What food brings out the best color in your fish?

Status
Not open for further replies.

ehh

Blue Tier VIP
MFK Member
Aug 30, 2013
4,922
1,838
439
New Mexico
I'm on RDs side. Just because studies have show that there is no negative effect doesn't mean it's ok to feed it to them. Since you're throwing your irrelevant md around I'll use the ingredients in dog food as an example....
Many dog foods are loaded with crap fillers and dealer as not harmful. But that doesn't mean the dog don't crap more or shed more. All those processed grains aren't the easiest to digest either. Just because the animal is surviving on it doesn't mean it's the best thing for it.
Same thing with cows... All the crap they're fed is why they're such large producers of methane. But what they're fed doesn't kill them but doesn't means it's the way for them.



Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
 

Dieselhybrid

Bronze Tier VIP
MFK Member
Mar 31, 2010
2,446
1,887
834
Here
,RD give it a break, you're wrong, again, period. Theres absolutely nothing wrong with this food and its no worse than any other processed food we're feeding our fish compared to their natural diet of live foods, etc. Like i stated before my fish look amazing when I'm feeding it. I dont have an endless supply of live foods from South America so Im going to continue to feed a variety of foods readily available just like you.

..and i haven't read all the wordy post w bad info but if someone claimed fish cant digest soy protein thats a joke
Sorry bro. You're wrong. Your MD status may justify you prescribing toxic drugs to humans but has no validity in this discussion. No evidence you've presented is strong or worth consideration in this debate.

You're an MD. You can afford to feed your fish quality food. Yet, you choose not to.

I understand the college kid struggling to make ends meet using such cheap food. That was me years back, I totally understand.

But why you?
 

Siddons11

Piranha
MFK Member
Sep 19, 2012
1,176
239
81
USA
The study also said that omnivorous freshwater fish did much better on the diet. They could eat 100% SBM without side effects.

They didn't base this theory off of a single study either. It was a graduate students project they were assigned before they could get their marine biologist's degree. They listed dozens of resources and referred to plenty of other studies that showed the same results.
 

RD.

Gold Tier VIP
MFK Member
May 9, 2007
13,124
12,384
3,360
64
Northwest Canada
The results in this study were no different than the vast majority of these studies, it lasted only 10 weeks, and targeted only certain species. The other literature cited did not all show the same results, I'm familar with a number of those papers and they all conclude different things based on different species, and even different forms of soy. Not all soybean has the same effect on fish, as an example soy isolate & soy concentrate are not only much higher in crude protein (approx 80%), they also do not contain the anti-nutitional matter that is sometimes found in regular soybean meal.

So first off none of these studies monitor the health of any of these fish long term. These are ALL short term studies based on the growth & condition of commercially grown species that are grown out as fast as humanly possible, for as cheap as humanly possible, before they are sold for human consumption.

Even the commercial feed utilized as the control food in this study (a grow out trout chow from Skretting), at 50% protein & 18% lipid, could be very dangerous to many fish if fed to captive warm water tropical species. Foods with lipid levels in that range have been shown to have some very negative effects on various species of cichlids, including carnivorous species. (Ruth Francis-Floyd et al) Again, an epic failure if one was actually monitoring those same fish long term, on that diet.

Secondly, there can be different results from different species. In their study it was noted with regards to Red Snapper:
However, fish fed the high (soybean) replacement diets (36% and 48% SBM) had lipid deposits in the liver and low hematocrit levels, indicating a decline in fish health.
Oops, I guess you missed that part, which is exactly what I have already stated in this discussion.

Most of these feed studies in commercial studies last weeks, a few months if one is lucky, so the value of their data isn't always as impressive as it seems on the surface. The reality is that when fed these diets long term most tropical fish will not do well on foods that are high in terrestrial based plant matter, they simply aren't hard wired to assimilate those types of proteins, and those types of fatty acids. There are also studies that show severe liver damage caused from feeding some species of fish terrestrial based plant matter over an extended period of time due to the incorrect type of fatty acids found in those foodstuffs. This is especially true with marine fish.

