What are you feeding YOUR fish?!

[xEchOx]

Looks like I'm a bit late in replying (trying to pick up dead beaten horse to get a ride back to town...)

I actually was working all weekend and most of last week as clearly presented by my absence.

I don't think anyone here can dispute the information being spewed by RD. Clearly you have researched and researched and researched this topic. I would like to know how and why you are so certain that this preservative is 100% safe? Let me be clear that I'm not questioning your science or methods. You have proven over and over that we cannot come up with evidence that it is harmful, but can you come up with evidence that proves it is safe?

How about your unstirred faith in the ethics of these industries. You don't think that these million dollar corporations wouldn't tell a little white lie to make a dollar? Look at all of the products and foods made for human use and consumption that are recalled every year that made people sick or worse yet even resulted in their deaths...... You think a fish food manufacturer wouldn't skip a few health and safety regulations to make a buck?

Maybe I do sound a bit fanatical, but you sir sound waaay to certain for my piece of mind. Perhaps the earth is still flat and the sun revolves around the earth and making fire is witch craft....

All I'm saying is I'm keeping an open mind.

 

[rwellbaum]

 

[RD.]

Xechox ........... You must have me confused with someone else? I understand better than most that some pet food manufacturers are lacking in ethics. I suggest you carefully re-read my last comment.

High inclusion rates of starch, high inclusion rates of lipids, raw ingredients such as "Dried Bakery Products", "Corn Flakes", or mystery ingredients simply listed as "Starch". Ingredients listed on labels by wet weight, in order to create the illusion that they have a lot of "fresh fish" in their food compared to starch, foods with vitamin levels that are below most generic farm feeds, etc-etc-etc.

I have seen it all, and commented about all of this & more since before Al Gore invented the internet.

As previously stated;

Feed trials, both short term, and long term have been taking place within aquaculture circles for the past 100+ years. Again, in the USA alone, that would probably equate to 100's of thousands of feed trials within both the public & private sector over the past 50 years, where highly qualified independent accredited labs are performing the work. These are highly trained & highly qualified professionals that typically aren't going to be overlooking anything when the FOOD itself is being analysed, and most certainly NOT pyknosis of the liver, increased enzyme activity, or issues involving any type of immunosuppression.

Then you have the manufacturers themselves doing their own feed trials & studies, sometimes in-house, sometimes sourced out to non-biased independent accredited labs, that are also checking blood, organs, muscle tissue, etc-etc long before their food is even released to the public, and again on a regular ongoing basis - and you think that this supposed issue would again be completely overlooked?

Think about it.

You want people to believe that this potentially serious health issue that places the liver & kidneys of tropical fish in harms way has been taking place for the past 50 years, but somehow no one working in this area has ever stumbled on to this?

Are you kidding me?


That defies logic xEchOx.


There are people with fish that have consumed this very same preservative for decades, and they are still alive & well & thriving in their owners tank. Forget the labs, forget the thousands of feed trials & studies, just the real life examples of longevity of fish kept in this hobby over the past few decades (while consuming this preservative) is all the evidence that I require.

Your mileage may vary .........

 

[kmuda]

High inclusion rates of starch, high inclusion rates of lipids, raw ingredients such as "Dried Bakery Products", "Corn Flakes", or mystery ingredients simply listed as "Starch". Ingredients listed on labels by wet weight, in order to create the illusion that they have a lot of "fresh fish" in their food compared to starch, foods with vitamin levels that are below most generic farm feeds, etc-etc-etc.

On this we are in 110% agreement.

I had posted a semi-related question prior to the dead horse being resurrected.

I am interested in your opinion on the use of Fish Protein Digest as a replacement for Fish Meal. I am asking simply because there is almost no information available on exactly what this product is and how it nutritionally compares to fish meal. Several foods contain some variant of it as less than a major ingredient, in conjunction with fish meal. I assume this is as a spray to improve protein content of the food. But it has also started showing up as a primary ingredient listed as "Dried Fish Protein Digest" or "Condensed Fish Protein Digest". I was hopeful you could shed some light?

 

[xEchOx]

and you think that this supposed issue would again be completely overlooked?
Are you kidding me?

That defies logic xEchOx

How do "highly trained professionals" develop and release a drug like fen-phen (diet pill) which resulted in several deaths and thousands of cases of pulmonary hypertension? This product was approved by the FDA by the way...

It's very easy - greed. Money.

If there are hundreds of feed trials performed by individual parties documenting the use of ethoxyquin and dubbing it irrelevant, great. I'll concede to the conventional wisdom that ethoxyquin is harmless. Until I see that proof I'll remain skeptical.

