Fish Nutrition

[Narwhal72]

I think I see the flaw in your logic. Contrary to what you believe, the protein and fat levels in your food are not representative of what is found in fish. You are simply replacing moisture content with added protein and fat.

Take a look at this study.
http://idosi.org/wjz/wjz7(2)12/10.pdf

This study is a nutritional breakdown of a wide variety of indigenous asian and introduced species. It covers all types, from herbivores through carnivores. If you look at the nutritional composition you will see that the protein levels are about 13-15% and fat is about 1-4%. Pretty even across the board for all fish types. This is considerably less than the nutrient profile of your food. Carbohydrates are not measured as it is normally very low in muscle tissue although glycerol and some sugar are found in trace amounts and larger amounts of glycerol are found in fish livers. Glycerol and sugars are carbohydrates.

So basically your food is not representative of what carnivores eat. The food is many times higher in protein and fat. The only similarity is a low carbohydrate content.

So now let's break this down even further.

As I stated earlier, all fish (including carnivores) produce amylase (a gastrointestinal enzyme used in breaking down carbohydrates) so they all have the capability of digesting simple carbohydrate. Not all fish have the necessary gut length or bacterial fauna to break down starch (Fiber). All Fiber is a carbohydrate but not all carbohydrate is fiber. Simple carbohydrates are digestible and provide energy to the fish.

Do carbohydrates in the diet cause harm to the fish? The answer is no. Carbohydrates that aren't digested simply pass through the digestive tract.

Does excess fat and protein in the diet cause harm to a fish and the aquarium environment? The answer is yes. A diet too high in protein and fat can cause issues with bloat and can form fatty deposits in the liver. Also protein is the input source of nitrogen and phosphorus into the aquarium system. More protein in the food means more ammonia,nitrite, nitrate, and phosphate introduced into the system. Especially since fish may not use as much as 65% of the protein they ingest. Carbohydrates consist of only carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen and do not contribute to nitrogenous or phosphorous waste.
http://www.lssu.edu/faculty/gsteinhart/ ... s/Feed.pdf

So why not leave out the carbohydrates and put water back in to balance the protein and fat out? Water is cheaper than grains after all. The reason is rancidification. There are three types of rancidification processes. Hydrolytic, Oxidative, and Microbial. Water is a key factor in hydrolytic and microbial rancidification. Foods that are very dry (low moisture content) are very resistive to hydrolytic rancidification which is why they can last for years on the shelf. Microbial rancidification is the result of bacterial growth. Bacteria thrive in wet environments better than dry ones. Oxidative rancidification can be controlled with the addition of antioxidants like ascorbic acid or tocopherol or even Ethoxyquin. These antioxidants absorb free radicals within the food and prevent oxidation from occurring. Something I do not see listed as an ingredient in your foods which would explain the short shelf life.

So my question is which is really better? A food with much higher levels of protein and fat than a fish would eat naturally and adds significant nitrogen and phosphorous to the system? Or a diet that has protein and fat levels closer to what the fish would eat in nature but also contains additional carbohydrates that will pass through the digestive system undigested and will not add to nitrogenous or phosphorous waste?


I think I have said all I need to on this subject now.

[premiumgreen]

Feeding fish in commercial aquaculture vs. feeding fish in the aquarium

1) The most obvious difference is the volume of water. I don't think that this needs any explanation.

2) The next is goals. The commercial fish farmer whether they are producing ornamental fish or fish intended for human consumption has only one goal, growing fish to a salable size as quickly and cheaply as possible. Most hobbyists intent is to take good care of their fish so they can observe their behavior.

I think that for most of us the differences are obvious.

[premiumgreen]

You are trying to deceive everyone again with scientific terms.

Do fish need more water in their diet? Of course not.

In effect what I am doing is dehydrating the fish. All of the percentages increase as the water is removed. That is perfectly natural as in a sense it is what the fish does. What you are suggesting is adding carbohydrates aka as cheap grain filler in place of what a carnivore naturally eats.

As a result of feeding a natural diet as I recommend you will have less waste. The protein and fat will be consumed. Your tanks biological filtration will take care of that. I will assume that the fish uses the small amount of carbohydrates in my food. The ash content is similar.

