Fish Nutrition

[RD.]

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.

Exactly.

And if you actually took the time to digest what I have been saying, and have been saying for many years, Clay, you would understand that I have never promoted feeding large amounts of carbohydrates - to any species of fish.

I am not disagreeing with the main premise of your food for predators, I am simply not agreeing with the manner in which you are promoting your food, as the vast majority of your information is not supported by any type of credible data. Even your condensed version of this discussion was nothing more than pure fantasy.

It gets to a point where it becomes a put up or shut up type of thing. As Andy stated, you haven't produced any facts, data, studies or anything at all to support your claims. Your own examples are even riddled with errors and assumptions.

Again, while I personally find this to be mildly entertaining, I certainly wouldn't want anyone reading some of your comments and accepting them as facts. They clearly aren't.

[Viktor Jarikov]

Is this what you are looking for Viktor?

IDK anymore. There appears to be a lot missing in this field - much more studies need to be conducted to bring in clarity into what you are offering. As I stated before - intuitively and by common sense it may appear you may be right but again it does not mean that it is and it most certainly does not mean that your opposition is wrong. And they have apparently the knowledge and the published, proper science to back themselves up, which one cannot afford to disregard but must study to understand.

Quite possible IMHO at this stage that both are correct in their own ways - it's just a matter of $$$ that an average hobbyist wants to spend on food versus other expenses.

And moreover, intuitively (yeah, I can eat my own words too ) I don't think lumping all predators from all families, continents and water temps etc. is right, albeit you may say the opposite.

Lastly, the fishes enormous, surprising (to me) adaptibility that has been touched upon here, e.g., the changes in intestinal length in response to a change in diet, may alleviate or even nearly nilify the effect of such a diet change from natural to captive.

[fischfan13]

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.

Clay, when you apologize to my entire forum and staff for that disgusting, vile, sick post you made on my forum several months ago then we will talk.

[Birger]

Please all...this is beginning to digress, please do not turn PlanetCatfish into your new battlefield cause here Namazu will put a fitting end to it.

Either let it go or continue in a proper manner...we hope for the latter.


Birger (Moderator)

[Dave Rinaldo]

... cause here Namazu will put a fitting end to it.
Birger (Moderator)

[premiumgreen]

I have studied this http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00003586/00001/1j study done for tropical fish farmers in Florida. They were losing a large number of fish per day and suspected diet was the cause. The problem with this study is the fish farmers are looking for one diet to feed all fish. Carnivores simply don't have the same dietary needs as algae grazing herbivores. The problem is believed to be fat build up in the fishes liver. Lowering the fat content did lead to improved liver condition however the study is flawed because it uses equal amounts of fish oil (high in omega 3) and vegetable oil (high in omega 6). I have a study planned to prove omega 6 is the ingredient causing the fat being stored in the liver. Studies on humans http://www.healthcentral.com/diabetes/c ... tty-liver/ suggest that taking omega 3 can reverse the non alcohlic fatty liver condition. Plant matter containing fat with a few exceptions is very high in omega 6.

Facts:
Piscivores and Carnivores consume very little sugar, starch and fiber in their natural diet. They have very short digestive tracts which greatly limits their ability to use starch. Fiber is a great laxative (with no nutritional value) that they really don't need due to the length of their digestive tract.

Algae Grazing Herbivores can use starch as an energy source due to their long digestive tract. I have done extensive research the last couple on hair like green algae which is what algae grazing herbivores eat. I found information on Chlorella here http://www.nuts.com/cookingbaking/powde ... owder.html . This is the best information that I could find on an algae similar to what the fish naturally graze on. Keep in mind that this algae is grown under controlled conditions and fed lots of nitrates to increase the protein level. Under lake or river conditions excess nitrates are not available which leads to a reduction in protein and an increase carbohydrates (starch and fiber). See https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 7100,d.eWU for information regarding the reduction of protein and the increase in carbohydrates. I was surprised to learn that Chlorella and other green algae contained 9% fat. I often wondered how algae grazing fish got enough energy to breed.

I had never been happy with my attempts at a herbivore food until now. Given my recent studies I have come up with a formula that replicates the natural diet of these fish. Protein 32%, 9.1% Fat, 44.4% Carbohydrates, 6.3% Ash and 8.2% moisture. List of ingredients first to last by dry weight: Wheat Meal, Krill, Whole Menhaden Meal, Shrimp Meal, Fish Oil, Lysine, Spirulina and Paprika. Yes Wheat is the first ingredient because I don't use deceptive ingredient splitting practices used by others. I am also happy to say that despite the high use of plant matter that the food is 85% omega 3 and 15% omega six.

I hope those with an open mind and no agenda can benefit from this information.

[RD.]

Ha-ha-ha-ha!

All this talk over the years about terrestrial based plant matter, and how terrible wheat is as an ingredient and how it has no nutritional value in a fish food - but suddenly now it is the main ingredient in your new food. What a farce!

