recently my position and opinion of the second law of thermodynamics has changed. I think heat should flow from a cold body to a warm body. But I could not find a single study within the last few centuries that would support it...

Just an example.

In science there are things that are facts, the knowns. And of course, there are unknowns, ambiguos things, mostly on science frontiers, not studied well enough yet, not firmly established - this is exactly where conflicting results are reported and people have to battle it out, figure out who is wrong and who is right and why or maybe both are right or wrong, or find a way to reconsile their observations, etc. The latter is where the "opinions" may come in.

I doubt that in the science of fish physiology and digestion there are no facts but just opinions and it's ok to just disregard this whole field and what it studied and produced - the facts, the knowns.

I am not saying one should believe an "expert" in any field just because they say so and sound so. It's ok, prudent to be sceptical. But one has to be somewhere around par with that expert to challenge them and support their statements by those knowns and facts.

Just because it appears a common sense that a carnivore/piscivore needs 95% protein diet, it may not be necessarily the one and only best way to feed them with such prepped foods. Common sense is not enough to argue with a scientist because a scientist knows this common sense plus a ton more. It used to be common sense time never changes its pace, until Einstein came along. It used to be common sense the Earth was the center of Universe and the Sun goes around it, until Kopernicus came along. Studying the subject brings about new knowledge and the more complex the subject, such a bio-chemical processes in a living organism, the more studying is needed.

Really, just my $0.02.

[premiumgreen]

RD

The study that you keep referencing is for fish that are going to be eaten. These studies have no bearing on long term effects on the fish. The studies that I have read focus on how much grain can be added without slowing growth. There is no proof that the fish benefited from higher percentages of grain. The additional grain simply didn't slow down the growth rate.

Let me explain it for you in a way that you can understand. Piscivores and carnivores can only amylase http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amylase small amounts of starch into simple sugar that the fish can use because of their short digestive tract. Omnivores can amylase more starch due to their longer digestive tract. Herbivores can amylase much more starch due to their long digestive tract. Saying a grain bound food is good for anything save herbivores is unbelievable to me. You and all the others promoting these foods should be ashamed.

What separates my food from all of the others is the binder. My food for Piscivores and carnivores is bound with egg whites. Egg whites are about 8% carbohydrates which consists mainly of sugar. Its astounding someone so ignorant about fish nutrition could come up with an idea like that.

I applaud Zoe's and the Pretty Bird guys efforts for thinking outside of the box and creating something other than the tired old aquaculture recipes. What you don't seem to understand is that growing fish in ponds is different than keeping fish in an aquarium. Congratulations on your part in squashing the Pretty Bird guys thinking outside of the box. Enjoy that victory as I will not allow you to do that to me.

Why am I so hard on your friend? You don't need a food for each species of fish on the planet. That my friend is unethical. I know his neighbor Rick. I like Rick by the way. I was told they worked on the mash food for their farms together. Your friend was the first to convert the mash into a pellet form to sell. I am sure that you will say that my vivid imagination is at work again. As far as I am concerned you can believe whatever you like. A fish monger friend of mine tried to buy fish from your friend to resell many years ago. My friend thought that your friend was unreasonable. How does tweaking a tired old fish food recipe make you a "Pioneer"? I guess that you have a low standard for pioneers. I fail to see what great achievements your friend has accomplished. It appears to me that the hobby has done a lot for your friend.

I have been keeping and breeding mainly Tanganyikan's for more years than I care to remember. I am sure that you will be shocked to hear that I had an article published on Keeping and Breeding Cyathopharynx a few years back in the Cichlid News. I have an article floating around the internet on breeding Xenotilapia Papilio "Tembwe Deux". I have several other articles on various subjects floating somewhere in cyberspace. I have kept and bred many Cyprichromis, Xenotilapia and Featherfin species over the years. I freely give my opinion on these species if asked. I have to ask at this point what have you done for the hobby?

What do I know as I am a simple minded googler.

[Narwhal72]

Clay,

You keep lumping starches and carbohydrates together. As I have stated numerous times in this thread not all carbohydrates are starches and all of these simple sugars are metabolized by fish (including carnivores). Amylase is an enzyme, not a process, and is needed for breaking down starches. I also provided documentation that all fish (even carnivores) produce amylase at some point in the digestive process so they can digest starches to varying degrees.

