Fish Food Summary

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
aclockworkorange;5112109; said:
IMO, really not a useful document, and is actually pretty misleading. Listing only the first three ingredients is not helpful. You can list 8 different fish as the first ingredients, but that doesn't mean that product has "more" fish in it--and are those dry weight or wet weight? They still have protein percentages, and even those are misleading. Every pellet or flake uses some sort of binder to bind the proteins together, even though it may be listed further down the ingredient list, it could actually be MORE depending on how a company has decided to list and weigh their ingredients.
Also, no mention of things like ash content, the digestibility of the protein used, artificial colors or flavorings (Hikari is well known for putting MSG in their food), etc etc...

Thank you for posting it though Mojo, it should open up some interesting discussion on how labels themselves can even be misleading.

I disagree. Listing the first three items does signify the majority of the product at least by percentage.

From the FDA site on the Pet food industry under "ingredients":

All ingredients are required to be listed in order of predominance by weight. The weights of ingredients are determined as they are added in the formulation, including their inherent water content. This latter fact is important when evaluating relative quantity claims, especially when ingredients of different moisture contents are compared.

aclockworkorange;5112330; said:
Typically, you are correct. But in the fish food industry this line of thinking doesn't give the whole picture. 100 pounds of fish, whether it's 8 kinds of fish or two kinds of fish, is still 100 pounds of fish. You also have to take wet VS dry weight of the fish into account--a lot of that weight is water when wet, and obviously everything is dry when you make it in to dry food.

You're saying that this industry is governed differently than the other pet food groups...(dogs, cats, etc.)?
 
No offense Mo, but your friend that works within the "industry" barely understands tha basic principles surrounding this subject.

I responded to this document, last year, in the following link.
http://forums.*****************.org/showthread.php?t=5361



With regards to crude fat, it's not as simple as picking an exact percentage, such as 5%. Fat is primarily utilized by fish as an energy source, so the amount required for optimum health will vary within species, as well as the life stage of the fish. The higher the metabolic rate of the fish, the more fat that will be required by the fish. Generally speaking, the vast majority of tropical species will function best on a diet that contains less than 10% crude fat. Also, diets that are high in carbs/starch, can also easily equate to fatty deposition of the liver, and premature death, so the crude fat % isn't the only way that a fish can end up with excessive fat in its diet.
 
Aquamojo;5112387; said:
I disagree. Listing the first three items does signify the majority of the product at least by percentage.

From the FDA site on the Pet food industry under "ingredients":





You're saying that this industry is governed differently than the other pet food groups...(dogs, cats, etc.)?

Yes, the fish food industry is "governed" differently than dog or cat food.
 
disagree. Listing the first three items does signify the majority of the product at least by percentage.

Unless one is privy to the exact amounts of each raw ingredient listed in the entire formula of feed, the information found on most labels is nothing more than a general guideline.

Ten different fish foods could all list fish meal, shrimp meal, then wheat flour, as the top 3 ingredients, and all 10 foods could have varying percentages of each of those ingredients, from some having 15% wheat flour, to those having 50% wheat flour.
 
Here's a good read on fish food labels:

"This subject seems to cause a great amount of confusion, so much so that I felt the need to address it in this article. For the most part the fish food industry is self regulated, basically meaning that it is very easy to manipulate an ingredient list to favor your own product. As an example, if the ash content is quite high in the food, the easiest way for a manufacturer to address that issue is to simply not list the ash content on their label.

Ash can come from bones, shells, and scales of marine animals that are high in calcium and phosphorous; to an extent its presence is simply unavoidable. But, the ash from minerals that come from raw ingredients such as Kelp and Spirulina, though beneficial, should be limited. If an excessive amount is used it can have a negative effect, since fish can assimilate only so much mineral content, and any excess will simply be adding unwanted pollution to the aquarium water.

A manufacturer can also use very little of a common raw ingredient such asspirulina, but use green dye to color the food, and promote it as spirulina food designed for herbivores. If you read the label closely, in some cases you may find that the food that was designed for herbivores may in fact be based on generic fish meal and contain very little spirulina or vegetable matter, but instead is loaded with fillers such as corn, bran, middling, flour, potato, etc.