BTW - now that you have studied a single paper on the subject of lipid content in fish food being fed cichlids, here's another study that you might want to spend the money on.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/A03-035.1

An Evaluation of Two Commercially Prepared Feeds on Growth Performance and Liver Condition of Juvenile African Cichlids Pseudotropheus socolofi and Haplochromis ahli

Abstract
A 12-week feeding trial was conducted to evaluate growth performance and hepatocyte changes in juvenile African cichlids Pseudotropheus socolofi and Haplochromis ahli fed commercial diets commonly used on cichlid farms in south Florida. Fish were fed either a trout starter pellet diet (TP diet; 52% crude protein, 17% lipid) or a mixed flake feed diet (fish flake [FF] diet) (47% crude protein, 7% lipid). For both species, growth was significantly greater (P < 0.05) in fish fed the TP diet than in fish fed the FF diet, H. ahli administered the FF diet exhibiting the slowest growth. The hepatosomatic index was not significantly different among treatments (P > 0.1). Histological examination revealed severe vacuolation of hepatocytes in P. socolofi fed the TP diet and moderate vacuolation in H. ahli fed the TP diet. Moderate vacuolation of hepatocytes was observed in P. socolofi fed the FF diet, and only mild vacuolation was found in H. ahli fed the FF diet. The lipid-rich TP diet may be suitable for commercial production of juvenile African cichlids up to 12 weeks of age, but prolonged feeding may result in excess lipid deposition and necrosis of the liver. Feeds like the FF diet, which produced slower growth but lower lipid deposition in livers, may be more suitable as a maintenance diet for cichlids in the home aquarium.

The TP was a trout starter feed (fry food) that contained only 14.5% carbohydrate, where the main bulk of the fat in the diet (17%) was derived from fish oil (omega 3), not plant matter of any kind.

The lipid-rich TP diet may be suitable for commercial production of juvenile African cichlids up to 12 weeks of age, but prolonged feeding may result in excess lipid deposition and necrosis of the liver.

This is from fat derived from fish meal, and fish oil (omega 3) NOT vegetable oil.

If you think about it, it's kind of common sense that excess FAT in any animals diet is going to lead to health issues over time. Even good fat, can become bad when eaten beyond what is required for normal metabolic function, growth, breeding, etc.

It's not as though a fish can just poop excess fat out......

[premiumgreen]

I have never said wheat was bad for omnivores and herbivores. It is not acceptable in the diets of piscivores and carnivores. Wheat is the least offensive of plant based ingredients because it is low in fat. Therefore it doesn't skew the omega3/omega 6 ratio much. Why feed foods with carbohydrates to carnivores and it end up being passed into the aquarium. With my foods for carnivores you can feed less and get the fish the nutrients it needs with less waste in the end saving the consumer money.

I don't split ingredients to hide what I am doing.

Diets with 17% fat MAY lead to fatty liver if continued feeding to adult fish.

I would define a farce as taking the same basic formula and changing it slightly twenty times and calling them different names.

My Piscivore, Carnivore Fish and Invertebrates, Carnivore Invertebrates, Omnivore and Herbivore mimic the natural diets of the fish. I have done extensive research to replicate these diets.

I am beginning a study feeding an algae grazing species Herbivore which contains roughly 9% fat. The plan is to remove one fish every three months over a year and have the fish's liver examined for fatty liver condition.

I have in the works the same study planned for a piscivore species.

[premiumgreen]

A few more thoughts.

All of the studies that I have seen mentioned were done for fish farmers in Florida. Most of these fish are sold when they reach 1" - 1-1/2". These fish use all the energy they take in for growth. Is it possible when they become adults they use the fat to show off for females or produce eggs?

RD is it possible to make a better fish food than your favorite?

Clearly more long term studies on adult fish need to be done. Yes it is possible that 17% fat is too high for piscivores. I am determined to find out what the proper level of fat over the long term is for piscivores. I am simply a hobbyist that has done extensive research on fish nutrition and I am determined to make the best fish food in the world.

[RD.]

I don't mean to be rude, so please don't take it that way, but if you had actually done extensive research on fish nutrition, you wouldn't be saying a lot of the things that you have stated in this, and other discussions.

You seem to want to reinvent the wheel, when the wheel has already been around for a very long time. How much fat a fish may safely consume is not just dependant on the type of fat (omega 3 vs omega 6), or the classification of the fish (piscivore vs omnivore vs herbivore) or the life stage of the fish (juvenile vs adult). Just as important as all of the above - is the energy level of the fish, and the total calorie intake by the fish (gross energy kcal/g) - not just the crude fat percentage.