Your experiences may be relevant but have you ever conducted a test using the scientific method? Have you set up a control to validate your data? Have you detailed your testing method and parameters so that others could repeat your test method? Without a proper method and documentation all you have is anecdotal evidence. Have you even considered the fact that as fish age they produce larger and more frequent spawns normally?

I should point out that I am also a fish breeder and have the rank of Grand Master Level 2 in my local aquarium society. I have bred 5 species of loricariids, 2 corydoras, 2 synodontis, 60 species of cichlids, 5 livebearers and 2 barbs.

The fact of the matter is you are feeding a high density, high fat food to fish that don't normally eat food of such high protein and fat concentrations. You can get good results in the short term but you also run the risk of developing fatty liver disease and you increase the nitrogenous waste input into the environment.

Whereas feeding a food with a more typical level of protein and fat that is decreased in density with the addition of wheat flour as a binder will not cause any harm to the fish, the aquarium ecosystem, and produce the same results.

[RD.]

For anyone that actually cares at this point, I arrived at this discussion after a long standing member of Planet Catfish directed it to me during a personal discussion on the phone that we were having. I don't go trolling online, for anything. I recognized the name, and said that I would have a look.

Secondly, I have never once claimed to be an expert, on anything. Have I been kicking around this hobby for a long time, yep. Have I tested numerous foods over the years, yep. I'm an old fart that is old enough to remember when dried ant eggs were considered primo food. And commercial foods such as this.





An expert, nope, but I've been around long enough to know a thing or two about feeding fish, and the science behind a lot of it. I also do my best to stay current with that science. That doesn't mean that I blindly believe every claim made in every study or peer reviewed journal. Not even close. As I stated earlier in this discussion, in many ways I am the original sceptic.

At the same time I certainly don't ignore ALL of the science, and definitely not when numerous studies performed by numerous non-biased accredited individuals from around the globe all come to the exact same conclusion.

Real studies Clay, performed by those who have no real dog in this fight.

I have also stated many times over the years that carnivorous species of fish (at least those tested thus far) do not do well on high dietary carbohydrate loads. But that doesn't equate to all carnivorous fish not being able to assimilate & utilize no more than 5% in captivity. In fact. of those species studied to date, most seem to be able to easily handle up to 20%, some more, depending on the species of fish, and the source of the carbohydrates. And the data that is available on this subject goes beyond just growth, Clay. These are just simple undisputed (by science) facts. You can debate the science until you are blue in the face, but unless you have something to actually counter that science, your opinion is just that, an opinion. As Andy just stated, without proper method and documentation all you have is anecdotal evidence.


With regards to soybean meal & NLS. New Life hasn't used soybean meal in any of their formulas for well over 10 years, probably closer to 15 years. Soybean Isolate, but not soybean meal - and as already stated in this discussion soybean isolate and/or concentrate do not contain the anti-nutritional matter found in soybean meal. Just so you know, The vendor that you posted the link to has been using the same outdated ingredient list on his website for years. It was already outdated the first time that he posted it. New Life also stopped using soybean isolate over a year ago, probably over 2 yrs ago, I don't recall exactly but it wasn't long after Pablo started making his own food in his own manufacturing facility. Just another tweak in an evolving world of science and economics. There may be some older labels still being utilized, but moving forward NLS no longer contains any form of soy. A move that I was thrilled to hear about, as I had been giving Pablo a hard time about soy (even isolate) for years.

And thank you Andy for explaining what amylase is, and isn't.

Clay, you have lots to learn, but that isn't going to happen if you aren't willing to open your eyes and not be so biased towards those who really have made a difference in this area over the past 25 years. And I'm not just referring to one man and his food. And just so you know, 30+ yrs ago when Pablo, Rick, and Rick's brother parted ways - those boys were all feeding mash made up from baby food & vitamins. It was nothing more than a poorly constituted dough ball - absolutely nothing even remotely close to what Pablo created many years later. Back then those gents didn't have two plug nickels to their name, you think they had the $$$$$ to feed pond fish , antarctic krill, herring, squid, algae meal, spirulina, etc? Are you kidding me? lol

Just because Rick is good at telling fairy tales, doesn't mean that they are true.

The fact of the matter is you are feeding a high density, high fat food to fish that don't normally eat food of such high protein and fat concentrations. You can get good results in the short term but you also run the risk of developing fatty liver disease and you increase the nitrogenous waste input into the environment.

Whereas feeding a food with a more typical level of protein and fat that is decreased in density with the addition of wheat flour as a binder will not cause any harm to the fish, the aquarium ecosystem, and produce the same results.