Let me clarify, with my food you end up with nitrates as you do with all foods and with what my friend is suggesting nitrates and your fish swimming in sugar water.

The choice is yours.

[premiumgreen]

"Bloat" is caused by stress. Many different factors can cause stress.

Excessive Omega 6 can leave fatty deposits in the liver. Omega 6 as far as fish food is concerned is primarily found in ingredients derived from plants. My food for herbivores(which has the highest Omega 6 level of any of my foods) is 82% Omega 3 and 18% Omega 6.

[premiumgreen]

Narwhal...Can I please post clarifications on our previous conversation before you muddy the water any further?

[premiumgreen]

Currently krill is not listed as an ingredient that can be used in pet foods in the states. A petition has been filed but it could take up to two years to get a ruling. There is no guarantee the ruling will go our way either. As a result fish food manufacturers are trying to decide how they are going to replace krill.

Proceed Narwhal.

[premiumgreen]

A comparison of what a carnivore eats in the wild to what should be fed in the aquarium.

Lets say we have a good sized shovelnose catfish in a river. For calculations purposes lets say that fish manages to eat two 3 oz prey items per day. Lets say the prey contains 20.6% protein, 6.2% fat, 0% carbohydrates, 2.6% minerals and 70.6% water. So we take 6 oz. for two fish multiplied by 29.4% which is the fish without the water equals 1.7 oz of food at 20.6% protein, 6.2% fat, 0% carbohydrates and 2.6% minerals. Since my piscivore food is roughly three times the percentages listed you can divide the 1.7 oz. of food required by 3 which gives you roughly .6 oz.

After doing the calcs on the carbohydrate laden food Andy has fought vigorously to defend it would take 1 oz. to equal the two prey items. On a side note if your water is warm enough the fermentation process may begin.

So there you have it. Would you rather feed .6 oz of quality ingredients or 1 oz. of Andy's food with carbs?

Using 40% less food without the carbohydrate waste is pretty significant in my mind anyway.

Does this help clarify things?

[premiumgreen]

Information on the carbohydrates found in wheat: Sugar .5 g (carnivores can use this), Starch 64.5 g (carnivores cant use this) and Fiber 2.4 g (carnivores cant use this) Reference: http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/cer ... sta/9257/2
As you can see carnivores can use very little of the carbohydrates found in wheat flour.

Soybean meal does have a better sugar count. However it costs more than wheat and is much higher in protein.

How accurate is the information on the label of your fish food container? Lets take a look at a common label and see.

Label "N" - MAIN INGREDIENTS: Krill Meal, Fish Meal, Wheat Flour, Amino Acids, Algae Meal, Soybean Meal, Fish Oil, Beta Carotene, Spirulina GUARANTEED ANALYSIS: Protein 34% Min., Fat 5% Min., Fiber 5% Max., Ash 9% Max., Moisture 10% Max.

The MAIN INGREDIENTS tag leads me to believe the ingredients are listed first to last by dry weight. I took the ingredients and plugged them into a spreadsheet I use and came up with 48.1% protein, 9.3% fat, 25.9% carbohydrates, 6.8% minerals and 9.9% moisture.

I reworked the formula to match the GUARANTEED ANALYSIS since it is GUARANTEED and came up with this ingredient list listed by dry weight: Wheat Flour, Krill Meal, Whole Menhaden Meal, Amino Acids, Algae Meal, Soybean Meal, Fish Oil, Beta Carotene, Spirulina

Well look at that, wheat flour moved to #1. Wheat flour weighed in at a little over 50% as listed by dry weight. So if my math is correct around 50% of this food fed to carnivores as Andy put it "will pass harmlessly into your aquarium"

These calculations took a good bit of my time this morning. As I have said before I write on this subject to educate and inform the members of this forum so we all will have better understanding of what many consider a confusing topic.

Andy, I am afraid you are the one with the flawed logic.

[Narwhal72]

I don't really have the time to play with you today but will try and post a response sometime this weekend.

In the meantime, I suggest you go back and and read the AAFCO manual on label regulations. Since you just conveniently ignored the max and min statements on a guaranteed analysis and reworked the ingredients to suit your own agenda. Also it will give you a chance to go back and fix your flawed math on the example you posted yesterday.

