Repashy Superfood (for cichlids)?

[msjinkzd]

I thought you brought up some interesting points. Hope you didn't take it otherwise!

 

[suds1421]

I guess I don't see the argument that this is so expensive, all of us know people that we can split food with, either online or in local clubs... If you aren't a member of a local club, become one I am looking to split the highest quantity so I'll get 16 ounces of food which will make 32 lbs of gel or 64 of the small size (1/2 lb deli tubs).

How am I going to get rid of 64 deli tubs of food?

It would only cost me $17.50, the last time I bought 1/2 lb of spirulina I paid about $15... seems like a no brainer to me...

Feed a grazing food, to grazing fish and fry for less than I am currently paying...

 

[joe jaskot]

If someone was planning on adding medication to the gel, does anyone know if the heated water used to make the mix would have any affect on the medication?

 

[aclockworkorange]

So, I just watched the video again. There is one ounce of powder, and then when all is mixed it's 10 ounces? So it's 90% water? Or is there something I'm missing?

 

[msjinkzd]

If someone was planning on adding medication to the gel, does anyone know if the heated water used to make the mix would have any affect on the medication?

Since the gel sets at a relatively low temperatuer (lower than some discus temps), it should not effect the medications.

So, I just watched the video again. There is one ounce of powder, and then when all is mixed it's 10 ounces? So it's 90% water? Or is there something I'm missing?

Nope, its 1 part powder to 3 parts water.
To reiterate from Allen (page 2 of the thread):

First, as far as nutritional analysis, with, or without water. The water content is irrelevant. All scientific comparisons are made using DMB "Dry Matter Basis" Products that are sold premixed with water are required for labeling purposes to report the moisture content of the product. Dry products must report on their labels the nutrient levels "As sold" Mazuri provides both levels in their secondary publications for convenience so that it can be compared to hydrated meat products.

Most living organisms are 80-85% water.

Saying that water reduces the level of protein in a food is silly. That is like saying if you have a glass of water with your meal, that you are reducing your protein intake. The water level is irrelevant. it does not effect digestion of nutrients and is actually a lot more natural than feeding something that is dehydrated because it has to pull water from whatever is eating it saturate it before it can be digested. A naturally hydrated product is much easier to digest for this reason.

A dried flake food, a second or two after it hits the water, is saturated to the same level as the gel. A pellet is slower to absorb water, but quickly will also be 2/3 water. The fact that pellets do not absorb water quickly is one of the negative things about pellets. Consuming dry food is not natural for fish, reptiles or even us.

 

[RD.]

Yes, Allen did state all that on page 2, yet never answered my initial question to him,

which was:

"Correct, and on that note can you please provide the members here with a nutritional analysis based on the finished product designed for carnivores, as in once the dry powder has been reconstituted with tap water? Thanks."

That question has yet to be answered.


To state that the water content is irrelevant when discussing total nutrient content is IMO more than just a tad bit misleading.


As an example.

A typical analysis of freeze dried bloodworms.

Guaranteed Analysis
Min. Crude Protein….55%
Min. Crude Fat………..3%
Max. Crude Fiber…….5%
Max. Moisture………. 5%



A typical analysis of frozen bloodworms. (from the same manufacturer as above)

Guaranteed Analysis
Min. Crude Protein..........6.3%
Min. Crude Fat............... 0.8%
Max. Crude Fiber........... 0.3%
Max. Moisture…….....…..91.2%




If water content of the finished product is irrelevant, then the typical nutrient content of 1ounce of the frozen food listed above, should be exactly the same as 1 ounce of the freeze dried. Yet clearly it is not. That high "volume" of water pushes the rest of the nutrient levels down, way down, just as it would if one was feeding a pellet food that consisted of 90+% water. This isn't exactly rocket science.

Using the same type of logic it would be like adding 10 ounces of water to 1 ounce of Seachem Prime, and expecting to get the same bang for your buck, when in fact all that's going to accomplish is one having to use 10x what they normally would use to treat the exact same amount of tap water.

There are a number of pre-mixed "gel" foods already on the market manufactured by Instant Ocean, Tetra, etc., and there are those that need to be reconstituted with water, such as Blue Lagoon, Purina's Mazuri line, etc, and now Allen's line of food. Comparing the actual nutrient levels of the dry powder formulas to the pre-mixed with water gel foods is night & day, just as it would be if Allen sold his food pre-mixed, with the added water. Which is why I previously asked Allen for a nutritional analysis based on the finished product designed for carnivores, as in once the dry powder has been reconstituted with tap water. I think that's a fair question, and one that anyone that is considering these products should know up front.

I think that some people are comparing volume, with value, and not taking into account that the majority of that volume is coming from their kitchen faucet.

Ted Judy's name has been brought up a number of times in this discussion as some kind of "cichlid" endorsement, yet according to Ted he doesn't even use Allen's food as a staple diet, but uses live foods.

http://www.apistogramma.com/forum/showthread.php?12111-Repashy-SuperFoods!!!!!

Again, Ted compares "volume" of feed when testing on some fry, as though that is any indication of nutrient intake. Seriously? Exactly what nutrients are your fish gleaning from tap water? Does somehow eating more volume, equate to more nutrients being consumed, or greater bio-availablity of those nutrients? Of course not.

He also stated;

Unlike gelatin or agar gel foods, the plant gelling agents Allen uses do not require boiling for a period of time before they set, which means that the vitamin and nutritional value of the food is not lost as much as it is with other high-heat produced food (including flake and pellet).

Which clearly shows just how little he understands about the entire manufacturing process of dry food, including dry "powdered" food.

