What is the best cichlid fish food pellets and flakes?

[RD.]

I can't speak on behalf of the owner of New Life, but I suspect that the change had to at least partly to do with marketing. Is it deceiving? Nutrient wise I don't see an issue, it's not like they switched "whole" Antarctic Krill, for "non-whole" processing plant waste (heads & shells) Shrimp meal. Now that would be something to beetch about.

The krill used today, is the same krill used for the past 20 years.

And yes, copper is just as important of an essential micronutrient today as it was 2 yrs ago, the difference is that over the past couple of years New Life has increased the inclusion rate of Antarctic krill in all of their formulas, which in turn increased the total level of bioavailable copper, to the extent that there was no longer a need to add any further supplementation.

 

[JDH]

RD, I've read many of your posts regarding Omega 1 and NLS. It's clear that we know little about the true nature of these ingredients as they are described in whatever marketing terms are best suited. However, you have mentioned that Omega admitted that they use fish frames and other processing waste. This may sound like a bad thing, but do these frames not contain same nutrients as the portions of fish that are being used for human consumption? Surely the processors aren't cleaning these fish to bare bone so that Omega is making pure bone meal. Is the basis of your past arguments based on the misconception that Omega is processing the entire fish in their food?

 

[RD.]

Some of these very same questions were discussed in the previous thread, which has been linked to now a couple of times.


Such as .........

The distinction between whole, and trade names such as fish meal, is simply conveying the fact that some companies use generic fish meal, shrimp meal, etc from processing plant leftovers (scales, shells, heads, and bones) while others use more expensive whole units that have the flesh intact. This also typically equates to an overall lower ash content.

and .....

My biggest problem with Omega has always been how they market their products, such as "Using fresh, cold water marine proteins and kelp, as ingredients, instead of fishmeal and a whole lot of starch (like everyone else) puts Omega One light years ahead of any other fish food on the market. It truly is the “Best Fish Food in the World”

When in reality their fresh cold water marine proteins, are nothing more than glorified fish processing waste. (heads, skins, and bones)

This is in no way stating that Omega makes a poor product, I simply have a very low tolerance level for companies that attempt to feed me BS, and because of that Omega lost me as a customer many years ago.

And obviously, fish processing waste does not contain the same level of nutrients as fish destined for human consumption, due to the amount of scales & bones compared to actual flesh. What you end up with is a high ash (high mineral) count in the processing plant leftovers. There are ways to push that ash content down, and manipulate the numbers on a pet food label while doing so, and I personally believe that is exactly what some companies are doing. The average consumer wouldn't have a clue, anymore than they would to what the actual level of carbohydrate is in a food. Several yrs ago when I first discussed the fact that Omega's "fresh fish from Alaska" equated to processing plant waste, many people didn't believe me. In fact the entire discussion that took place on that subject was quickly removed by the admin on that site, as the owner of Omega had complained to them. Shortly after removing the topic, Omega became a sponsor of that site. This was close to a decade ago.

Personally I'm more concerned with the overall carb content in a food than I am ash content, but both play into another part of the big equation when one is comparing foods, and their total digestibility for most species of fish that we keep in captivity.


And last but not least, one of the things that I have focussed on for many years, and discussed at great lengths on various forums, is the level (and forms) of micronutrients, and bioactive compounds, ingredients that have been proven to have a probiotic effect on fish, including growth promotion, immunostimulation, and acting as anti-stress, anti-bacterial, anti-fungal, and anti-viral agents. If one pays attention to the little details, sometimes the rest falls into place rather easily. Unfortunately these types of substances & their biological effect on fish cannot be easily measured outside of a lab. Most hobbyists focus on growth, and color, and unfortunately neither give a true picture of the overall health of a fish in captivity.

As neutrino previously stated, any decent fish food will have nutrients that naturally are color enhancers. The problem is that even a low quality fish food can be pumped up with color enhancers, with some of those not being very natural at all, but synthetic products, such as Carophyll Pink.