Since you continue to demonize carbohydrates please provide at least one source that says that carbohydrates are detrimental to fish health or to water quality.

Andy

[premiumgreen]

I don't really have the time to play with you today but will try and post a response sometime this weekend.

In the meantime, I suggest you go back and and read the AAFCO manual on label regulations. Since you just conveniently ignored the max and min statements on a guaranteed analysis and reworked the ingredients to suit your own agenda. Also it will give you a chance to go back and fix your flawed math on the example you posted yesterday.

Since you continue to demonize carbohydrates please provide at least one source that says that carbohydrates are detrimental to fish health or to water quality.

Andy

I don't have a problem to feeding carbohydrates to herbivores. They can use them.

So you are saying krill, menhaden and wheat flour can be listed as the first three ingredients by % of weight and the food will contain 34% protein and 5% fat. You know as well as I do that the Mins. listed are a safety factor so the food doesn't fall below that percentage.

Why are you ok with dumping half of the food along with half of the money you spent for it into the tank?

[premiumgreen]

Please come back today once you are done with Uncle Pablo's foot massage.

[RD.]

I would like to preface the following post by stating that while some folks may recognize my ID, or some of my comments in this area of fishkeeping over the years, I no longer have any type of financial or vested interest in this topic. The only thing that I'm here to promote is sound husbandry practices, and a good dose of common sense.



http://forums.eastcoastcichlids.org/sho ... php?t=5361

Ring any bells for you, Clay?


And to quote Andy;

Since you just conveniently ignored the max and min statements on a guaranteed analysis and reworked the ingredients to suit your own agenda.

Bingo.

As I stated to you a few years ago, Clay, unless one is privy to exact percentages being used, ingredient listings found on fish food labels are a good general guideline, and nothing more. Your numbers stated are meaningless in this discussion and are based on nothing more than a vivid imagination that appears to be fueled by the need to advance ones own product, and ones own wallet. IMO this isn't educational, it's promotional, and worse, the promotion is largely based on misinformation.

Misinformation such as;

Question: Do fat and vitamins have a lifespan? Answer: Yes once the food is cooked the oxidation clock begins ticking. I have been told by both a chemist and biologist that once the food is cooked there is only a six month window before the fat has become rancid and the vitamins lose their potency. I recommend only buying what you will feed in four months.

Simply more bogus misinformation from someone who clearly has never looked at any actual data involving the shelf life of some of the various fish food formulas on the market, and/or their actual raw ingredients including vitamin premixes. I challenge you to find a single qualified accredited individual in the field of fish nutrition that has endorsed your view point (in any type of peer reviewed journal) about nutritional loss & rancidity such as quoted above.

Good luck with that.


Can commercial pet food including fish food spoil within 6 months time, yes.

Does most commercial fish food spoil within 6 months time, absolutely NOT -unless it is being stored improperly. (due to operator error)

Numerous factors can influence vitamin stability and/or fat rancidity during both the processing of the raw ingredients, as well as during storage, including temperature, humidity, light exposure, and reduction and oxidation (redox) reactions. To state that "there is only a six month window before the fat has become rancid and the vitamins lose their potency" is what I would personally refer to as junk science.

In the future you might want to post links to actual studies, papers from peer reviewed journals, etc, to support your claims.


I also suggest that you hone up on your marketing skills (Uncle Pablo's foot massage?), show a little more respect for those that have pioneered in this area for decades before you came along, and spend more time studying the science involved in the field of fish nutrition.



BTW Andy - most NLS formulas are now made on site by Pablo himself, in his own state of the art manufacturing facility located in Homestead FL, and have been for a few yrs now. That started shortly after Silver Cup got bought out by a a much larger international feed mill.


Cheers!

[Jools]

I'm wondering if I should just lock this topic? Is anyone in the wider community getting any benefit from it (please speak up)? Maybe I am missing the point as I don't have the background.

Jools

[Viktor Jarikov]

IMHO, as long as everyone stays civil, it is not entirely useless. If it breaks your policies on "marketing", supposed or not, then it's a different matter.

[Narwhal72]

I was kind of hoping it would just die and go into forum oblivion.

