My Red Discus - Before & After Carophyll Pink

[Allan01230]

When RD was posting the ingredients sounds like he was reading a jar of NLS pellets. NLS is the best!

 

[Yanbbrox]

 

[RD.]

NATURAL vs. SYNTHETIC ASTAXANTHIN

The chemical difference between natural and synthetic ASTAXANTHIN lies in the stereochemical orientation of the molecules in space (those different molecules are called “enantiomers”).

ASTAXANTHIN exists in three main enantiomeric forms, termed 3S-3’S, 3R-3’S, and 3R-3’R, depending on the spatial orientation of the hydroxyl (OH) groups in chiral carbon number 3 (see Fig.1). Quite simply stated, chirality and stereo differentiation are crucial factors in biological activity because in nature, at a molecular level, asymmetry dominates biological processes, such as enzymatic and most immunological reactions. Chirality is not a prerequisite for bioactivity but in bioactive molecules where one or more chiral centers are present, great differences are usually observed in the activities of the different enantiomers. This is a general phenomenon that applies to many bioactive substances, such as drugs, flavors, fragrances and food additives.

A recent study showed that farmed salmon, like most of the salmon sold in supermarkets, can be easily distinguished from wild salmon in its ASTAXANTHIN isomers, because farmed salmon are fed synthetic ASTAXANTHIN.

The pigment in wild salmon is found overwhelmingly in the 3S-3’S enantiomeric form, the same form as that found in Haematococcus. Synthetic ASTAXANTHIN from petrochemical sources contains a mixture of all the enantiomers of ASTAXANTHIN, as a direct result of its chemical synthesis, primarily (~50%) the 3R-3’S enantiomer (the meso form). Indeed, in an elegant human study, Østerlie and co-workers found that humans selectively absorb the different isomers and their relative concentrations were found to differ in various organs. It is important to note that nearly all studies showing ASTAXANTHIN's health-beneficial effects in humans were performed on the stereoisomer found in Haematococcus, 3S-3’S. Although the other stereoisomers may not be harmful, no significant biological effect has been established.

Moreover, natural ASTAXANTHIN exists in algae and fish as mono- and di-esters of fatty acids, while synthetic ASTAXANTHIN is produced and sold for salmon farming as free hydroxy ASTAXANTHIN. In nutraceutical applications as well, scientists have proven that one of the main advantages of natural ASTAXANTHIN esters is that the esterified form is inherently more stable than the free form, providing for a significantly longer shelf life without being oxidized. Several recent studies clearly showed the positive effect of ASTAXANTHIN esters mixed with fat formulations on the oral bioavailability of ASTAXANTHIN in humans

http://algatech.com/astax.htm

Rapid liquid chromatographic method to distinguish wild salmon from aquacultured salmon fed synthetic astaxanthin.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9170658?dopt=Abstract

The distributions of configurational isomers of astaxanthin in the flesh of wild Atlantic and wild Pacific salmon are similar, but significantly different from that in aquacultured salmon.

One of the main differences between Carophyll Pink & natural forms of astaxanthin, is the cost. Commercial farmers don't use CP because they feel that it "works" better, or has better health attributes, they use it because the petrochemical version costs a fraction of what natural products cost. This is precisely why Cyanotech stopped producing Naturose for aquaculture feed back in 2008, they simply couldn't compete with the cost of the synthetic products. A damn shame, as Cyanotech produces some of the finest natural astaxanthin on the planet - which is now only marketed for human use. Today they are still one of the largest (and IMHO) cleanest/safest producers of spirulina, which they still supply to the aquaculture industry. http://www.cyanotech.com/


Isomers aside, not all astaxanthin or spirulina is equal in nutrient value, safety, or bioavailability.

 

[mshill90]

The only "problems" seem to be comments from other people...

Matt

It's a public forum.. simply stated- "If he can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. "

 

[TonyN]

If you bought the best you could afford, you must not be able to afford much.. I have seen STUNNING discus at my LFS full grown that were only like $60.

Instead of buying crap fish, and feeding them CP, why don't you SAVE some money, and buy some good quality discus.

Raising them since the 80's and you can't find anything decent... Something tells me you aren't looking hard enough, or you aren't willing to pay for quality.

Hi mshill90,
Yes, you are right, I couldn't afford much. This is just a hobby for me, the health and wellbeing of family come first.
I've raised these discus from juvie, they turned out, good or bad, is due to the time and dedication (or lack off) i've put into them. This thread is not about the quality of my discus

I probably heard of or know all the major discus distributors/breeders, US and aboard, so I know where to get decent discus.