Allen's "powder" food is no different than any other dry fish food, in the regards that it is made under the same type of heat as any other commercial food. Some manufacturers use less heat, some use more, some longer durations, some less, but they all require heat to create a dry food/powder. No one is taking a magic wand & waving it over raw ingredients such as sardines, anchovies, krill, etc, and "poof", it magically becomes a dry powder. If anything, adding "hot" or boiling water to that finished powder product is going to reduce certain nutrient levels in that dry powder, not somehow make it superior over other dry foods, as Ted Judy would have everyone believing.

I'm all for the advancement of this hobby, and as previously stated anyone that feels this food is going to produce better results than what they are currently feeding are certainly free to spend their money as they choose. But at the same time let's try to keep things real, shall we?


And for those who feel that anything I say on the subject of nutrition is biased, here's a past comment of mine posted here on MFK when asked about a flake food product that I sell.

Also, while I sell NLS flake food, and I sell a ton of it, I never recommend feeding flake food to cichlids, not even NLS. I personally don't like flake food, it's messy, wasteful, and leaches nutrients extremely quickly once it hits the water. That's my honest unbiased opinion.

I support and promote a number of products in the aquatic trade, one of them I also just happen to have a vested interest in. If that's a crime, shoot me.

 

[RD.]

And just in case anyone thinks that I make this stuff up as I go along ........


The following article on "Nutrient Dense Fish Feeds" was written by R.D. Miles, Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, and F.A. Chapman, Associate Professor, Department of Fisheries and Aquatics, University of Florida.


http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fa145

"The moisture content of a feed pellet also will influence its nutrient and energy densities because more water adds weight but no nutrients or calories. Therefore, dry, nutrient-dense feeds will have higher energy and nutrient densities."

"Highly digestible, nutrient-dense diets are especially important for feeding larvae or small fish, such as ornamental species. Because of their small size, these animals require more nutrients per unit of body mass than older, larger animals."

"When feeds with low nutrient densities are used, the capacity of the gut may be exceeded before the fish consumes adequate amounts of nutrients."

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

Any of the above sound familiar? These are the exact same points that I have been stating from the get go in this discussion. None of this is exactly new to the world of aquaculture.



When it comes to feeding fish, be it fry, juveniles, or adults, the law of diminishing returns often comes into play. A fish can only digest & assimilate so much food in any given period of time. Ideally you do not want the input, to exceed the output. This is where not only digestibility, but the FCR (feed conversion ratio) comes into play. FCR is basically the ratio of the gain in the wet body weight of the fish to the amount of feed fed. A true FCR also includes wasted feed and mortalities.

In a properly managed system, where overfeeding doesn't take place, and mortalities are few & far between, the FCR will be low, which is ideal. Overfeeding or underfeeding will increase the FCR, which is not ideal, unless you like wasting your hard earned $$$$.

With some of today's nutrient rich diets many hobbyists tend to overfeed, human nature I suppose (my fish "looks" hungry) when in reality they are wasting food ($$$) and creating an excessive bio load (added pollution) on their system. In the average hobbyist set up, fry do not (and IMO should not) stuff themselves on food all day long. Ideally they should be fed close to satiation levels approx. 2-3 times a day, and allowed time in between feedings to fully assimilate & properly digest that food. Fish being fish, many will eat far beyond what they are capable of fully utilizing, or as stated in the paper linked to above there is also the risk that the capacity of the gut may be exceeded before the fish consumes adequate amounts of nutrients. Which is where the law of diminishing returns comes into play.



Cheers!

 

[TMSB805]

Thanks RD, your last two post have brought things into perspective for me.

 

[Words]

I honestly don't care what people on this site feed their fish

RD, I know you didnt type this with a straight face.

 

[RD.]

RD, I know you didnt type this with a straight face.

You mean like when I posted the following past comments on MFK?

This is just my own personal opinion, but if one wants the best value in fresh/frozen products, your best bet is to make a trip to the local market. Clams, mussels, squid, prawns, tilapia, silversides, walleye, pike, etc will get the job done, with the caveat of making sure to supplement with a well rounded liquid vitamin to ensure that certain vitamins & trace minerals aren't lacking. The key ones being vitamin C, B1 (many freshwater species contain thiaminase, which destroys B1, even when in a frozen state) and vitamin E, which is also largely broken down in flesh when frozen.

Outside of a few products such as PE mysis, IMO you can get a FAR better bang for your buck buying at a local market, and in many cases, a much fresher product as well. Buy fresh, freeze for 48 hrs at 0F (-18C) to destroy any potential parasites, and use up within 30 days or so. Freezing will not destroy all micro-organisms, so there is still some risk involved in feeding frozen products, but freezing certainly minimizes those risks.

Freezing tends to also increase the concentration of thiaminase in tissue, so the shorter the duration in the freezer, the better. Little is known as to how thiaminase affects various species, and according to various studies the amounts found (even within the same species of fish) tend to vary as well. Most public aquariums tend to supplement to avoid deficiencies.

Boyd Vita-Chem is a well rounded liquid vitamin designed for fish. Some people also choose to gut load their feeders with a good quality food, right before feeding, and/or stuff pellets into frozen food. Either one of those options will remove any potential vitamin/mineral deficiencies.

I'm all for helping people save money in this hobby, so if you really aren't serious about providing your fish with optimum nutrition, then seriously consider buying in bulk from a feed mill. Trust me, if you choose a quality feed mill, your results will be just as good as what you are getting now with the food listed above, and you will save a BUNDLE of $$$$.

For some people that's good enough, I can understand that, especially in todays economy.

You don't know anything about me, Words, so how about leaving the personal comments out of this discussion.

If you have something of actual value to add to this discussion I'm all ears, or in this case eyes.