But as long as people are going to keep standing up and challenging the misinformation in the infomercial I don't really care.

Andy

[Narwhal72]

I did not realize that Pablo was making his own foods onsite now. Silver Cup (now Skretting) is still making a lot of other brands in the hobby still. But that's still small potatoes compared to the catfish and salmonid feeds.

I haven't been to Pablo's place but I can bet his neighbors just love the smell of a fish food mill next door now!

Andy

[syno321]

IMHO, as long as everyone stays civil, it is not entirely useless. If it breaks your policies on "marketing", supposed or not, then it's a different matter.

I agree with Viktor.

[Jools]

Yup, fine.

Jools

[m1ke715m]

i also know a girl in the midwest that has her own food made by zeigler or something like that and she also follows clay's model of having food made with no grains in it. she said the same thing to me that they produce less waste, get bigger quicker and ship easier with not being fed grains. the food is alot more expensive and goes bad quicker as it has no preservatives in it but its better for your fish.. i linked her this thread maybe she will join and comment

all i can say about clays food is that all my fish love it. i dont feed it exclusively other than to my L-66, L-333 and piebald common ancistrus and super red ancistrus.. but i believe its good stuff.. i also just traded this other girl some fish for her food that makes her own food with the same "mission statement" and will be trying her food soon. idk anything about the technical aspect of what you guys are talking about but it stands to reason that commercial food manufacturers have much to gain by "stretching" the food out

[Viktor Jarikov]

http://forums.eastcoastcichlids.org/sho ... php?t=5361

Can't thank you enough, Neil, for this link. It is a bookmark for me now.

[RD.]

You're very welcome, Viktor.


Mike, no one here is arguing the fact that certain types/species of fish require less carbs than others, or that most fish in general will not do well when fed an excessive amount of carbs. Please see the info that I posted to Clay a few years back in the following link; http://forums.eastcoastcichlids.org/sho ... php?t=5361


Somehow our friend Clay went from not understanding the simple basics of this subject, to within a few short years becoming an expert, via google.

From that previous link ..........

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.

According to Clay, that can't be possible. Are all of these researchers wrong, and Clay right? Or is it possible that Clay isn't qualified to speak as an expert on this subject, and his opinion is just that, an opinion with no credible qualifications or science to back up most of what he states?

From the NRC's Nutrient Requirements of Fish, which is pretty much the bible for every commercial fish food manufacturer. Not the be all to end all in fish nutrition, but a great reference source to work off of for tropical species.

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.

Again, no one is saying that one can't, or even should feed carbs or grains to ones fish. What we are saying is that the science that Clay is attempting to use to endorse his logic (product line) is very flawed.

she said the same thing to me that they produce less waste, get bigger quicker and ship easier with not being fed grains.

I thought that getting fish bigger, quicker, was the goal of the commercial fish farms?

According to Clay;

The commercial fish farmer whether they are producing ornamental fish or fish intended for human consumption has only one goal, growing fish to a salable size as quickly and cheaply as possible.

Interesting how this same net gain can be viewed as a positive, and a negative, by the same camp. Hmmmmmmm.

[zoeawar]

I own my own fish food company called Zoea's Healthy Fish and I thought i would give my input on fish nutrition, in the past i've even been flown out of state at the clubs cost to give presentations about why nutrition among fish is so important and how it effects their health.