Exactly.

[premiumgreen]

Viktor

I agree that the biology of a fish's digestive system has not changed. I am not trying to reinvent the fish's digestive biology.

My problem is with people trying to apply studies done on aquaculture to keeping fish in an aquarium. The goals are simply not the same. The very limited studies done on ornamental fish were also done in ponds. Again the goal is to grow the fish to a salable size as quickly and cheaply as possible.

We are comparing apples and oranges.

Andy

I agree that all parameters would have to be identical except the food. I have around 1800 gallons that I am willing to dedicate to testing. Would you be willing to set aside a few tanks for the lifespan of a few groups of fish? I understand that this would involve dedicating several years to this project. I am very interested in discovering what happens long term. If my food burns the fish out in a year I am ok with that. What I really want to know is does my food shorten the life of a carnivore.

From what I have read most fish biologists think that a diet high in Omega 6 leads to the fatty liver condition. The food that I make is high in Omega 3.

I don't have a local club. We are probably more alike than either would like to admit.

Clay

[premiumgreen]

RD

I assume these unbiased studies done all over the world were done out of the goodness of their hearts.

You weren't being so humble earlier when you said:

Agreed, and in many ways I am the original sceptic when it comes to many things regarding this subject. This certainly isn't my first rodeo. Over the years I've swapped spit with the best of them when it comes to fish nutrition, including those that hold degrees in aquaculture, marine biology, zoology, and even those that hold PhDs and who specialize in the field of fish health & nutrition. Some of those people have been published in peer reviewed journals numerous times, others in books on this subject.

Would you mind sharing some of the results of the testing that you have done? I am not going to list the short term results of feeding my food. However if you are interested in seeing the short term results my food has produced you can go to premiumgreen.net and look at the testimonials.

I have been thinking about the high protein and fat versus low protein and low fat diet. As I said earlier it is possible that a high protein and high fat diet shortens the life of carnivorous fish. On the other hand its also possible that a low protein and fat diet lengthens the life of a carnivorous fish past its normal lifespan. As I said earlier controlled studies need to be done to attain viable information.

You still haven't answered my question about what you have done for the hobby? I have quite a bit of respect for Andy after learning about his prolific breeding program. What he has accomplished is impressive. I will lay off the old man as I don't know him and he is not here to defend himself.

For the life of me I can't understand you saying a diet of fish meal and fish oil bound with egg whites is an abnormal diet for a piscivore. It is the diet of a piscivore!

[RD.]

My problem is with people trying to apply studies done on aquaculture to keeping fish in an aquarium. The goals are simply not the same. The very limited studies done on ornamental fish were also done in ponds. Again the goal is to grow the fish to a salable size as quickly and cheaply as possible.

We are comparing apples and oranges.

Yes & no. Some of the goals must be the same for hobbyists, or hobbyists wouldn't be comparing things such as growth, color, increased sizes & frequencies of spawns, etc. In the ornamental fish trade, optimal growth & overall health are the main goals, and always have been. Is this not similar/same as the average hobbyist? Of course a large commercial breeder raising thousands of fish must also consider feed costs closely, as those costs can equate to 40% or more of the total production costs. But even most hobbyists factor feed costs in, which is why some of the lower costs feeds on the market are still major players. Everyone considers the overall feed costs, on a large scale commercial operation those costs are simply much greater, and require closer scrutiny if that farm is to succeed as a business.

But to ignore ALL of the science that can be gleaned from some of these commercial studies is IMO being very short sighted. As an example ......

Nutrition For Juvenile African Cichlids: The Effects of Varying Dietary Protein and Energy Levels On Growth Performance And Liver Condition

http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00003586/00001/1j

Where in one of those papers it was determined that H. ahli (S. fryeri) (a carnivore) could tolerate as much as 42% carbohydrate in the diet without any adverse effects.

While I personally wouldn't advise feeding that much carbohydrate to that species of fish, or any carnivore for that matter, one can at least determine from that study that S. fryeri, a predatory carnivorous cichlid from Lake Malawi, produces enough amylase to easily assimilate & utilize carbohydrates in lower quantities. (10-20%)

What I am attempting to prove with some of these aquaculture studies surrounding commercial fish farms, is that there is almost always some info that a person can extrapolate into the keeping & feeding of ornamental species in an aquarium. Of course nobodys goals are all going to be the same - I no longer breed any species of fish (on purpose), so things such as increased fecundity are no longer important to me. To the next hobbyist, that may be a main goal in their fishroom. To someone else growth may be their only concern.

