What food brings out the best color in your fish?

And why do you reckon those studies took place, Siddons?

Fish food manufacturers don't add raw ingredients such as soybean meal, corn, rice, potatoes, etc to increase the nutritional value of the food, they do so in an attempt to save production costs.

The commercial aquaculture industry is always looking for less costly ways to raise fish - it's ALL about reducing production costs, and increasing revenue, not the longevity of their fish. That's business 101. I can cite hundreds of articles just like the one that you just posted (link is broken), and I have read hundreds, and then some, but the reality is no matter what the soybean industry (which often times funds these types of studies) will have you believe, or what commercial farmers are seeking regarding their feed costs, neither of them are tropical fish hobbyists. People who are supposed to actually be providing optimum conditions for their fish, not seeking the cheapest way possible to convert feed to flesh.

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. None of this is news, it's common knowledge for those of us that have kept pace with the most current science available regarding the nutrient requirements of tropical fish. And while it may not be a perfect science, and much of the info has been extrapolated from commercial studies, those many studies that have taken place over the past several decades provide a ton of useable data, and still teach us a lot about the different groups of fish kept in captivity, be they carnivores, omnivores, or herbivores.

Protein and energy digestibility of any raw ingredient, is based on numerous factors, including species of fish (not all omnivores and/or herbivores process the same ingredients in the same manner), the type of processing of that raw ingredient, including the manner in which it is processed. A single screw extruder vs a twin screw extruder running at higher temps can result in different digestibility, and bioavailability, of the exact same raw ingredient. Ditto to the particle size of the feed, not just the size of the pellet. Protein apparent digestibility coefficients (ADCs) have been shown to be as high as 100% for wheat gluten meal, when fed to a carnivorous species such as Rainbow Trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, yet most trout/salmon are turned off by the taste of soybeans, hence they eat less, and thus grow less, even if the anti-nutritional matter has been reduced to zero via processing.



From the previous discussion, where I stated:

The reason that Koi are featured on the labels of Wardleys Pond pellets & sticks, is because Koi/Carp are capable of digesting and assimilating a significant amount of carbohydrates, including terrestrial based grains such as found in this food. Pacu are also capable of assimilating significant amounts of low cost carbs. The vast majority of predatory species, or even omnivorous species would not be so lucky.

Cheap food is cheap for a reason.

Click to expand...

That isn't to say that one has to feed a massive amount of low cost terrestrial based plant matter & grains to a koi, or that it's even an ideal diet, it simply means that they can assimilate those types of raw ingredients much more effectively than a piscivore.


Now imagine a study where someone spared no costs, taking only the best raw ingredients to build an amazing assortment of marine proteins & fatty acids from fish, krill, and aquatic based plant matter such as spirulina, haematococcus pluvialis and other various micro-algae, and even adding more non traditional exotic ingredients such as garlic, all which contain bioactive compounds that over many years of research have clearly demonstrated to have a probiotic effect on fish. Natural compounds that have been shown to have biological effects in fish such as growth promotion, immunostimulation, anti-stress, anti-bacterial, anti-fungal, anti-virals, and appetite stimulators.

How many institutes are funding and/or carrying out those kinds of studies, where no cost is being spared to provide the best possible captive diet in a dry food form?

Hmmmmm.

There's no question which one is a better quality. But studies show that SBM substituted for fish meal has no negative effects if it regulated to 70% or less of their diet.
The study was funded by the University of North Carolina. Not wardley or other pond food brands.

Did you even read what I just posted? I'm not arguing about just the quality, I am arguing about the fact that most of these feed trials are very short in duration, and very limited in scope, hence the results they are showing have nothing to do with regards to what WE as hobbysits are doing with OUR fish. Who cares how safely I can pump a fish up before I toss it on the barbecue?

A little bit of second hand smoke won't immediately harm you either, but over the long haul it can cause all sorts of negative health issues.

eace:

Someone should try it over a longer period then and see if it will show negative results

I see it like one of us only ingesting boost or ensure meal replacements. Ya you could live 20 years on it, but it wouldn't be ideal for optimum health.

Someone should try it over a longer period then and see if it will show negative results

Click to expand...

Why?


It's a low grade food made mostly of low cost ingredients. In the past this was the only type of commercial dry food available to hobbyists, so some of us that have been kicking around this hobby for a while already know what the results of feeding low quality food such as this is going to be. This isn't anything new, it's only a slightly higher grade of crapola that one could buy 50 years ago.







Both of you have already admitted that the quality in this food is less than ideal, so what exactly are you attempting to prove? That fish can survive being fed low quality crap? Guess what, we already know that answer, just as we know that many fish can survive piss poor water quality, and a whole host of other horrendous conditions that some people force upon them.

I'm just saying it can be done since you said fish can't digest soy protein. Feeding soy protein based food as a fraction of a fish's diet can save someone money who have big mouths to feed.

,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

since you said fish can't digest soy protein.

Click to expand...

I suggest that you go back and carefully read what I said, because I never said that. (see more on that below)

Also, the study that you cited where the experiment lasted all of 10 weeks, involved juvenile Black Sea Bass, a marine fish. So I'm not exactly too sure what it is you think can be done, or with what species? As stated previously, I have read scores of similar studies, I didn't base my opinion on any one single paper, involving a single species of fish, and an experiment that only lasted a few weeks.

What I said about soybeans was this:

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.

Click to expand...

and from the previous thread on this same topic, about the same food:

Soybean Meal, Ground Corn, Fish Meal, Wheat Middlings, Corn Gluten Meal, Calcium Carbonate, Dehydrated Alfalfa Meal

Out of the top 7 ingredients listed by dry weight (in accordance with AFCO) - only 1 ingredient is based on a protein source that a predatory fish such as cichla would consume in the wild.


The main issue with that pond feed is the massive amount of terrestrial based carbs/starch in that diet. Predatory species are not capable of assimilating large amounts of carbohydrates efficiently due to the fact that unlike fish such as Koi, most predatory species do not produce the enzymes required (amylase) in any significant quantity (if at all) to break those carbs down.

Science has proven that at least with most species of fish studied to date, terrestrial based plant matter can potentially cause health issues, especially if fed in a raw unprocessed state, due to the anti-nutritional matter found in the vast majority of terrestrial based plants. Not a major problem if one is feeding limited quantities, but can cause some serious problems in at least some species of fish when fed at higher levels on a regular basis.


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


Soybeans contain saponins which at higher levels have proven to cause damage a fishes intestinal cells. Peas contain phytic acid, tannins, and trypsin inhibitors, which again are not something that fish benefit from and can potentially cause negative health issues when fed in excess. Check out the list in the link above & be informed, not all plant matter is going to offer a nutrient boost for fish. If one is wanting to increase the amount of plant matter in their fishes diet, my advice has always been to offer fish aquatic based plant matter.


So why feed a food to your fish that it cannot properly assimilate & utilize, and over time may cause negative health issues?


In nature, cichla (peacock bass) consume various species of fish as their main staple, not corn, not soybeans, not wheat, and not alfalfa meal. While a low inclusion rate of those ingredients probably wouldn't be a huge issue, I believe that at the rate they are found in this pond food over time one would experience negative health issues in most carnivorous species of fish.

Click to expand...

Feeding soy protein based food as a fraction of a fish's diet can save someone money who have big mouths to feed. .

Click to expand...

Please feel free to feed your fish whatever you like, don't let me stop you, but if cost is an issue there are far healthier options that one can buy in bulk from commercial feed mills.


Happy fishkeeping.