Tony


Tony

 

[Otolith]

Re: RD Good point. Hmm, I guess its not a large enough concern for manufacturers to isolate the (3-S,3'-S) form. I wasn't aware of the free hydroxy difference on synthetic. According to http://www.astaxanthin.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5&Itemid=6

"All-E isomers are the major geometric isomers in both synthetic and natural astaxanthin (Turujman et al. 1997). However, synthetic astaxanthin is produced as free (unesterified) astaxanthin in a mixture of stereoisomers: the stereoisomers (3R,3'R), (3R,3'S) and (3S,3'S) occur in a ratio of 1:2:1. Natural astaxanthin, on the other hand, is usually esterified and predominantly of (3S,3'S) configuration or, less frequently, mainly (3R,3'R) (Bernhard 1990). In Haematococcus pluvialis, astaxanthin occurs as the 3S,3'S stereoisomer and primarily as monoesters (>90%), with diesters comprising ~8% and the free molecule ~1% (Renstrøm et al. 1981). It tends to produce higher pigmentation in rainbow trout compared to synthetic astaxanthin provided at the same dietary concentration (Bowen et al., 1999)."

One would think the naturally derived varieties would be in higher demand, although more expensive seems you would need to use less. Shame indeed, it would probably be just as expensive to isolate out all the correct stereo isomer and immerse in lipid than just farm algae.

 

[TonyN]

There are plenty of quality discus breeders & importers in North America, and none of them pump their fish up with CP. Most honest discus breeders would frown on these types of products, just as they do the use of hormones, ditto to quality breeders of Asian arowana. (another species mentioned on Tony's website)

I suspect that if Tony had posted this discussion in the Asian aro folder, or Discus folder, he wouldn't have received a very warm welcome.

This whole topic reminds me of a Trooper song from back in the 70's. lol

Hey wait a minute
Who do you think you are
Comin' on, comin' on
Just like you're some kinda movie star

Well you can say what you like
Be what you wanna be
You can suit yourself baby
But you don't suit me

You're just a 3 dressed up as a 9
You're only, wastin' my time
A 3 dressed up as a 9, hey yeah ...

Hi RD,
The "welcome" is expected. I'm just offering hobbyists a choice.

Tony

 

[RD.]

There are still natural forms of astaxanthin available for aquaculture use, and some commercial manufacturers of fish foods designed for tropical fish still use those forms.

Salmon/trout farms main concern is the appearance of the flesh of the fish, to consumers. For obvious reasons they are not concerned about longevity of their stock, or what if any potential harm may come to a fish fed synthetic color enhancing agents. It simply doesn't factor into the equation. The fish are loaded up with CP shortly before going to market (which also saves on overall feed costs) and by the time it reaches the local grocery chains the flesh looks exactly how a consumer expects a salmon/trout to look.


Tony, I have no problem with you offering whatever you choose to offer hobbyists. Out of respect to you & the forum I stayed out of your classified ad, but this is the open forum and as such quite frankly I felt obligated to present the other side of the coin. I'm not holding a gun to anyone's head, but at least people can read both views, and make a more informed decision whether this is something that they want to subject their fish to. Most serious discus keepers do not feed CP to their fish, nor do most serious Asian aro keepers, while most flowerhorn keepers probably wouldn't care one way or the other, unless they felt that it might make their fish sterile. (which I honestly don't believe it would)

On your website you mentioned "Diablo Red" Asian aros, I only know of 1 farm that uses that name for their arowana, and they happen to be a sponsor on MFK. (Pang Long Arowana) Their Canadian distributor also happens to be a close friend of mine. I'm quite certain that Pang Long would not recommend to their customers that they should feed Carophyll Pink, or any other type of synthetic color enhancing agents to one of their fish. Nor does anyone need to. The quality & color of their fish speaks for itself. No need for hormones, synthetic color enhancing agents, or NAN (red) lighting to make those fish look good.



Nothing personal amigo, I obviously have a different view about this hobby than you do.

 

[Juxtaroberto]

A classic example of how even genetically inferior fish can be made to look good using artificial color enhancement.

Carophyll Pink is a synthetic color enhancing agent used by the salmon industry, which is why a farm raised salmon has pink flesh, instead of a bland grey.

It all depends on how much is added to the feed, you just have to pick a number from the slick little color chart & dial in what kind of unnatural color that you are seeking.

See page 2 of the following discussion to find out why I don't advise feeding this product to fish.

http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=370001

I believe it is a bit of a low blow to try to use an emotional appeal regarding this chemical. Artificial, synthetic, and unnatural are not bad things. Many people have artificial hearts. Many people use clothes of synthetic material. Basically everything we use in our daily lives is unnatural (computers, glasses, stoves, etc). The information in the link you provided is all you need to convince most rational people not to use this product: bad long term health effects on fish, even bad health effects on people.

Don't not use this product because it is unnatural, artificial, or synthetic (just like all of our fish tanks), but because it is detrimental to the health of our fish and even to ours.

PS: Likewise, not all natural things are automatically good. Natural things can have long term health effects (mercury, etc).

 

[RD.]

Artificial, synthetic, and unnatural are not bad things.

I never said that they were.

I also don't consider the info that I posted in that previous discussion to be a "low blow". If you read that entire discussion, my comments should be rather crystal clear as to why I was referring to the salmon industry & what has taken place in that area over the past several years.

Human use = very tight regulations (right down to the PPM allowed)

Tropical Fish use - no one gives a damn (and any/all amounts are allowed in their feed)