From what I have read most fish biologists think that a diet high in Omega 6 leads to the fatty liver condition. The food that I make is high in Omega 3.

According to the vast majority of studies involving this subject, including those linked to above, any diet that contains excess energy can increase fat deposition in a fish.

For the life of me I can't understand you saying a diet of fish meal and fish oil bound with egg whites is an abnormal diet for a piscivore.

That's probably because I have never said such a thing.

[fischfan13]

Clay, unless you are giving your food away for free, you have a financial motive every time that you start one of these posts on a public forum. Obviously you don't make or sell enough fish food out of your basement to earn an actual living.

I had a heart attack several months ago and after a couple of operations & certain restrictions placed on me by my doctors (and my wife) I decided to get out of the fish food business. If you would like to refer to that as being washed up, that's fine by me. Whatever floats your boat.


Your biggest problem Clay, is that as a whole you generally don't have a clue what you are talking about. Such as stating that Pablo uses hydrolized krill. I have no idea where you got that bogus info from, or why you can't just leave other manufacturers names out of your little public manifestos and stick to the facts.

The fact is, you have absolutely no evidence that proves how much carbohydrate any species of warm water ornamental carnivorous fish can or cannot assimilate. What I offer in proof, Clay, is numerous examples of very long lived fish kept in captivity that remained healthy for as long, or longer, than what those same species ypically live in the wild.
Excellent color, excellent shape/size as one would expect in a wild specimen, and actively breeding. I can't ask much more out of a food than that. And many of those fish are very large carnivorous species, some in the 2-3 ft range. They don't grow to monster sizes like that by being nutrient starved. lol

If you stopped skimming, and tried to absorb some of what I'm attempting to explain you just might understand. Such as these previous comments.

From the From the National Research Councils Nutrient Requirements of Fish;

The nutritional value of carbohydrates varies among fish. Warm-water fish can use much greater amounts of dietary carbohydrate than cold-water and marine fish. No dietary requirement for carbohydrates has been demonstrated in fish; however, if carbohydrates are not provided in the diet, other compounds, such as protein and lipids, are catabolized for energy and for the synthesis of various biologically important compounds usually derived from carbohydrates. Thus, it is important to provide the appropriate concentration of carbohydrate in the diet of the fish species being cultured.

and this ......

http://www.reeis.usda.gov/web/crisproje ... ykiss.html

At the same time, we also raise new questions about the upper limit of feed levels of carbohydrate in this species. Depending on the source and quality of dietary carbohydrate, the aquaculture industry standard of 20% carbohydrate represents a "conservative" value. We documented outstanding growth performance of trout receiving 24% (mostly wheat flour) or even 30% (mostly purified starch) fed aquaculture rations or to satiety, respectively.

And that was for a cold water carnivore - Oncorhynchus mykiss aka the Rainbow Trout.


What part of that don't you understand, Clay?

You spend a couple of years researching via google & breeding a few fish & you think that you somehow got this all figured out. What a farce. The old man that you keep attempting to discredit was breeding fish, and winning awards & trophys for those efforts, before you hit your first set of diapers. He has close to 70 years experience in keeping & breeding fish, and at close to 80 yrs of age has probably forgot more about feeding fish than you will ever know.

Have a nice day.

Hey Neil, sorry to hear about your recent health issue.
It was always great speaking to you not only on forums but also via phone.
You have always been fair and honest to me and to members on my forum...give me a shout and we can catch up!

[premiumgreen]

Clay, unless you are giving your food away for free, you have a financial motive every time that you start one of these posts on a public forum. Obviously you don't make or sell enough fish food out of your basement to earn an actual living.

I had a heart attack several months ago and after a couple of operations & certain restrictions placed on me by my doctors (and my wife) I decided to get out of the fish food business. If you would like to refer to that as being washed up, that's fine by me. Whatever floats your boat.


Your biggest problem Clay, is that as a whole you generally don't have a clue what you are talking about. Such as stating that Pablo uses hydrolized krill. I have no idea where you got that bogus info from, or why you can't just leave other manufacturers names out of your little public manifestos and stick to the facts.