I will go ahead and explain herbivorous diets. Ill explain more fish if anyone is interested but this is a lot to type lol
Herbivorous cichlids like tropheus need to be kept on a specialized diet that is low in protein and high in fiber, but that doesnt mean they cant eat a little extra protein now and then. Contrary to popular belief, when herbivores are fed protein, they just excrete the excess that hasnt been digested. There are exceptions to that rule like in the instance of using meats from warm blooded animals to feed fish. Warm blooded animal meat contains fats that are only soluble at higher temperatures, because their bodies run at higher temperatures. Fish are rarely kept in waters as warm as an average warm blooded animals body temperature, which is why their bodies cant utilize the fats from warm blooded animals, and because fish are cold blooded their bodies temperature rise and fall with the surrounding water temp so they cannot utilize fats from animals thats body temperatures are normally higher than the temperature that most fish are kept in. There are some fish who can eat warm blooded animal meats and fats, like discus and flowerhorns because they are kept in a much higher water temperature, usually 85f-95f(and though they are not herbivores, this rule applies to carnivores and omnivores as well). If you read the fish food labels closely, in some cases you may find that the food that was designed for herbivores, may in fact be based on generic fish meal and contain very little spirulina or vegetable matter, and instead is loaded with by-products and fillers such as corn, bran, middlings, flour, etc. Those are not foods they encounter in the wild so their bodies are unable to process them properly, and while they are a cheap substitute for more nutritious ingredients, fish like herbivores and omnivores can digest carbohydrates contrary to popular belief. This is because a special enzyme in their stomach is added earlier in the digestion process which helps their bodies break algae down to absorb carbohydrates unlike carnivores, in which the enzymes arent added until very late in the digestive system which leads to carnivores being unable to process carbohydrates and proteins from algae, plants and grains as easily as omnivores and herbivores. To help herbivores digest grains, carbs, and algae, they have very long intestinal tracts, reaching just over 4 times their body length. Their intestines are designed to extract the proteins and carbohydrates from the hard-to-digest algae, and it is quite common for them to have intestinal problems if fed improperly. Unlike cows and goats that need 4 stomachs to digest grass, herbivorous cichlids have only one stomach, which is why they have a very long intestine. Herbivores are much healthier in the wild because in the wild herbivorous fish are able to graze on algae throughout the day and eat when needed, whereas in aquariums they are only fed a few times a day. I have herbivores like Tanganicodus and they feast on my carnivore fish food solely with no ill effects because its all about the quality and ingredients. I personally dont put grains or high carb foods in my pellets, just a little starch to help bind pellets. I like feeding my fish the highest quality food i can feed them, and i like many ingredients to mimic what they eat in the wild.

[RD.]

A few things that should probably be mentioned regarding some of your opinions, zoe.

First, you are right that excess protein is largely just excreted by a herbivore (as well as omnivores), but before those excess amino acids are excreted, they must be deaminated by the liver - which in turn places an extra burden on the liver, and requires extra energy to fulfill that task. Energy that otherwise could have been spared, and gone towards growth, and other regular metabolic functions.

I totally disagree with your thoughts about fish eating flesh/fat sourced from warm blooded animals. I have posted the following many times in response to the feeding beefheart to fish question, and will post it again here in the hopes that no one here gets to thinking that high temps equates to feeding beef to fish being a good practice.

Fish aren't hard wired to assimilate the fatty acids found in beef, chicken, etc anymore than they are hard wired to assimilate large amounts of carbs. These excess lipids get stored in & around the organs, and eventually shorten the fishes lifespan. Can these foodstuffs offer amino acids, and solid growth, yes, no question about that, but that doesn't qualify them as being a good source of food for a fish.

Even a lot of the major discus keepers have moved away from beefheart over the past decade, for these exact reasons. It's a great food for breeders that simply want quick growth in their juvie fish (so they can take them to market quicker) but it is most certainly not an ideal long term diet. Lee Newman, Curator of Tropical Waters at the Vancouver Public Aquarium has spoken out against feeding beefheart many times, for the same reason as I do, it can lead to fatty degeneration of the liver.

Dr. Peter Burgess MSc, Ph.D.,of the Aquarium Advisory Service in England, is not only an experienced aquarium hobbyist, but also a scientist that specializes in the health & disease in fish. He has written over 300 articles and five books on fish health and is a visiting lecturer in Aquarium Sciences and Conservation at Plymouth University, where he works with the University of Plymouth training students in scientific research. Among his other positions, Dr. Burgess is a senior consultant to the Mars FishCare business and regularly runs fish health & husbandry courses for aquarists, fish scientists and vets. He's also a regular contributor & Fish Health consultant for the Practical Fishkeeping Magazine, as well as other magazines devoted to the fish keeping hobby.

Below is an excerpt from the Practical Fishkeeping Magazine and written by Dr. Burgess, titled;

Liver Damage and Red Meats

The routine of feeding beef heart and other red meats to Cichlids can ultimately give rise to health problems. Poultry meat is also suspect. Red meats, including lean meats such as beef heart, contain the wrong sorts of fats - these harden within the cold-blooded fish, leading to blockages and fatty deposits around the liver.