While a fish in the wild may consume certain high protein/high fat foods, those same food stuffs are typically comprised of 70-80% water. These wild fish are not swimming around eating high protein/high fat "dry" foods, and while the fish may eat until it reaches satiation much of that food content is water, which makes the digestion rate & feed conversion much different than having a wad of dry food of similar nutrient density in its gut. (high protein/high fat)

Fry require a higher protein/fat content due to their higher metabolic rate (compared to adults) and with their smaller, underdeveloped stomachs they can only consume so much food at any given time. Hence a higher protein/fat formula will typically net more optimum growth.

But even at 17% crude fat derived from omega 3 fish oil, with young fry that require higher levels of crude fat, and crude protein, with half of the test subjects classified as piscivores (S. fryeri, commonly incorrectly referred to in the trade as H. ahli), the small juvenile fish in the study linked to had fatty deposits on their organs within only a few weeks of starting on the diet.


What part of that don't you understand? It's not just possible that 17% crude fat is too high for piscivores, it has been proven, even in the YOY that can generally consume far greater ratios of protein/fat than adults, or even semi-adults.


I would highly recommend that you take a close read of the study that I posted in the previous comment, and use the same type of methods utilized by those researchers, so that you won't simply end up with some worthless data.

Is it possible to make a better food? Of course it is! There is always room for improvement in everything in this hobby - which is why some manufacturers stay up with the most current science, and tweak things as needed. Nothing has remained static with the food that I use, there have been a number of changes over the past 20 years. Some of those I have already mentioned previously in this discussion.

As far as wheat; http://forums.eastcoastcichlids.org/sho ... php?t=5361

In that discussion, and your chart, you listed all forms of wheat as "bad".

You went so far as to say;

Just for fun lets say it takes 25% grain to hold the food together. In this case it means 25% of the food that you feed your fish has very little to zero nutritional value.

The digestive tract of a fish is not designed to assimilate grain protein. While some fish with long digestive tracts can asimilate some grain protein it doesn't make it a viable source of protein.

IMHO using any form of terrestrial based plant matter (including wheat) as the main ingredient in a fish food (designed for any species) is counterproductive to your entire philosophy of feeding fish, and is certainly a huge step backwards for anyone keeping herbivorous species. Feeding large amounts of wheat (grain) to a herbivore that primarily consumes aquatic plant matter in the wild does not replicate the natural diet of the fish, at all.

Again, just MHO but you would be far better off using a quality form of algae meal, such as a spirulina/kelp/seaweed/chlorella algae type mix, ALL aquatic based, with none of the known anti-nutritional matter found in terrestrial based plant matter.

But hey, what do I know?

[premiumgreen]

Your agenda is obviously to discredit my work. I don't mean to be rude but what have you done for the hobby besides sell fish food that is not of the quality that I am producing?

You seem to want to reinvent the wheel

In using egg white as a binder in my carnivorous foods I have. I have watched you over the years discredit the pretty bird guy and others. They simply used another member of the carbohydrate family to bind their food. With our idea of binding carnivorous foods with egg whites (82% protein) you don't have a leg to stand on.

You are quoting me out of context. That chart was made long ago before I began making fish food. It really wasn't fair since most fish food manufacturers use two or three carbohydrate sources as binders. If they only used one it would be first on the ingredient list pretty often. I have learned a lot since that comparison chart was made and continue to learn every day.

I do use spirulina as I like its ability to boost the fish's immune system. So the protein in chlorella is better than wheat protein with lysine? The carbohydrates in kelp is different than carbohydrates found in wheat? Now that's funny! Thank you for that bit of insight!

The cost of making the water plant food you are suggesting would be astronomical. Yes some algae have a great omega3/omega 6 ratio but so does menhaden oil.

My Herbivore replicates an algae grazers diet in a practical way. From my research on the subject algae growing on rocks in a lake with limited nitrate would have 25%-35% protein, 9% fat, 40%-50% carbohydrates and 6% ash.

Herbivore: Protein 32%, 9.1% Fat, 44.4% Carbohydrates, 6.3% Ash and 8.2% moisture. List of ingredients first to last by dry weight: Wheat Meal, Krill, Whole Menhaden Meal, Shrimp Meal, Fish Oil, Lysine, Spirulina and Paprika.

[RD.]

Unlike you Clay, I don't have an agenda. You're the person who's attempting to sell something here, not me. This is your infomercial, not mine.

So the protein in chlorella is better than wheat protein with lysine? The carbohydrates in kelp is different than carbohydrates found in wheat? Now that's funny!

I never said that. Clearly you missed the point, so here it is again.

The fish that you keep referring to (herbivores) typically consume aquatic plant matter in nature, so if one is going to attempt to replicate their natural diet (as you stated), that is what one should be using in their feed, not terrestrial based plant matter, which are all known to come with the unwanted baggage of anti-nutritional matter.

It is for that same reason that the trout/salmon farmers limit using too much terrestrial based plant matter, such as soybean meal, peas, wheat, corn, etc in their feed. Simply boosting a limiting amino acid such as lysine doesn't negate the potential of anti-nutritional matter found in grain based carbs. It is a very real problem in aquaculture feed when one uses terrestrial based plant matter, including wheat.