 

[RD.]

XechOx ............. I never said that ethoxyquin is harmless. I have also never said that Vitamin A is harmless. Both substances can cause all sorts of health issues, in dogs, cats, rats, mice, humans, and even fish - when excessive quantities are consumed.


Perhaps I should have explained in more detail as to how the whole ethoxyquin fiasco started with dogs, back in I believe the late 1980's. At or around that time there were a few manufacturers of dog food that were making "new" premium type diets, high in protein, and high in fat - a lot higher than most previous dog food formulas on the market. Some people using these foods began seeing health issues in their dogs, and it was believed at the time that these conditions (and there were LOTS of various health issues reported, not just liver & kidney problems) were from some type of toxin. It was also at this time that some people within the dog industry began to speculate that these dog food manufacturers with their "new" formulas were adding FAR greater amounts of preservative to their food than in past decades, due to the higher protein and higher fat inclusion rates. (note to kmuda - this is why inclusion rates of a preservative have nothing to do with fish meal)

Just to be clear, I have never once stated that this did not happen, I honestly have no idea but it most certainly is in fact possible. Others speculated that it was possibly from local environmental toxins etc-etc, and was not diet related at all. Others felt it was from excessive use of terrestrial based grains, which again is quite plausible. Unfortunately I don't believe that anyone back then took samples of the food & tested for ethox levels (or anything else for that matter) so it all ended up as pure speculation. That, or by the time anyone did get around to testing the food those manufacturers had already cleaned up their act. Bottom line is no one knows exactly what caused all of these various health issues in all of these various dogs, but ethox was blamed by many.

Some of this is explained in more detail in the following report.

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/121/11_Suppl/S163.full.pdf




Interestingly enough, in some of the various studies that have been performed using this preservative, it has been shown to suppress the carcinogenic potential of a number of compounds.

That's right, it actually helps reduce certain types of cancer. I bet that no one saw that coming.

The incidences of mammary tumors, carcinomas and fibroaden-omas in DMBA-treated animals were reduced by diet containing BHA or ethoxyquin.

http://carcin.oxfordjournals.org/content/7/7/1155.abstract



From the Journal of Cancer Research .........

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/44/3/1072.full.pdf

Antioxidants are widely used in pharmaceutical products, food,
and cosmetics in order to prevent or retard fat autoxidation by
means of their radical scavenger properties (5, 45-47). The
synthetic antioxidants have been shown to protect against tumor
induction in a variety of rodent tissues by a variety of chemical
carcinogens, including benzo(a)pyrene, 7,12-dimethylbenz(a)-
anthracene, diethylnitrosamine, aflatoxin B,, and methylazoxymethanol
acetate (3, 13, 17, 22, 34, 41, 45, 46). Although the
mechanism by which antioxidants BHA, 3,5-ferf-butyl 4-hydroxytoluene,
and ethoxyquin inhibit chemical carcinogenesis is not
understood, recent investigations have implied that these agents
exert inhibitory effects either by altering carcinogen metabolism
or by reducing free radical reactions, thereby inhibiting lipid
peroxidation (

Biochemical labs describe ethoxyquin as; A synthetic antioxidant which inhibits chemically induced carcinogenesis. It exerts its chemopreventive action by inducing glutathione synthetase, one of the enzymes in the synthesis of glutathione, and the phase II drug metabolizing enzyme glutathione s-transferase(GST).

So there's more than just one side to this debate, and there are just as many studies (or more) out there that prove its value as a safe preservative, even acting to inhibit certain types of cancer in animals, as there are studies showing that the levels typically found in pet food are in any way unsafe.

Also note that I could have posted those links in my initial comment, I didn't bother because quite frankly they have about as much merit in this discussion as most of the other studies linked to & discussed thus far. (dogs, monkeys, mice, humans)




BTW - I am not posting any of this info to convince anyone of anything. Feel free to remain a skeptic, feed pellets, don't feed pellets, whatever, feed your fish Russian caviar for all I care, no skin off my nose.

My only reason for posting what I have is to demonstrate that there are always 2 sides to every story. I have been involved with this subject & this preservative & this industry for many years so my take on it is going to be different than most folks who thus far have only recently been subjected to one side of the debate.




Kmuda ......... I'm not exactly sure what fish protein digest is, but I suspect that it is a dry form of fish hydrolysate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_hydrolysate

When it comes to amino acid content, digestibility, palatability, as a raw ingredient in fish food fish meal is I think pretty much impossible to beat. A good read on this ingredient by a couple of non-biased experts in this field, R.D. Miles, Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, and F.A. Chapman, Associate Professor, Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences; Florida Cooperative Extension Service, University of Florida.