The fact is, you have absolutely no evidence that proves how much carbohydrate any species of warm water ornamental carnivorous fish can or cannot assimilate. What I offer in proof, Clay, is numerous examples of very long lived fish kept in captivity that remained healthy for as long, or longer, than what those same species ypically live in the wild.
Excellent color, excellent shape/size as one would expect in a wild specimen, and actively breeding. I can't ask much more out of a food than that. And many of those fish are very large carnivorous species, some in the 2-3 ft range. They don't grow to monster sizes like that by being nutrient starved. lol

If you stopped skimming, and tried to absorb some of what I'm attempting to explain you just might understand. Such as these previous comments.

From the From the National Research Councils Nutrient Requirements of Fish;

The nutritional value of carbohydrates varies among fish. Warm-water fish can use much greater amounts of dietary carbohydrate than cold-water and marine fish. No dietary requirement for carbohydrates has been demonstrated in fish; however, if carbohydrates are not provided in the diet, other compounds, such as protein and lipids, are catabolized for energy and for the synthesis of various biologically important compounds usually derived from carbohydrates. Thus, it is important to provide the appropriate concentration of carbohydrate in the diet of the fish species being cultured.

and this ......

http://www.reeis.usda.gov/web/crisproje ... ykiss.html

At the same time, we also raise new questions about the upper limit of feed levels of carbohydrate in this species. Depending on the source and quality of dietary carbohydrate, the aquaculture industry standard of 20% carbohydrate represents a "conservative" value. We documented outstanding growth performance of trout receiving 24% (mostly wheat flour) or even 30% (mostly purified starch) fed aquaculture rations or to satiety, respectively.

And that was for a cold water carnivore - Oncorhynchus mykiss aka the Rainbow Trout.


What part of that don't you understand, Clay?

You spend a couple of years researching via google & breeding a few fish & you think that you somehow got this all figured out. What a farce. The old man that you keep attempting to discredit was breeding fish, and winning awards & trophys for those efforts, before you hit your first set of diapers. He has close to 70 years experience in keeping & breeding fish, and at close to 80 yrs of age has probably forgot more about feeding fish than you will ever know.

Have a nice day.

Hey Neil, sorry to hear about your recent health issue.
It was always great speaking to you not only on forums but also via phone.
You have always been fair and honest to me and to members on my forum...give me a shout and we can catch up!

The only thing that I have to say to you is for you to remove my intellectual property from your website as I have requested numerous times.

[premiumgreen]

Some useful opinions can be gleaned from some of the papers that you reference. As I said before valid testing needs to be done in aquariums to have real merit. The cost factor bleeds over into the hobby. I am not saying that the most expensive food is always the best but as a general rule you get what you pay for. Listing ingredients first to last by percentage of dry weight and listing protein, fat, carbohydrate, ash and moisture percentages totaling around 100 would go a long way in helping the hobbyist make an informed decision.

I am almost certain that I read in some of Konings' literature that he believed that diets high in Omega-6 led to led to fat deposits in the liver. If the statements made earlier in this article are true about fish passing excess protein and carbohydrates then the only thing left to be stored in the liver is fat. From what I understand from reading on the subject I haven't seen any information that suggests Omega 3 leads to this condition.

Its funny that you mention energy gain. Energy gain in this context is the amount of energy gained from protein, fat and carbohydrates. Lets say that "ABC" food has a net energy gain of 80% and "XYZ" food has a net energy gain of 40%. It stands to reason that you could feed half as much "ABC" and get the same energy gain. I think that we are making some progress since on the previous page I would have accused you of trying to muddy the waters further.

[RD.]

Some useful opinions can be gleaned from some of the papers that you reference. As I said before valid testing needs to be done in aquariums to have real merit.

Opnions? LOL I take that you never bothered to actually read any of those studies. Those feed trials all took place in aquariums, and the results were clearly not simply based on the researchers opnions.

While this has all been mildly entertaining for me, I'm quite certain by now that anyone who is interested in this subject can carry on with their own research, and draw their own conclusions as to what's best for their fish.

Happy fish keeping everyone.

[premiumgreen]

Some useful opinions can be gleaned from some of the papers that you reference. As I said before valid testing needs to be done in aquariums to have real merit.

Opnions? LOL I take that you never bothered to actually read any of those studies. Those feed trials all took place in aquariums, and the results were clearly not simply based on the researchers opnions.

While this has all been mildly entertaining for me, I'm quite certain by now that anyone who is interested in this subject can carry on with their own research, and draw their own conclusions as to what's best for their fish.