Have I not explained all this already, in detail?

It's not about protein, or fat, or the level of carbs in your herbivore food that I disagree with - it is the source of those nutrient levels.



As far as reinventing the wheel via egg whites, is that some kind of joke? Chicken eggs, both the yolk, and the white, have been used in home made fish food recipes (as a protein source, and binding agent) for decades. Probably before I was even keeping fish as a kid and I'm 54 yrs old.

And just like those before you, your food is simply a home made concoction, that in this case was created by IMO someone who lacks a clear understanding about the science behind most this. Lots of things that look good on paper, don't always work out so well in practice.

Hey, I commend you for trying, but unlike those companies that you attempt to discredit on a regular basis, in your self promotional lectures, those people actually own government regulated facilities, and sell government inspected & regulated products. Companies that have to not only deal with federal regulations, but also each state individually.

In the USA this involves not only the FDA, but also the FTC, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Veterinary Services (VS), and AAFCO (The Association of American Feed Control Officials). And that doesn't even begin to touch upon what's involved on an international scale!


Who inspects your food before it gets shipped out from your garage?

[premiumgreen]

You have been the NLS internet bulldog for as long as long as I can remember so you clearly have an agenda.

I have not once offered to sell my food on this thread. I have offered free samples to those that were interested.

The composition of wheat flour. 10.3% protein, .3% sugar, 2.7% fiber, 73.3% starch, 1% fat, .5% ashand 11.9% moisture. The proper amount of lysine completes the amino acid profile in wheat. If fish with long digestive tracts can use starch I don't see the problem. Your favorite food lists wheat flour as one of the "MAIN INGREDIENTS". Where is this unwanted baggage? So I get a beat up for using wheat and Pablo gets a pass. That's hypocrisy at an unbelievable level!

Look at the amino acid chart here: http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/cer ... sta/5821/2

The problem I have with the fish food manufacturing world is that they deceive and confuse the hobbyist. They want the sheeple to believe that making fish food is some super secret mystery when in fact it is very simple. Listing Main Ingredients and minimum and maximum protein etc. levels is unacceptable.

The fish farmers in Florida didn't make a commercial food for carnivores using egg whites. Their food is based on the mash they feed their fish. One formula for all species which clearly doesn't work.

All I can say is that the people using my food like the results. Honestly I can't make enough to keep up with the demand. In the near future my food will be produced in a facility like you mentioned. It has been in the works for some time. It will be dehydrated in the same manner as I do in my garage on a grand scale.

You continually attack my basic knowledge of fish nutrition. I think that my dialogue has proven that to not be true. I don't think that I have insulted you personally. I simply point out some flaws in manufactured fish food. You seen to take great offense to that and attack my intelligence. That I do find offensive. I openly admit that I try to learn something new every day but that doesn't mean that I haven't done five years of research on the subject.

[RD.]

Again, I have no agenda. I have done my best to assist those who feed homemade mixes, fresh/frozen foods, and even other brands of pellets, for many years. You must have missed all of those conversations.

You are the one that keeps bringing certain brand names (and manufacturers) into this discussion, not me. I noticed that you have mentioned his name, and his food, in other infomercials that you have posted on other forums as well. Trust me, that isn't helping your cause.

And I am not attacking your intelligence, I am simply pointing out your lack of understanding surrounding some of the complexities of this particular subject. As previously stated, the vast majority of your information is not supported by any type of credible data.

You state that you have not once offered to sell any food, yet this entire discussion is about just that - your food. HELLO.

You make a LOT of wild claims, and post a LOT of so called facts, yet have nothing to back most of it up other than some make believe science, and make believe numbers. Four years ago you knew almost nothing about fish food, you actually thought wheat was added to fish food as a source of protein, yet now you feel that you know more than people that have been doing this for decades. Okey dokey.


You compare the wheat in your food (the main ingredient listed by dry weight) with other brands, where the inclusion rate is but a small fraction of what you are using - as is the percentage of omega 6 fat. NOT a whopping 15% omega 6 such as you stated will be in your food. There is no hypocrisy on my part Clay, in the ratio that you are using, vs what I feed my fish, we are talking apples and oranges. Not even in the same ballpark.

And seeing as you want to constantly make some kind of comparison with NLS, New Life has lowered their wheat content over the past couple of years, currently the lowest in its history, due to increasing certain forms of algae as part of their main binding agents.

Unlike you Clay, my mantra over the years has never changed, I have never promoted feeding large amounts of carbohydrates - to any species of fish, and certainly not carbs sourced from terrestrial based plant matter.