Same with growth, most cichlids will show incredible growth when fed a high protein, high fat trout chow, but we also know that those types of diets can potentially cause long term damage to cichlids due to the accumulation of fatty deposits. (Francis-Floyd et al)

So one cannot simply look at just growth, and/or just color, and determine that a food is high quality, or healthy for a fish. Even long term health is somewhat of a farce, as most hobbyists don't seem to keep their fish long enough to truly measure long term health. How about a fishes response to the introduction of pathogens, bacteria, a virus? Does anyone measure for those scenarios when comparing fish foods? Of course not, but the diet can be a key to how well a fish copes with stress from aggression, breeding, a pathogen, or how fast a torn fin heals. The science regarding the connection between diet, and micronutrient levels such as vitamin c supports all of this. There is no argument there.


Just some random "stuff" to consider when comparing the quality of foods. And on that note, some might find this article to be interesting reading.

http://www.dsm.com/en_US/html/dnpna/anh_aqua_vit_c_health.htm


Cheers

 

[neutrino]

Unfortunately these types of substances & their biological effect on fish cannot be easily measured outside of a lab. Most hobbyists focus on growth, and color, and unfortunately neither give a true picture of the overall health of a fish in captivity.

I would generally agree with that statement with following edit:
Most hobbyists focus on growth, and color, and unfortunately neither give a complete picture of the overall health of a fish in captivity.

Clearly, though, New Life markets growth and color-- and other observables, such as "vitality" as indicators of NLS as a "superior fish food". Pablo's own oft repeated guarantee, found here , for example-- quote: "I am certain of the out come because we are the "ONLY" company in the world that has a very specific guarantee: Feed Spectrum exclusively for 10 days and you will notice the enhancement of color and vitality of your fish, or we will simply refund your money." True, these may not be the only criteria, certainly long term health has to be considered and breeding success has its relative merits, but if color, vitality, etc. were not valid criteria, why bother to ask hobbyists to consider them?

So one cannot simply look at just growth, and/or just color, and determine that a food is high quality, or healthy for a fish. Even long term health is somewhat of a farce, as most hobbyists don't seem to keep their fish long enough to truly measure long term health. How about a fishes response to the introduction of pathogens, bacteria, a virus? Does anyone measure for those scenarios when comparing fish foods? Of course not, but the diet can be a key to how well a fish copes with stress from aggression, breeding, a pathogen, or how fast a torn fin heals.

By such restrictive, stringent criteria as in the above quotes hardly anyone but a scientist would be qualified to evaluate or recommend a fish food, whether NLS or anything else, because we would first have to do a lab analysis to determine what the ingredient ratios actually are, do a controlled study of various species that analyzed both comparative life-span and resistance to the controlled introduction of both pathogens and environmental stressors to determine the "biological effects" of a particular formula.

Clearly, New Life feels that hobbyists are capable of evaluating fish food on simpler criteria, which New Life itself recommends, and clearly New Life appreciates it when hobbyists recommend NLS based on such criteria as color and growth... this page of the Pablo Tepoot nutrition article outlines these and several other such criteria, most of them within the ability of a reasonably experienced hobbyist to observe. Among the points listed are: Palatability, whether or not fish are attracted to and eat the food (Point A). Growth, "A nutrient packed food will produce substantial growth rate and optimum health." (Point B). Color, without distorting a fish's natural color (Point D). Long term health (Point F). Another observable criteria: "Superior food will produce less waste." (Point G).

Clearly, observant and experienced hobbyists can evaluate such things for themselves; and growth and color are valid, if not the only, criteria, and long term health is not a farce for the hobbyists who do keep their fish for many years. Certainly these are among the indicators of: 1) nutrition of sufficient quantity and quality 2) reasonable care in terms of environmental conditions, such as water quality 3) solid fish genetics and immune development.

In fact, who is it that should set the criteria for a fish food marketed to the ornamental pet trade, if not the hobbyists themselves? And what does the average conscientious and reasonably skilled hobbyist expect from a fish food, if not growth and health, good but not artificial color, breeding health, and a healthy and long natural life-span? I'm not an biologist or an aquaculture scientist, but like a lot of other experienced hobbyists I've been successful with fish for many years now, including having bred, raised, and kept enough fish long enough to reach or surpass their predicted life-spans that I think I can conclude I must be doing something right without needing a laboratory to tell me so.