Happy fish keeping everyone.

As I said earlier I have been busy finishing up an out of town contract job. Once I have some time next week I will sit down and read them.

Someone paid for the feed trials with an expected outcome. Just in case you haven't noticed I am very skeptical when it comes to things of this nature.

Take care of yourself Neil.

[premiumgreen]

I will attempt to provide a condensed version of the discussion up to this point.

I want to clarify my motives in starting this thread. My intent is to attempt to clarify some misconceptions about fish nutrition and in the process educate. In the past few months I have more requests for food than I have been able to produce.

I only have four categories: Piscivore, Carnivore, Omnivore and Herbivore because while specialized species exist all that I have found fall into one of the categories listed above.

Diets for Catfish or Cichlids is simply a marketing tactic used to sell more food.

Manufactured fish foods usually contain a vitamin premix stabilized using chemicals. The food would have to be tested and the results released to obtain an outcome.

The manufacturing process uses higher temperatures to cook the food which does reduce the vitamin and fat content. My food is dehydrated at 130 degrees F to preserve the naturally occuring vitamin and fat levels. My food has plenty of natural vitamins that the addition of a vitamin premix is not required.

The goal of tout chow etc. is to grow the fish to a salable size as quickly and cheaply as possible. From reading several reports on the subject it has long been believed that 20% carbohydrates was the limit for not limiting growth in predatory species like trout. Recents studies have shown that with the addition of niacin that the carbohydrates can be increased to 24% without limiting growth. The increase to 30% carbohydrates coupled with niacin led to a slower growth rate and an enlarged liver.

Increasing the carbohydrates does not mean that the fish can use them. It simply means that the addition of niacin and increased carbohydrates did not slow the growth rate. The goals in aquaculture and the hobby are very different. Once a trout on a fish farm reaches a certain size it is sold to be consumed. Therefore no long term results can possibly be obtained. A carnivore's natural prey may contain up to 5% carbohydrates. My food for predators is bound using protein and contains up to 2% carbohydrates. This is much closer to what is naturally consumed than the 20% some in this thread think is acceptable.

Carbohydrates include fiber, starch and sugar. Fiber is coarse indigestible plant matter commonly called roughage. Starch can only be broken down by fish with long digestive tracts. Predators with short digestive tracts are limited in how much starch can be used. If the trout mentioned earlier could effectively use starch then why are they concerened with increased carbohydrates slowing the growth rate? All fish can convert sugar into energy.

Lets take a look at the ever popular wheat flour. In wheat flour fiber makes up 4%, starch makes up 95% and sugar makes up 1%. Assuming a predator can use up to 25% of the starch and all of the sugar that it consumes that means that it can use 25% of the carbohydrates ingested. So of the 20% carbohydrates some here consider acceptable in fish food your predatory fish can only use 5%.

I will give more detailed breakdown as I have time.

Is this what you are looking for Viktor?

[RD.]

While I suspect that others were going to allow this infomercial to silently scroll off into never-never land, I felt the need to respond to ensure that if/when someone lands here via a search engine one day, that some of the misinformation being posted will have not gone unchallenged, as though it is all fact based - because it most definitely is not.


As an example .........

Lets take a look at the ever popular wheat flour. In wheat flour fiber makes up 4%, starch makes up 95% and sugar makes up 1%

The U.S. Department of Agriculture National Nutrient Database states that 100 g of whole grain wheat flour contains 71.97 g of carbohydrates ( of which 57.8 g are starch), 13.21 g protein, 2.5 g fat, 10.7 g fiber, 0.41 sugars, and 10.74 g water.


Not to mention the numerous vitamins & trace minerals that are also found in wheat flour.

http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/6309


I have type 2 diabetes so I watch my sugar intake closely, including starch. The following link contains much of the same data with regards to how much starch the various wheat flours contain. FYI - there is more than just one type of wheat flour, and none of them are 95% starch as Clay would have everyone believing.

http://health-diet.us/starch/ (search - wheat flour)


How is the constant posting of bogus data & facts educational?


And where on earth do you come up with nonsense such as this?

So of the 20% carbohydrates some here consider acceptable in fish food your predatory fish can only use 5%.

Now you would have everyone believing that any/all predatory fish can only utilize and assimilate 5% carbohydrate - as though all predatory species, and all carbohydrates are equal? Maybe in your mind all carbohydrate based ingredients are 95% starch?