But this isn't about me, or NLS, or any other brand of commercial food that has already withstood the test of time via some of the largest and most prestigious aquaculture facilities in North America. We already know those foods will work, and work well, no matter the scientific classification of the fish. There is no argument there, fish that are 10-15+ years old and still thriving in captivity on these foods.


And again, exactly who inspects your food before it gets shipped out from your garage?

You let me know when you're USDA & APHIS approved, then we'll talk more. For now, talk is cheap, and I've heard most of it before.

Cheers!

[premiumgreen]

Again, I have no agenda. I have done my best to assist those who feed homemade mixes, fresh/frozen foods, and even other brands of pellets, for many years. You must have missed all of those conversations.

You were an NLS distributor for many years. Rephrased second sentence: I have been discrediting and belittling those who made their own food for many years.

You are the one that keeps bringing certain brand names (and manufacturers) into this discussion, not me. I noticed that you have mentioned his name, and his food, in other infomercials that you have posted on other forums as well. Trust me, that isn't helping your cause.

I am simply pointing some ambiguous information concerning main ingredients and unclear protein etc. on manufactured fish food labeling.

And I am not attacking your intelligence, I am simply pointing out your lack of understanding surrounding some of the complexities of this particular subject. As previously stated, the vast majority of your information is not supported by any type of credible data.

Most people can learn a lot about any subject if they study it for five years. Making fish food ain't rocket science as you would have everyone believe. The only information that I can provide is that fish respond well to the food that I make.

You state that you have not once offered to sell any food, yet this entire discussion is about just that - your food. HELLO.

Something we can agree on. This discussion is about my food.

You make a LOT of wild claims, and post a LOT of so called facts, yet have nothing to back most of it up other than some make believe science, and make believe numbers. Four years ago you knew almost nothing about fish food, you actually thought wheat was added to fish food as a source of protein, yet now you feel that you know more than people that have been doing this for decades. Okey dokey.

Given the correct information you can easily create a spreadsheet that gives accurate projections of protein etc.. I have never thought wheat was a good source for carnivores. That is a bald faced lie! If it takes you decades to learn how to make good fish food I have to say that you are a bit slow.

You compare the wheat in your food (the main ingredient listed by dry weight) with other brands, where the inclusion rate is but a small fraction of what you are using - as is the percentage of omega 6 fat. NOT a whopping 15% omega 6 such as you stated will be in your food. There is no hypocrisy on my part Clay, in the ratio that you are using, vs what I feed my fish, we are talking apples and oranges. Not even in the same ballpark.

Provide some evidence of the small fraction of wheat used in your brand. 15% omega 6 is not a whopping
number. Fish oil which is highly touted for its omega 3/omega 6 ratio contains about 7.6% omega 6. My Piscivore using only a small percentage of spirulina contains 1.4% carbohydrates and 7.9% omega 6. Obviously fish can use some omega 6. I don't know what you are g but it seems to be doing the trick.

And seeing as you want to constantly make some kind of comparison with NLS, New Life has lowered their wheat content over the past couple of years, currently the lowest in its history, due to increasing certain forms of algae as part of their main binding agents.

Prove it!

Unlike you Clay, my mantra over the years has never changed, I have never promoted feeding large amounts of carbohydrates - to any species of fish, and certainly not carbs sourced from terrestrial based plant matter.

I have learned a lot over a five year period. I have changed my opinion on things as I learned. I have to ask at this where are your credentials as an expert in this field? Have you ever made any fish food?
From what I can see being an NLS distributor makes you an expert.

But this isn't about me, or NLS, or any other brand of commercial food that has already withstood the test of time via some of the largest and most prestigious aquaculture facilities in North America. We already know those foods will work, and work well, no matter the scientific classification of the fish. There is no argument there, fish that are 10-15+ years old and still thriving in captivity on these foods.

There is always room for improvement. I wouldn't feed any of the carbohydrate bound foods to carnivores. Yes they simply pass the carbohydrates they can't use into the aquarium. With my foods for carnivores you can feed less saving you money and not end up with excess waste in your aquarium.


And again, exactly who inspects your food before it gets shipped out from your garage?

I inspect it and my customers are happy with it.

You let me know when you're USDA & APHIS approved, then we'll talk more. For now, talk is cheap, and I've heard most of it before.

That is only a matter of time. Honestly I don't need your insight and can certainly do without your insults.

Cheers!

[RD.]

Well now that we have come full circle, and the mud slinging has begun, let me just finish up here with a few comments, and I will leave you with the last word.

For the record, I have never once claimed to be an expert on anything. In fact I have gone on record many times over the years stating that I am not an expert, when others have described me as such.

Yes, (gasp) I distributed NLS for a number of years up here in the Great White North. I also have friends that keep very large, very aggro carnivorous species that have never eaten a pellet in their life. I have other friends who feed pellets of a different brand to some of their fish as they were unable to train them to accept my choice of pellet. I actually trained one of those friends adult Asian aro to eat Hikari floating pellets while I was taking care of his tanks while he was away on vacation. He had been trying to pellet train that fish for years. Imagine that!