Also, the relative proportions of amino acids within the mammalian proteins are different to those required by fish. Hence, feeding red meats will cause the cichlid to excrete more nitrogenous (ammonia) wastes, thereby placing an extra burden on the biological filter."

Several years ago even the King of Discus, Jack Wattley, stated that a good staple pellet or flake food is more ideal for the optimum health of discus.

In the Dec 2006 edition of Tropical Fish Hobbyist magazine, Jack stated:

I've moved in a new direction regarding the feeding of discus, and after many tests feel that a top quality flake or pellet food formulated especially for discus is perhaps the best direction to take. "

Jack will be the first to admit that he fed beefheart because it was dirt cheap, and fish eat it readily. Not because it adds longevity to a fish.

The late Dr. Schmidt-Focke was one of the first to realize health problems when feeding foods such as beef heart, and quit feeding his discus beefheart in favor of a seafood based diet. Dieter Untergasser has also demonstrated the harm beefheart can have on discus and other long lived cichlids. And there are studies that have taken place that demonstrated that when too much protein is fed to a juvenile discus it can have the opposite effect, as previously mentioned it requires energy to excrete the excess amino acids (protein), which is energy that could have been used for growth.

Not to mention the fact there is no need to keep discus or flowerhorn in water that is 85-95F. Jack Wattley found 82F to be the sweet spot for raising juvenile discus, and FH are simply hybrid omnivorous CA cichlids that are never found at those temps in the wild.

Certainly when feeding low cost generic foods with excessive grain content, if too much is consumed at once these types of feeds can indeed cause serious gastrointestinal issues in some species, such as those that are prone to bloat. But there is a BIG difference between terrestrial based plant matter (such as soybeans, corn, wheat middlings etc) and plant matter from aquatic sources, such as algae meal, spirulina, and various micro-algae. The former is what many hobbyists have come to refer as "cheap fillers".

Your Tanganicodus can eat your carnivore based fish food, because just like in the wild they were born to adapt. If you were to perform a necropsy on sone of your fish you would most likely find that their intestinal length is nowhere near as long as you think.

For decades Tropheus keepers felt that due to the intestinal length & long digestive process in that species, it should only be fed low protein "green" food, and that any amount of animal based protein could cause bloat. Yet science has proven that in captive bred species of Tropheus the intestinal length can be half of what's found in wild specimens.

"Intestinal prolongation, although indicative of specialization on diets with low nutritional value, such as those of epilithic algae and detritus, has been shown to be highly plastic (Sturmbauer et al.1992). In Tropheus moorii the intestinal length of domestic fish measured only 50% of the length found in wild individuals (Sturmbauer et al. 1992)."

A more recent study that was published in 2009 demonstrates just how great intestinal plasticity can be in response to the diet quality of various species of wild fish found in Lake Tanganyika.

Diet predicts intestine length in Lake Tanganyika’s cichlid fishes

http://limnology.wisc.edu/personnel/mci ... length.pdf

The above paper clearly demonstrates just how adaptive wild Rift Lake cichlids can be when it comes to their diet. As long as one feeds a quality food, diet will generally be a non issue, and will not cause any type of major gastrointestinal stress. Rift Lake cichlids were born to adapt.

[zoeawar]

RD you say you disagree with my opinion about fats because you follor a scientist, and then you quote him and he says the same thing i said:

The routine of feeding beef heart and other red meats to Cichlids can ultimately give rise to health problems. Poultry meat is also suspect. Red meats, including lean meats such as beef heart, contain the wrong sorts of fats - these harden within the cold-blooded fish, leading to blockages and fatty deposits around the liver.