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/FA/FA12200.pdf

On this we are in 110% agreement.

Yet those ingredients mentioned are all used in various formulas by a company that you support & endorse on your website.

 

[kmuda]

Kmuda ......... I'm not exactly sure what fish protein digest is, but I suspect that it is a dry form of fish hydrolysate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_hydrolysate

I believe you are right. The AAFCO definition of Dried Fish Protein Digest is:

the dried enzymatic digest of clean undecomposed whole fish or fish cuttings using the enzyme hydrolysis process. The product must be free of bones, scales and undigested solids with or without the extraction of part of the oil. It must contain not less than 80 percent protein and not more than 10 percent moisture.

Which sounds much better than fish protein hydrolysate, which, from reading the link you sent (and the references in that link) sounds like the processing of the remnants of the remnants.... or the processing of what's left of the fish after fish meal is processed. I would assume the "free of bones, scales and undigested solids" section of the AAFCO statement is in reference to the end product as bones and scales are certainly involved in the manufacture of fish protein hydrolysate. Regardless, it's looking like this gets marked down as a non-preferred primary ingredient.

Yet those ingredients mentioned are all used in various formulas by a company that you support & endorse on your website.

Yes, but if you'll notice, the products containing flaked corn and dried bakery products did not rate any higher than average or below average, with those identified as "average" only receiving that rating based upon an assumed positive ratio of preferred proteins and some level of trust in Hikari fish meals. "Alpha starch" is one of those ingredients I am still seeking information on.

Am I correct in assuming that some type of binder (wheat/soy) will comprise at least 15% - 20% of all foods? And at what percentage do you label it excessive?

 

[RD.]

Kmuda ......... for myself it comes down to an issue of trust with a company like that. How do I trust a company that uses raw ingredients in their fish food such as "corn flakes", "dried bakery products", or mystery ingredients simply listed as "starch", or "alpha starch"? I mean what the hell is dried bakery products doing in a fish food? And even more so, a company that outright refuses to answer what those mystery starches consist of? (trust me, myself & others have aksed) For myself, as a consumer, this is a far greater issue for me than what form of preservative they use.

Am I correct in assuming that some type of binder (wheat/soy) will comprise at least 15% - 20% of all foods? And at what percentage do you label it excessive?

While carbohydrates are not a necessary component in a fishes diet, they do play a role in commercial feed, beyond just being used as a binding agent. Carbohydrates, including various forms of starch & grain, also supply a source of energy to a fish, assist in synthesizing lipids and protein, and when used properly, can also be a viable source of protein. Some soy products such as isolate and concentrate can somewhat help with binding, but are used as a protein source. Soybean meal is added as a low cost source of protein.

Generally speaking wheat flour is one of the best and most common binding agents, but many others are used as well, from glutens to alginates. 15%-20% is a VERY generous range. IMO 15%-20% starch is rare in the fish food industry, most foods would fall more in the 30%-40% range, some 50+%. I think that most people would be shocked to find out the actual level of carbs in their food.

Defining excessive really boils down to a few different things for me, depending on the species of fish. As an example 30% starch might not be excessive for a koi food, but for a predatory species such as an arowana I would want to see those levels down below 20%.
Carnivores typically cannot produce the quantity of carb digesting enzymes therefore cannot assimilate the same amount of carbs as a fish that is herbivorous.

I also like to see most of that starch sourced from aquatic plant matter such as algae meal, spirulina, kelp, etc, and not so much from terrestrial based grains such as corn, soybeans, etc. This is especially important with marine fish, as at higher levels terrestrial based lipids can actually be toxic.


HTH

 

[xEchOx]

Sooooo, WTH are we arguing about here? You said it yourself right here-

How do I trust a company that uses raw ingredients in their fish food such as "corn flakes", "dried bakery products", or mystery ingredients simply listed as "starch", or "alpha starch"? I mean what the hell is dried bakery products doing in a fish food?

I mean lets add to that hydrolyzed feather meal, blood meal, etc, etc. The list goes on. These manufacturers put this other garbage in their foods how am I supposed to trust that the "safe" amount of ethoxyquin are infact being followed?

 

[RD.]

I suggest that one finds a manufacturer that they can trust, and that has already withstood the test of time. For myself, that means that for a starter what I can see has to add up & make sense, or for certain what I can't see most likely will not.

Obviously not every fish food manufacturer uses hydrolyzed feather meal, pork blood meal, or dried bakery products in their food.


kmuda - check your PM