As previously stated, I have done my best to assist those who feed homemade mixes, fresh/frozen foods, and even other brands of pellets, for many years. I am not brain washed about any one product, or any one form of feeding, and have gone on record many times over the years stating that there are many quality products on the market that will get the job done. Including feeding vitamin supplemented fresh/frozen. The fact that I choose one type/brand of food over others, doesn't equate to all other foods being of poor (or even lesser) quality than what I choose to feed.

Have I pounded on a few people over the years when they are talking out of their arse on this subject? Why yes I have. Guilty as stated. And your point is? I don't care what people feed their fish, they obviously aren't my fish - but I do have a problem when people (such as yourself) go onto a public forum and make stuff up as they go along, stating various things as facts, with absolutely no credible evidence to support most of these so called facts.

I have no bias towards you, or your fish food, at all. In fact, I have agreed with some of your principles from the very beginning - what I have not agreed with is your very non-scientific approach to this subject, with all sorts of BS data that doesn't even exist.

The things that you are just discovering, I knew about 30 yrs ago. Whoopee!

I'm clearly not the only person who has questioned you about some of this, here, and in other discussions that you have started on various forums over the past few years.

You state;

I am simply pointing some ambiguous information concerning main ingredients and unclear protein etc. on manufactured fish food labeling.

That's not "simply" what you have been doing at all, Clay. You have made a LOT of very untrue statements over the years regarding manufacturers, and what/how they make their products, including in this discussion. And with that I will finish up with reposting an earlier comment made by another member of PC, and one that I am in complete agreement with.

I have nothing against you personally. But you started this thread (and others just like it on other forums) as some sort of backdoor advertisement for your brand of foods. Not by posting the positive aspects of your foods. But by posting negative aspects of others. I find it in poor taste. If you had been up front and said. Hey, I make this food and I think it's the best because of yadda yadda yadda I wouldn't of cared. You don't see Pablo or Rick or any other manufacturers using the same marketing tactics.

Over & out.

[premiumgreen]

For the record, I have never once claimed to be an expert on anything. In fact I have gone on record many times over the years stating that I am not an expert, when others have described me as such.

I have been very clear that I don't consider myself an expert in the field. I am sure that you won't believe this but several have referred to me as a fish food expert. Some believe it or not consider me an expert on Tanganyikan Cichlids.

I also have friends that keep very large, very aggro carnivorous species that have never eaten a pellet in their life. I have other friends who feed pellets of a different brand to some of their fish as they were unable to train them to accept my choice of pellet. I actually trained one of those friends adult Asian aro to eat Hikari floating pellets while I was taking care of his tanks while he was away on vacation. He had been trying to pellet train that fish for years. Imagine that!

Congratulations on training a fish! I have one published article "Keeping and Breeding Cyathopharynx Species" in the July 2011 Cichlid News. I have an article floating around the internet on Keeping and Breeding Xenotilapia Papilio "Tembwe Deux". That particular species hadn't been bred in the states for at least ten years before I bred them. If you want proof ask Barbie as I sent her some juvies. I have several other articles floating around the internet. I have been a moderator on several of the Tanganyikan section on several cichlid forums. I have great respect for the people that do that. Explaining the nitrogen cycle for the 100th time hurts my head. I am going to ask one last time what have you done for the hobby?

As previously stated, I have done my best to assist those who feed homemade mixes, fresh/frozen foods, and even other brands of pellets, for many years.

I haven't seen you help anyone over the years. Would you like to give us an example of someone that you have helped?

Have I pounded on a few people over the years when they are talking out of their arse on this subject? Why yes I have. Guilty as stated. And your point is? I don't care what people feed their fish, they obviously aren't my fish - but I do have a problem when people (such as yourself) go onto a public forum and make stuff up as they go along, stating various things as facts, with absolutely no credible evidence to support most of these so called facts.

I am not making up anything. The numbers I claim are projections from a spreadsheet. I am sending samples of all of my foods for analysis at an honest to goodness lab at the beginning of next week. SHOCK! I am sure the test results will vary some from my projections but I do expect them to be very close.

The things that you are just discovering, I knew about 30 yrs ago. Whoopee!

Your arrogance is apalling

That's not "simply" what you have been doing at all, Clay. You have made a LOT of very untrue statements over the years regarding manufacturers, and what/how they make their products, including in this discussion. And with that I will finish up with reposting an earlier comment made by another member of PC, and one that I am in complete agreement with.

I have said that many fish food manufacturers coat their pellets with hydrolyzed krill. I buy ingredients from a large protein trading company. My rep who sells hydrolyzed krill told me that the bulk of his hydrolyzed krill sales were to fish food manufacturers. A fish would eat a rat turd coated in hydrolyzed krill!