This is also from that study;
Zhou et al. (2005) fed diets containing 0 to 60% SBM in increments of 10% to juvenile cobia, Rachycentron canadum. In terms of growth rate, up to 40% SBM was successful, but lipid levels in the liver, blood cell composition, and feed conversion ratio were negatively affected as SBM content increased. A replacement level of 18.9% was recommended.

...............................................





The study also said that omnivorous freshwater fish did much better on the diet. They could eat 100% SBM without side effects.

Actually, no they did NOT say that - and if anyone did, they would be talking out of their arse.

What they said was .......

Studies on freshwater species have generally shown higher maximum replacement levels of SBM for fishmeal. However; some of the freshwater species studied, such as catfish and tilapia, are herbivorous. Khan et al. (2003) were able to successfully replace 100% of the fish meal with SBM in the diets of Rohu, Labeo rohita.
Which I have already noted with regards to why species such as carp/koi will do much better on this pond diet, vs a cichla.




For anyone in interested further about what's actually found in this paper written by a graduate student, here is the correct link.

http://dl.uncw.edu/etd/2008-3/sullivank/katherinesullivan.pdf


Today there are numerous "least-cost" computer software programs designed to formulate commercial feeds, all geared towards a specific "human consumption" species of fish. Trout, salmon, catfish, tilapia, shrimp, etc. But none exist for any of the thousands of warm water tropical species that hobbyists keep in their tanks. Some of the info can be extrapolated, the rest is a bit of guessing game where one can only go by what they see in their tanks and their fish over years of use. But the bottom line is these cost saving methods for raw ingredients such as soybean meal, ground corn, wheat middlings etc, are only done to suit the commercial farmer, as in best growth for quick market sales - NOT the longevity of the fish, which is all I personally care about.

Manufacturers do not use these types of raw ingredients (soybeans, corn, middlings etc) because they are preferred over the quality and digestibility of other (more expensive) sources of raw ingredients - they use these types of ingredients to save production costs. Period!



The bottom line is many of these lower cost ingredients can have negative side effects, and cause negative health issues in fish, even in short term studies involving only "weeks" of feeding. The results thus far have proven to be species dependent, duration dependent, and inclusion rate dependent. And last but not least, ALL of these lower cost types of ingredients mentioned in studies such as this one (soybean meal, feather meal, poultry by product meal, meat/bone meal, and even fish meal) are all ingredient type & source dependent!

That is to say that not ALL soybean is created equally, anymore than ALL fish meal is created equally. This is where protein is NOT protein, as some people believe. Not even close. There are various grades of everything on the market, they all carry a different price tag, and they all can have different results when fed to a fish. This is quite common in feedstuffs, and is often why sometimes we can see such different results in different studies or papers utilizing the same apparent raw ingredients.


The beauty of all this is we as hobbyists can remove ALL of those potential problems, by simply feeding foods that do not contain large inclusion rates of terrestrial based plant matter, such as soybean meal, corn, low cost middlings, etc, and feed higher quality foods that have withstood the test of time, in millions of tanks around the world.


Or, we can argue until we are blue in the face how feeding a crap sandwich to our fish is somehow improving their lifestyle (and color?) while in our care.
 

RD.

Gold Tier VIP
MFK Member
May 9, 2007
13,124
12,384
3,360
64
Northwest Canada
A little over a year ago I posted the following in another discussion here, and it seems that on MFK history is constantly repeating itself. Thank god for cut & paste, over time this gets easier. :)


Over the past decade the cost of fish meal has risen almost 300%, with this year looking at another forecasted increase of 18%. And that's just one raw ingredient. Eventually something has to give, and either a manufacturer increases their wholesale prices to reflect their increased costs, or they look at ways to lower their cost, such as decreasing the inclusion rate of higher cost raw ingredients (such as fish meal, krill meal, squid meal, etc) and increasing lower cost raw ingredients such as corn, rice, wheat, oats, potatoes, soybeans, etc.

http://www.undercurrentnews.com/2013/01/30/fishmeal-prices-up-285-since-2001/

The problem with increasing costs in todays economy is that many consumers will simply seek out lower cost alternatives (many already are) as everyone has a personal breaking point on how much they are going to spend on their pet fish - so often it becomes the lesser of two evils, and the manufacturer opts for lower cost alternative ingredients, such as wheat middlings. Keep in mind that very few manufacturers actually make their own food, so most are at the mercy of what the feed mills charge for their ingredients. Even for those that do actually handle their food from start to finish, they too are at the mercy of the bulk suppliers, those manufacturers simply have better buying power.