He says feeding beefheart and red meats can give cichlids health problems because the fat hardens in their systems leading to blockages, which is exactly what i said. It hardens because the fat is used to a higher temperature and is being fed to a cold blooded animal kept in lower temperatures. In turn thee fats that are only soluble in a higher temperature are unable to be utilized and they become a solid mass lining the cichlids digestive system. As for my fishes intestines, i know my tanganicodus has a very long intestine because its an F1 so it would be very similar to its wildcaught parents. i dont have much more insight into herbivores because 99% of my fish are carnivores as i specialize in dwarf cichlids from lake tanganyika. I dont kiss other researchers butts i do my own research. i never believe anyone just saying anything, i like to get my facts straight and study results myself.. i perform many studies at home, including a study im starting soon about rubbing ovaprim on fishes gills with a substance making it soluble, which was tried with success in the 90s but never tried again. i find it would be a great experiment to continue on fish to avoid having those breeders out there that use induced breeding of having to inject it and harm the fish.

[RD.]

zoea .... I don't follow anyone, perhaps re-read that entire comment again & you'll get a better idea of what I actually posted. What I disagreed with, was the notion that it is ok to feed a fish the flesh & fat from warm blooded animals, to species of fish such as discus, and flowerhorn, due to them being kept in extraordinarly high temperatures.

i know my tanganicodus has a very long intestine because its an F1 so it would be very similar to its wildcaught parents.

As demonstrated in the paper that I linked to, even in the wild the gut length of same species vary among locations based on the nutrient value of the food that those group of fish consume. What happens over even a single generation in captivity is difficult to say. But again, using your logic if one simply raised the temp of their tank water they could feed their tanganicodus red meat, and fat, on a regular basis.

Here's a link to a paper that every discus owner/breeder should read.

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script= ... 8000400008

"This species feeds predominantly on algal periphyton, fine organic detritus, plant matter, and small aquatic invertebrates."

"The alimentary canal of Symphysodon is characterized by a poorly defined stomach and an elongate intestine, some 300 mm long and 3 mm wide (in a 180 mm SL specimen). This intestinal morphology is typical of a cichlid with a dominantly vegetarian, detritivorous, or omnivorous diet."

As previously stated, Jack Wattley started the beefheart craze a few decades back because it was a cheap form of protein, and the fish grew quickly. Since then a LOT of people have blindly followed his lead. I don't believe that Jack has any peer reviewed documentation that shows beefheart is an ideal amino acid (protein) source for any species of fish, let alone discus, no matter what temp ones tank water is kept at. Through numerous in-house feed trials he also no longer believes that feeding beefheart to a discus is the ideal way to go.


If you have done your own research, then please supply your data with regards to the various necropsies performed that prove that a diet rich in red meat & fat does not in any way affect the liver of a fish when kept in water that is in the mid to high 80's. Especially a fish such as a discus, that in nature doesn't vary too far from the diet of your tanganicodus.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't consider a cichlid that is known to live up to 15 yrs of age, on average only living to 3-4 yrs when fed beefheart, to be a success story.

[Viktor Jarikov]

There are some fish who can eat warm blooded animal meats and fats, like discus and flowerhorns because they are kept in a much higher water temperature, usually 85f-95f(and though they are not herbivores, this rule applies to carnivores and omnivores as well).

I do not see what is confusing. You say it is fine. RD says it is not.

I respect your position of a doubtful researcher who does not trust what others publish, as indeed, there is a lot of rubbish out there (as a publishing scientist in the field of chemistry and physical chemistry, I know). It is a prudent practice to be sceptical. It is equally important to recognize what's true and can be replicated in anyone's lab. One cannot afford to throw out a baby with the dirty water, if they aim to do the best they can do in their field of study.

[RD.]

It is a prudent practice to be sceptical.

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.

I personally feel that those who work in this field, or have a financial interest in these types of products, should be held to a higher standard than the average hobbyist. Up until recently, that included myself. So if someone that has a vested interest in this topic, and is posting on a public forum about their product line gets a bit perturbed over something that I say - I can live with that. I'm just trying to keep things real.

I don't know Zoea, or Clay, and certainly have nothing personal against either of them. Having said that, I do question some of what they have to say, especially when it comes to carbohydrates and plant matter.

As an example, after looking at some of Zoea's formulas last night it reminded me of Michael Masse's "zero carbohydrate" UltraColor fish food that came out several yrs ago. http://www.prettybird.com/fish.htm
No one probably remembers that food because it went the way of the Dodo bird not long after hitting the market. Michael and I had a rather interesting discussion about his food several yrs ago on another forum, especially the part about his food not containing any carbohydrate or starch, yet it contained pea meal, soybean meal, kelp meal, and potato starch. Say what? No carbohydrate and no starch?