The problem I have with the fish food manufacturing world is that they deceive and confuse the hobbyist. They want the sheeple to believe that making fish food is some super secret mystery when in fact it is very simple. Listing Main Ingredients and minimum and maximum protein etc. levels is unacceptable.

Question: Where did the formulas using high percentages of grain come from?
Answer: They came from commercial aquaculture. The goal in commercial aquaculture is to grow a fingerling catfish or trout to saleable size as quickly and cheaply as possible. If you think about it two well known fish food manufacturers had fish farms in Florida for many years before they began making commercial fish food. As hobbyists we have very different goals.

Which of these are false? If you answer any you need to provide some proof.

[premiumgreen]

Lets talk a little about algae meal. In the states algae is grown three ways.

The first method is growing it in a sludge pond. A sludge pond is typically a shallow pond where human waste is dumped. The high nitrogen levels produce algae meal with 55% - 65% protein, 8%- 11% fat, 15% - 25% carbohydrates and 5% to 8% ash.

The second method is growing it in a shallow man made pond. The nitrogen source is either fertilizer or more than like animal feces. The high nitrogen levels produce algae meal with 55% - 65% protein, 8%- 11% fat, 15% - 25% carbohydrates and 5% to 8% ash.

The third method is growing it in indoor vats. The nitrogen source is fertilizer since this algae is sold as a health food. The high nitrogen levels produce algae meal with 55% - 65% protein, 8%- 11% fat, 15% - 25% carbohydrates and 5% to 8% ash.

I am willing to bet the algae meal used in fish foods comes from the first or second method. Yes different algae do have varying protein etc. profiles. In the animal feed world protein holds the highest value so it is safe to assume that is what most algae farmers produce.

In lakes and rivers with limited nitrogen produce algae with 25% - 35% protein, 8%- 11% fat, 45% - 60% carbohydrates and 5% to 8% ash.

Taking this under consideration I don't think algae meal with around 60% protein should be consiered as a normal diet for algae grazing herbivores.

[RD.]

WoW, just wow.

I said that I was done, but I find it impossible to ignore such blatent ignorant comments. You aren't helping this hobby by the spreading of misinformation, Clay.

While a rat turd coated in hydrolyzed krill may be appealing to a fish, manufacturers in the tropical fish food industry (as in the pet food that most hobbyists buy for their fish) that list Krill Meal as the main ingredient, aren't spraying their food with liquid krill - doh! These manufacturers aren't dehydrating food in their garage, they are actually inspected by the USDA, and are APHIS approved. Every orifice of their operation is probed by these govt regulators, and again by overseas inspectors. Your food wouldn't even be allowed in countries such as Australia, or the EU. You think that no one ever bothers to check to see that things in the food, match up with whats on the label. Think again.
Many foreign countries even check for GMO ingredients (such as wheat), even in tropical fish food.


There are TONS of no name commercial farm feeds on the market that probably do utilize krill hydrosolate, but off the top of my head I cannot think of a single manufacturer that is actually known in the pet food industry that coats their food in that product. Not one. That, and most of the more popular pet fish foods are no longer even made in the USA, so I guess that would leave your local rep out of the loop. Most major players buy their krill from Norway.

More baseless stupid made up facts about things that you know nothing about. That's what I was referring to when I said - "stating various things as facts, with absolutely no credible evidence to support most of these so called facts."

I wasn't referring to your silly little spreadsheets.


And now we have even more baseless data with regards to algae meal, as though any company that lists algae meal on their label must be using a strain of cyanobacteria harvested in some polluted body of water, and full of toxins. Unbelievable. While these strains of algae grown in the USA do exist, I do not know of any tropical fish manufacturer that is using them in their food.

Like usual, you have no idea what you are talking about. Algae meal can consist of almost any form, or forms, or mixture of aquatic plant matter.
That could include kelp, seaweed, spirulina, chlorella, etc-etc, including various micro-algae such as Haematococcus pluvialis. As such, a manufacturer can control the various nutrient levels, the digestibility, and overall bioavailablity of the various comonents by mixing and matching various forms of algae in their mix - raw ingredients that are more natural to a fish ........ and that DO NOT contain the anti-nutritional matter found in terrestrial based plant matter such as wheat, corn, soybeans, etc.

You might want to jump back a few pages where I explain all that in more detail.

I posted the following several pages back.

And again, I am not totally against the inclusion of carbs/starch such as what's found in plant matter, but IMO aquatic based plant matter is always preferred over terrestrial based plant matter due to the potential for anti-nutritional matter that is typically found in plant matter from terrestrial sources - such as soybeans, peas, corn, wheat, etc.