A manufacturer can list Lobster and Crab in their ingredients to signify quality, but in reality it is nothing but the leftover parts of the animals. A manufacturer can also choose to list many species of fish, one species after another, which gives the illusion that the binding agents (such as middling and flour) are several ingredients down on the ingredient list. The fact is that no matter how many types of fish make up the main ingredient, they are still just part of a single fish meal, period. As an example, if one used 500 lbs. of fish meal per ton of food, it doesn't matter how many species of fishes you use to get that 500 lbs., in the end it's still 500 lbs. of fish meal, and the true second or third ingredient will usually be a binding agent such as flour. Many unaware hobbyists see several kinds of fishes listed at the top of the ingredient list, followed by wheat flour, and assume that this particular brand must have very little wheat flour, and a very high concentration of fish protein. In reality it is no more than a single generic fish meal being used, comprised from numerous species of fish. All fish foods require a high quality binding agent, or they would simply fall apart long before they reached the aquarium. Premium foods use as little as 25% binding agent, while lower quality foods can be as high as 50% of middling and flour.

There can also be an extreme range in the utilization of nutrients and overall digestibility within any ingredient category. Shrimp meal is typically comprised of heads and shells, and many fish meals are typically made up from the processing waste of the fish, not the whole fish. Needless to say, a high quality food uses only whole fish, Krill, Mussel, etc., not leftover waste from processing plants."

http://nlsfishfood.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=29&Itemid=63&limit=1&limitstart=1
 
aclockworkorange;5112415; said:
Yes, the fish food industry is "governed" differently than dog or cat food.


Interesting. No government regulations at all? They can just mash up corn meal and karo syrup and sell it as wonder feed?

RD no offense taken. What I would be more interested in is the definitions of "bad" and " ugly". Putting aside protein and fat content and requirements, is there any validity to those categories being...bad or ugly? And I just found that on that link. Thanks pal.

Bottom line for me has alway been the health and appearance of my fish. I know what's worked well, what didn't and learn from experience. I've had numerous fish that have lived well beyond what would be considered average...and have always maintained health and color.

Again...nothing meant by posting it. Just thought it would make good conversation. And while I don't believe a lot of what's been said and can see the obvious confusion in understanding...I still respect other opinions.
 
Aquamojo;5112554; said:
Interesting. No government regulations at all? They can just mash up corn meal and karo syrup and sell it as wonder feed?

RD no offense taken. What I would be more interested in is the definitions of "bad" and " ugly". Putting aside protein and fat content and requirements, is there any validity to those categories being...bad or ugly? And I just found that on that link. Thanks pal.

Bottom line for me has alway been the health and appearance of my fish. I know what's worked well, what didn't and learn from experience. I've had numerous fish that have lived well beyond what would be considered average...and have always maintained health and color.

Again...nothing meant by posting it. Just thought it would make good conversation. And while I don't believe a lot of what's been said and can see the obvious confusion in understanding...I still respect other opinions.

It's not that there are NO regulations, but it is less regulated than dog or cat food. There are also no laws for animal cruelty or anything for fish, when you can go to jail for abusing dogs or cats. People like dogs and cats more, would be my answer (and there's nothing wrong with that! I love my dogs and cat).

I believe I remember reading that you primarily feed a good quality pellet diet?
 
aclockworkorange;5112591; said:
It's not that there are NO regulations, but it is less regulated than dog or cat food. There are also no laws for animal cruelty or anything for fish, when you can go to jail for abusing dogs or cats. People like dogs and cats more, would be my answer (and there's nothing wrong with that! I love my dogs and cat).

I believe I remember reading that you primarily feed a good quality pellet diet?

You would have to define "less" or point me somewhere that could explain what that means.

I feed my fish a varied diet. One of the components is fish pellets. How much or little depends on the species of fish.
 
MonsterFishKeepers.com