Omega One vs NLS

[HrHagel]

Ok i'll rephrase, all products up here list the typical analysis "guideline".
And yeah, a Danish aftermarket label is stickied onto the back of each feed product, if the box/bag doesn't list the vitamin content themselves.

I really do not get why NLS doesn't list the Vitamin content on theire products. What can possibly be the harm of doing that?

For the record, i feed NLS exclusively, except in cases where my order is delayed, and i've ran out of food. Like in this case with the Novosticks. (I have to order from England, since there is no NLS in my country)
I was just really curious about the Vitamin contents and why they aren't listed.

Thanks for your time so far RD. Always bring quality information to the table in any debate, imo.

Also, i've really wondered about something, but not sure if you want to answer it, or have even given it some thought.
If you had to choose another product to feed your fish, what would it be, and why?

 

[RD.]

You have to keep in mind that the pet food business is a multi-billion dollar industry, with numerous wannabe players emerging with each passing year. No company in their right mind is going to lay everything out on a silver platter for the competition, including a detailed analysis of their vitamin content. Those that do probably don't have anything worth keeping a trade secret.

Also, i've really wondered about something, but not sure if you want to answer it, or have even given it some thought.
If you had to choose another product to feed your fish, what would it be, and why?

Someone asked me that just the other day, lucky for me I don't have to worry about that.

 

[Cleanbio]

I use both. I mix the Omega one cichlid pellets with the NLS pellets, so they get the best of both worlds.

 

[calioutlaw1a]

I really do not get why NLS doesn't list the Vitamin content on theire products. What can possibly be the harm of doing that?

The vitamin content listed for most NLS pellets:

Vitamin A (min) 8,000 IU/kg
Vitamin D (min) 450 IU/kg
Vitamin E (min) 200 IU/kg

 

[RD.]

Those numbers are off of an old label, but still, those are just minimum numbers tossed out there and certainly aren't going to help anyone looking for a complete analysis of the micronutrient levels found in NLS.

 

[calioutlaw1a]

Those numbers are off of an old label, but still, those are just minimum numbers tossed out there and certainly aren't going to help anyone looking for a complete analysis of the micronutrient levels found in NLS.

It's off of an old label, but it is my understanding that all of the formulations have remained constant with a few exceptions. I posted these vitamin values because HrHagel wanted something similar to the Novostick values he posted earlier.

Unfortunately just about all of the information provided on pet food labels is essentially meaningless, or even worse misinterpreted, by the average consumer. Most consumers turn to the list of ingredients and guaranteed analysis to compare one food to another without understanding how these values are determined, how to properly compare the values, and the definitions of the terms listed.
This generally leads to frustration and often people then go searching for more information on the internet, which is a bastion of emotionally-driven misinformation. You gave an excellent example with the public's view on terms such as "fish meal" being inferior to other forms of fish.

 

[RD.]

Correct, the formulations have remained fairly constant with a few exceptions, but as previously stated those numbers aren't going to give anyone an accurate representation as to what the actual micro-nutrient levels are in the food. I would be willing to bet that in the case of Novostick, those are maximum values given.

Unfortunately just about all of the information provided on pet food labels is essentially meaningless, or even worse misinterpreted, by the average consumer. Most consumers turn to the list of ingredients and guaranteed analysis to compare one food to another without understanding how these values are determined, how to properly compare the values, and the definitions of the terms listed.
This generally leads to frustration and often people then go searching for more information on the internet, which is a bastion of emotionally-driven misinformation. You gave an excellent example with the public's view on terms such as "fish meal" being inferior to other forms of fish.

Well said, although if one knows how to analyze a label properly, the information is seldom completely meaningless. But you're right, to the average consumer, even the crude protein % is totally misunderstood. No one asks about amino acid profiles, which is the only portion of the "protein" equation that truly matters.

 

[calioutlaw1a]

Correct, the formulations have remained fairly constant with a few exceptions, but as previously stated those numbers aren't going to give anyone an accurate representation as to what the actual micro-nutrient levels are in the food. I would be willing to bet that in the case of Novostick, those are maximum values given.



Well said, although if one knows how to analyze a label properly, the information is seldom completely meaningless. But you're right, to the average consumer, even the crude protein % is totally misunderstood. No one asks about amino acid profiles, which is the only portion of the "protein" equation that truly matters.

It isn't just the amino acid profile that is important. The biological value of a protein source is referred to as protein quality. Protein quality is determined by both the amino acid profile and the bioavailability (digestibility) of the protein. You can feed an animal a protein with the perfect amino acid profile, but if the amino acids cannot be used by the animal it doesn't matter.

Some information about amino acid profiles can be determined from the list of ingredients, though this is mainly only useful for determining if ingredients are listed that contain all of the essential amino acids rather than total amounts.
However, you cannot determine the digestibility of protein unless you call the manufacturer and ask them (though some general guidelines are available for different protein sources).

 

[RD.]

It isn't just the amino acid profile that is important. The biological value of a protein source is referred to as protein quality.

Yes, very true, but there are many instances where one doesn't have to call anyone to determine a ballpark idea of the DP (digestible protein). As you stated there are general guidelines that one can use, and for myself I simply rule out certain ingredients no matter what a manufacturer attempts to tell me, or for that matter what the bioavailability of certain protein sources may or may not be. (as in most cereal grains)

My original point being, the crude protein % doesn't generally tell anyone much beyond a nitrogen reading taken by someone in a lab, yet by & large most consumers put a great deal of emphasis on the CP value.

 

[calioutlaw1a]

Yes, very true, but there are many instances where one doesn't have to call anyone to determine a ballpark idea of the DP (digestible protein). As you stated there are general guidelines that one can use, and for myself I simply rule out certain ingredients no matter what a manufacturer attempts to tell me, or for that matter what the bioavailability of certain protein sources may or may not be. (as in most cereal grains)

I know we are getting a bit off topic here, but can you explain this a bit more? What are you saying about most cereal grains?

My original point being, the crude protein % doesn't generally tell anyone much beyond a nitrogen reading taken by someone in a lab, yet by & large most consumers put a great deal of emphasis on the CP value.

Agreed.