ENDOGENOUS ANTI-NUTRITIONAL FACTORS PRESENT IN PLANT FEEDSTUFFS


http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/t0700e/T0700E06.htm

The presence of endogenous anti-nutritional factors within plant feedstuffs is believed to be the largest single factor limiting their use within compounded animal and fish feeds at high dietary levels. Table 11 summarizes the major groups of anti-nutritional factors present in plant feedstuffs with more specific examples given in Table 12. Although these factors vary in their individual toxicity to fish, a large proportion of them can be destroyed or inactivated by heat treatment processes (Tacon & Jackson, 1985).

Unfortunately toxicological studies have not been performed on the majority of these anti-nutritional factors; on a general basis however their presence in untreated foodstuffs normally results in anorexia, reduced growth and poor feed efficiency when used at high dietary concentrations. For review see NRC (1983), Hendricks & Bailey (1989) and Lovell (1989).

Where I also stated:

And while most if not all of these anti-nutritional factors can be greatly reduced (possibly even completely inactivated) via heat when extruding/processing the raw ingredients, this boils down to the ingredient, and exactly how it has been processed. Most manufacturers/feed mills do not test for all of the potential anti-nutritional matter levels in their raw ingredients, so these numbers can vary from one batch to the next.

Replacing marine ingredients with plant-based ingredients exposes fish to a series of "foreign" components, for example, starch and anti-nutrients that may upset natural processes occurring in the intestine. Plant components such as lectins, saponins, phyto-oestrogens, phytic acid, tannins and others, which do not exist in the natural feed of wild fish, may disturb digestive processes and affect health. Plant ingredients also introduce proteins that may stress the immune system of the intestine.

So why add any terrestrial based plant matter, when there are approx 40 or so aquatic based algae forms that are currently available in aquaculture circles. You need to broaden your horizons & start thinking outside of the box.

Wheat is relatively cheap, and very easy to source. I understand that - but that doesn't make it BETTER, for an aquatic organism. In the wild even a fish that is predominantly a frugivore, such as Heros efasciatus, in the wild will seek out the fruits & seeds that contain the highest level of protein/fat, not the ones that mostly consist of starch.


You might want to spend some more time reading up on algae, and how it can play a positive role in not only the growth of fish, but also how it has been proven to enhance the immune response of many species of fish. Here's a general read that might help you get started.

http://www.algae4feed.org/brief/microalgae-in-feeds/57

The link below shows one of the largest producers of algae in the US, a company that has been supplying aquaculture with feed ingredients for many years. http://www.cyanotech.com/company/facility.html

This link explains how they culture their algae.
http://www.cyanotech.com/company/process01.html

Expensive stuff, but the inclusion rate in an algae mix doesn't need to be that high, to obtain significant results.

Your problem Clay is that you paint EVERYTHING with such a broad brush.

Even with me, you see me as nothing more than a salesman of brand XYZ (past tense) as though that is my only connection regarding the science of this subject, and feeding fish. You obviously don't know me, and I don't think posting everything that I have done for this hobby in this discussion is appropriate, or even remotely related to this discussion. lol

But just for the record, I too have had articles printed/published over the years, two were posted on a forum that I used to moderate on, where I volunteered thousands of man hours in the health & nutrition folder of one of the largest cichlid forums at the time (cichlid-forum.com) for nothing more than an occasional atta boy. That was over a decade ago, since then I have had numerous threads of mine "stickied", on another very large & well known forum - monsterfishkeepers.com

Here's a recent example.

The Use of Probiotics in Aquaculture


http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forum ... quaculture


Here's one on Clown Loaches, discussing the genetic difference between the two geographical variants found in Borneo/Sumatra.

http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forum ... vs-Sumatra

Or this one, where I use a novel new approach at treating Spironucleus, aka Hexamita - one of the most common aquatic pathogens that cause bloat in cichlids.

http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forum ... ironucleus

Or maybe this one on Bloat, - Causes - Cures - and BIG Myths

http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forum ... -BIG-Myths

Or this one where I discuss cost effective water conditioners.

http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forum ... nditioners


And most recently, besides helping those that I feel can use an assist or additional info online, or on the phone, or in person - I donated a rather large amount of merchandise (approx. 15K at wholesale value) to a local aquarium club. I offered, they accepted, I gained nothing more than possibly a slight tax break at the end of the year. And one of the long term members here on PC can vouch for that, as he was one of the local club members that sealed the deal and loaded it up.

Does that satisfy your need to know?

I only mentioned "training a fish", as I thought it ironic that a super salesman as myself, would train a fish with a brand of food that I had absolutely no vested interest in. I guess you missed the point. I thought that it was funny seeing as you were pointing the NLS finger at me.

BTW - please don't confuse confidence, with arrogance. I've been kicking around this hobby for a very long time, and have given FAR more than I will ever get back in return. But isn't that what it's all about? I like to think so.

Best of luck in your future endeavours ......

[Jools]

I just forelornly wish this amount of well written content was about catfish.

I think the users of this site are smart enough to work out from this discussion what is going on.

I've locked it as I said I would if it descended as it has and I wish to avoid having to moderate any further descent.

Jools