If you you have any credible data to support anything that you say, as in supplied via studies performed by accredited individuals or institutions, then please do so. Otherwise most of what is being posted is again nothing more than one laypersons opinion, based on nothing more than what I personally consider to be some ridiculous assumptions and some very weak anecdotal evidence that for the most part appears to be based on false and/or misleading information.

Cheers!

[premiumgreen]

While I suspect that others were going to allow this infomercial to silently scroll off into never-never land, I felt the need to respond to ensure that if/when someone lands here via a search engine one day, that some of the misinformation being posted will have not gone unchallenged, as though it is all fact based - because it most definitely is not.


As an example .........

Lets take a look at the ever popular wheat flour. In wheat flour fiber makes up 4%, starch makes up 95% and sugar makes up 1%

The U.S. Department of Agriculture National Nutrient Database states that 100 g of whole grain wheat flour contains 71.97 g of carbohydrates ( of which 57.8 g are starch), 13.21 g protein, 2.5 g fat, 10.7 g fiber, 0.41 sugars, and 10.74 g water.


Not to mention the numerous vitamins & trace minerals that are also found in wheat flour.

http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/6309


I have type 2 diabetes so I watch my sugar intake closely, including starch. The following link contains much of the same data with regards to how much starch the various wheat flours contain. FYI - there is more than just one type of wheat flour, and none of them are 95% starch as Clay would have everyone believing.

http://health-diet.us/starch/ (search - wheat flour)


How is the constant posting of bogus data & facts educational?


And where on earth do you come up with nonsense such as this?

So of the 20% carbohydrates some here consider acceptable in fish food your predatory fish can only use 5%.

Now you would have everyone believing that any/all predatory fish can only utilize and assimilate 5% carbohydrate - as though all predatory species, and all carbohydrates are equal? Maybe in your mind all carbohydrate based ingredients are 95% starch?


If you you have any credible data to support anything that you say, as in supplied via studies performed by accredited individuals or institutions, then please do so. Otherwise most of what is being posted is again nothing more than one laypersons opinion, based on nothing more than what I personally consider to be some ridiculous assumptions and some very weak anecdotal evidence that for the most part appears to be based on false and/or misleading information.

Cheers!

http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/cer ... sta/9257/2

You keep saying all of the studies done suggest up to 20% carbohydrates has long been accepted as the limit in farm raised trout.

You can attempt to discredit me all you like but if readers check the facts they will find that I am telling the truth. Its simply not what you want to hear.

Criticism from one salesman with no credentials who made his living selling one brand of carbohydrate laden food. Now that's rich. I have made and tested my food.

[Narwhal72]

But you haven't tested your food Clay. You even asked me to do your work for you.

If you have tested your food please present your data. So far you haven't produced any facts, data, studies or anything at all to support your claims. Even your own examples are riddled with errors and assumptions.

All you have are opinions and testimonials which are not, and can not be substantiated as facts.

[premiumgreen]

But you haven't tested your food Clay. You even asked me to do your work for you.

If you have tested your food please present your data. So far you haven't produced any facts, data, studies or anything at all to support your claims. Even your own examples are riddled with errors and assumptions.

All you have are opinions and testimonials which are not, and can not be substantiated as facts.

I gave you an opportunity to prove me wrong.

Why do I have to produce detailed studies when the large manufactured fish food industry has produced nothing. Could it be that my more natural food for predators does not line up with your views regarding using a replacement for fish meal or more grain in fish diets. You plainly said earlier what is the harm in the carbohydrates passing through a predatory fish into the aquarium. I say the harm is that it is a waste. Why feed predatory fish something they can only use a small part of? In short where are the substantiated facts from Tetra, New Life Spectrum etc. that predators can make use of all of their food? Why do they get a pass when they use tons of fish meal?

If I have no idea what I am doing why are you two so determined to discredit me. Could it be that my ideas have merit that you don't want brought to light? Thank you!

[Narwhal72]

Why do I have to produce detailed studies when the large manufactured fish food industry has produced nothing.

Completely untrue. There are literally thousands of nutritional studies on fish diets in aquaculture. Many of which have been linked to in this very thread! Commercial fish food manufacturers don't have to produce their own studies because the data is already out there for them to use in their product development.

You have to produce data because YOU are the one who started this thread and made these claims! YOU made the claim, now produce the evidence to back it up.

We are only pointing out your faulty assumptions and blatant promotionalism.

Andy