 

[RD.]

Just for the record, my name isn't Pablo, and I don't work for New Life, or any other fish food company.

If you feel that one can simply bank on color, and growth, as a true picture of health & vitality then you are most certainly welcome to your opinion. I just happen to disagree, and in fact do feel that for the most part the average hobbyist is not qualified to fully evaluate fish food. IME most don't even understand the basic fundamentals of this subject beyond high protein = fast growth.

BTW - I never said that long term health is a farce for the hobbyists who do keep their fish for many years, I said; "Even long term health is somewhat of a farce, as most hobbyists don't seem to keep their fish long enough to truly measure long term health."

You can agree to disagree with that as well if you choose, but that is my opinion from having spent many years on forums such as this one. My RL experiences mirror the same. Fish are not dogs or cats, in comparison fish are generally quite expendable to many hobbyists. Again, that is just my opinion from what I have seen & read over many years of kicking around this hobby.

Either way, in the future please don't confuse my personal comments with anything that has been stated by New Life. I do not speak on their behalf, and they do not speak on my behalf. Thanks.

 

[neutrino]

I wasn't confused, nor trying to represent Pablo's statements as your statements. But I consider Pablo a credible source for basic fish nutrition advice and have quoted or referred people to his nutrition article or other information on the New Life site on a number of occasions over the years.

In any case, I certainly agree with you there is more involved in good nutrition than simply color and growth alone and thought I made that pretty clear by mentioning several other factors. Unless I misunderstand, I don't think we're really disagreeing on that in itself and I wasn't making the case that Pablo says those two are all that's important when I referenced or commented on several other things he discusses. On the other hand I don't think that completely eliminates color and growth as part of the overall equation, though, yes, I've seen more than a few who obsessed over growth as though it was the end all/be all of fish feeding.

As for who may or may not be qualified to evaluate fish food or on what level, we may be dealing in personal definitions and semantics there and not just yours or mine, so I'm content to respectfully leave it that we appear to have a different opinion there and/or to be looking at it from a different perspective. My thing there is that agreement isn't the only criteria for respecting someone else's opinion. In any case, my intention wasn't to be combative, but to make my case for another perspective and leave it at that.

 

[dogofwar]

In the end, I think that there are a variety of good-enough fish food products on the market.

Probably more critical to the long-term health of fish is not which among these foods is best...but feeding LESS - in many cases MUCH LESS - of any of them.

And maintaining consistent, high water quality over a sustained amount of time.

These actually go together!

Matt

 

[RD.]

No argument there, Matt. Feeding LESS is something that I have also promoted for many years. And I agree, there are a variety of good-enough fish food products currently on the market that will all get the job done. I personally believe that there are those that have a nutritional edge over others, but as far as feeding freshwater species goes most of the more premium brands will keep ones fish in relative good health over the long haul.

 

[beerad555]

WOW I have learned alot from all the back and forth Thanks to all

 

[krustyart]

I went to the Global Pet Expo recently and was impressed by the presentation of three different food lines. Omega One, Ocean Nutrition and Cobalt. All gave me samples. My cichlids are all very finicky eaters. They are hogs when they like something that is not good for them and snobs when if feed them something that is "Good" for them. Cobalt "color" was one of the samples I got. My fish tore into both the pellets and the flakes. By the fifth day all my fish were noticeably more colorful. Not just in the red Carotenoid storage but in the blue and green iridophore colors. I don't know of any other food that has dormant spores of probiotic bacteria species that match the species actually found in wild fish. Bacteria that is often missing in fish that have been bred in captivity and have been medicated for generations. I am sold on the fact that restoring this gut life has had a beneficial effect on my fish and even if you don't want to feed Cobalt regularly you should get a small container of any type of it and use it to restore those two species of bacteria in your fish. I did grill the bio-engineer about how they kept the spores alive in dry form and the temperatures used during processing and when in the process spores are added etc, and he seemed to be able to answer all of my questions with answers that at least sounded plausible to someone(me) without a biology type degree. I used Cobalt Color but there is also a Cobalt Cichlid and several other types. I also noticed that my fish were able to swallow the Cobalt pellets easier than some other pellets of the same size.