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.

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).

The problem with most terrestrial based raw ingredients such as soybean meal is tha like all terrestrial based plant matter in the raw form it contains a significant amount of anti-nutritional matter, such as trypsin inhibitors, saponins, phytoestrogens, glucinins, goitrogens, lectins, etc. 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.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 095954.htm

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.

There are also better "soybean" alternatives, such as soybean isolate, and/or soybean concentrate as these forms of plant protein do not contain any of the anti-nutritional matter that is typically found in soybean meal. The problem is they are a LOT more expensive so most fish food manufacturers opt for the lower cost soybean meal.

Peas must also be processed first, as they too contain anti-nutritional matter, such as tannins, protease inhibitors, saponins, cyanogens, and phytic acid, which when consumed in excess can have a very negative effect on the growth & overall health of fish.

The anti-nutritional factors found in peas can vary greatly from crop to crop & season to season. Something as simple as dry weather, or a cold spell, can push tannin levels up drastically.

Again, the heat from processing will reduce most of this antinutritional matter, but even then most fish can only digest & assimilate so much terrestrial based plant matter.

And while commercial aquaculture circles spend millions of $$$ in research on these lower cost terrestrial based plants, the reality is there is almost no known data involving warm-water ornamental species, and the long term feeding of some ingredients such as peas to our fish. Simply mixing terrestrial based plant matter such as peas & soybeans can potentially have a negative effect on the health of some fish species.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 074741.htm

And while certain feed ingredients may work well with cold water species such as salmon and trout, the same might not be said when feeding a corydora. For the most part, we really don't know as many of the newer alternative ingredients being used today by commercial aquaculture (to save overall feed costs) have no supporting data in the world of warm water ornamental species.

In the wild even a fish that is predominantly a frugivore, such as Heros efasciatus, will seek out the fruits & seeds that contain the highest level of protein/fat, not the ones that mostly consist of starch.

The reality is, for the vast majority of ornamental species of fish no one (including myself) has the slightest clue what the optimum dietary requirements are, as the vast majority of ornamental species have never been studied long term with regards to dietary requirements. Most haven't been studied on even a short term basis.

[dw1305]

Hi all,

What I disagreed with, was the notion that it is ok to feed a fish the flesh & fat from warm blooded animals, to species of fish such as discus, and flowerhorn, due to them being kept in extraordinarly high temperatures.

I can't offer any scientific insight, but I think RD's posts make a lot of sense. I feed my fish a lot of live food, partially because it is cheaper in the long term, and partially because they seem to do well on it.

When I do feed dried or frozen food I try to both give them a good mix of types, and to stick to aquatic based ingredients. I don't worry so much with fruit and vegetables, and I've used the frozen "shrimp and pea" mix in the past and I still feed Ancistrus and Otocinclus with cucumber, red pepper, boiled carrot etc.

cheers Darrel

[m1ke715m]

i think you guys are arguing about a mute point.. she isnt saying she suggests people feed flowerhorns and discus beefhearts, but was under the impression it was ok for them to do so. she's not advocating the feeding of beefheart to those fish.

you guys are pretty much saying the same thing but arguing about semantics.. well for the most part.. alot of the stuff you are discussing is above my pay grade and i dont care to find out cuz frankly it bores me.

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?

[Bas Pels]

Not that long ago I had a Hygrophila polysperma plant growing out of the tank, into a landform. The leaves became different, and so on.

Where this plant is odourless in it's 'normal' - that is, under water, shape, it began to smell. Apparently, this plant is build to defend itself much more harshly above water than in the water. I think this happens more often, and that might explain the anti-nutritional parts of terrestrial plants: part of the energy they contain is needed to digest them safely.

And thus, yes for fishes which are not evolved to eat landplants, and landplants are different from under water plants, it might be better not to feed them landplants

(it goes without saying that beefheart is not a good food, as cattle dont usually drop their heart into the water as they die in order for fish to eat it. Contrarily, hardly any fish ever gets to eat a mammalian heart - or a bird heart for that matter)