Some manufacturers that are thinking ahead of the curve are already looking at alternatives, or supplements to marine proteins and marine fatty acids by including more natural aquatic plant matter (as compared to terrestrial based grains) such as various forms of algae with protein levels in the 50-60% range, and lipid content in the 15-20% range. (on a dry matter basis) These types of aquatic plant matter offer a better omega 3 to omega 6 ratio than corn, soybean, etc, and are more natural to the digestion system of a fish. IMO this is the way of the future, not boosting cereal levels in a food designed for aquatic organisms. Plenty of research in this area has already been taking place over the years.

From algae ingredients one can also benefit by also utilizing some of these raw ingredients as binding agents, thereby decreasing more traditional binding agents such as wheat flour. It's a win-win for everyone involved, the manufacturer, the consumer, and most importantly the fish.

and again from that same discussion ........

I've never considered these types of discussions as arguments, because if one is supplying good credible factual data, there really isn't much to argue about. Unless of course someone reckons wheat is a superior raw ingredient over krill/fish. And sometimes that does happen .....

I also don't believe that in todays market there are really any "bad" foods. One would have to go back 30+ years to start getting into foods that I would personally consider as bad. Having said that, there are a LOT of lower quality, lower cost ingredients being used in some of today's food, and IMO I see no reason to include those types of ingredients in a fishes diet if/when they can be easily avoided. I don't see comparing wheat to krill, or soybeans to fish meal, as splitting hairs. Both can & will get the job done, but make no mistake, nutrient wise one is definitely superior to the other. Whether each & every hobbyist will notice the difference between each food and the results of each diet is obviously questionable.


Hopefully that clears up my position in all of this.
 

raideranch

Gambusia
MFK Member
Mar 3, 2013
124
3
18
TX
Diesel, Why waste the money? I know the difference. Forget the MD, i got the undergrad degrees, I don't need to quote some outdated articles. Yall tried like hell and haven't been able to show that one thing I've said was wrong. Keep it up

Yall are going to a lot of trouble to somehow prove that a very popular fish food is bad for fish, lol

Anyway no ones going to change their position on this so how bout some more people share what foods bring out the most color in their fish?

Sent from my XT1030 using MonsterAquariaNetwork App
 

ehh

Blue Tier VIP
MFK Member
Aug 30, 2013
4,922
1,838
439
New Mexico
Diesel, Why waste the money? I know the difference. Forget the MD, i got the undergrad degrees. My opinion is the expert opinion, I don't need to quote some outdated articles. Yall tried like hell and haven't been able to show that one thing I've said was wrong. Keep it up

Yall are going to a lot of trouble to somehow prove that a very popular fish food is bad for fish, lol

Sent from my XT1030 using MonsterAquariaNetwork App
You can do better than that food.





Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
 

raideranch

Gambusia
MFK Member
Mar 3, 2013
124
3
18
TX
This food brings out the best color in my fish for a fraction of the cost but I'm still also feeding some hikari, shrimp, tilapia, ...

Sent from my XT1030 using MonsterAquariaNetwork App
 

raideranch

Gambusia
MFK Member
Mar 3, 2013
124
3
18
TX
"Sorry bro. You're wrong. Your MD status may justify you prescribing toxic drugs to humans but has no validity in this discussion. No evidence you've presented is strong or worth consideration in this debate."

Funny how you dont have to quote the Internet when you know what your talking about. Nothing ive said has been copied from the Internet. Crazy that people claim to be things theyre not and post crap all over the internet and others will believe it without question.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
zoomed.com
hikariusa.com
aqaimports.com
Store