Dan F;5136375; said:Why did you have to mention his name? Before long he will be on this thread proselytizing his religion...
Yeah, that's what I'm hoping. I'm looking forward to reading his reply.
A different fish food question
- Thread starter Jason_S
- Start date
Yeah, that's what I'm hoping. I'm looking forward to reading his reply.
Dan, if you feel that you can answer this question better than I can, by all means have at it .........
Jason,
The listings that you posted are from some very old labels, that obviously Ken has never taken the time to update. The Koi food listing isn't just outdated, it's incorrect. What clockwork posted is far more current, but even that label is now being updated as we speak.
It's not. My recommendation with NLS has always been to gauge ones choice of pellet by the size of your fishes mouth.
Yes there are differences in some of the formulas, and of course some is due to marketing. The simple reality is that many consumers buy food based on nothing more than what's displayed on the label, there's no getting around that fact. A discus person wants to see a discus on the label, not some generic label with several species of cichlids. Ironically a number of times over the years I have had people ask me if they can feed their "cichlid" formula to their discus. My response is usually "discus are cichlids, aren't they?"
But with NLS the term marketing ploy is a bit of a stretch, when one considers that some manufacturers will have consumers believe that they need 7 or 8 formulas, just for goldfish. Even going so far to have a formula just for Oranda, and one just for Lionheads, as though each of these goldfish require different nutrients. WTF?
New Life has attempted to keep things as simple as possible, all ingredients used in NLS are fairly identical, but the ingredient proportions are in fact different in a number of the formulas. It's a simple concept, when you find something that works very well, you don't want to deviate too far from the original recipe. If/when things can be improved, you improve them, which the owner of NLS has done several times over the years, and continues to if/when new research in various areas becomes available.
New Life spends zero on marketing, they don't even have marketing reps, or sales reps. They've made their mark in this business through the quality of their product, and by keeping things real. Marketing through education, not through BS, and millions of dollars in advertising. New Life International is a USA based family owned & operated business, not some foreign public traded company that answers to shareholders.
Many companies have moved towards "species specific" branding, as though the thousands of tropical fish in this hobby all require a different diet. The truth is all fish require in captivity is varying degrees of amino acids, lipids, vitamins & trace minerals. Ask the "species specific" people what the specific carbohydrate requirements are for each of these specific species & I'm guessing they'll quickly end the conversation.
Here's a recent one that I especially love, where the term "Perfect Protein" has become a registered trade mark.
And somehow this food is the first fish food designed to provide the ideal balance of the essential amino acids your fish require. They actually state that in their full page advertisements. Unbelievable, and yet millions of consumers buy into this type of marketing without giving any of it more than a few seconds of thought. Some probably buy it just because of the pretty label.
With regards to fishmeal, I'm not sure what your issue is with meal ingredients, but perhaps the following article on fish meal will help alleviate some or all of your concerns. It was written by R.D. Miles, Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, and F.A. Chapman, Associate Professor, Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences; University of Florida.
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fa122
And one on krill meal .......
http://www.aquafeed.com/article.php?id=439§ionid=5
Don't let all the hyperbole that you read on the internet about fish meal etc being "bad" cause you any concern. Most of the people that attempt to put a negative spin on meal products typically don't know what the hell they are talking about. New Life buys direct from the biggest & best suppliers out there, and manufacture their food on site in their own FDA approved state of the art facilities.
BTW - one of the slickest forms or consumer deception is by listing fresh whole products in pet foods as the main ingredient. These ingredients such as whole fresh chicken, whole salmon, whole beef, etc, contain on average 80-90% water content. Remove the water & the percentage of that so called "main" ingredient will land several ingredients down the list.
Just something to keep in mind when you're shopping for dog food.
And of course some fish food companies that list raw ingredients such as "whole salmon & cod", don't mention the fact that what they are really using is processing plant waste, that consists of heads, bones, and scales. Not exactly "fresh fish from the ocean" as they would like everyone to believe.
Hopefully this isn't going to turn into another one of those 20 page long discussions, by now most of this info should be available via the search function.
The listings that you posted are from some very old labels, that obviously Ken has never taken the time to update. The Koi food listing isn't just outdated, it's incorrect. What clockwork posted is far more current, but even that label is now being updated as we speak.
It's not. My recommendation with NLS has always been to gauge ones choice of pellet by the size of your fishes mouth.
Yes there are differences in some of the formulas, and of course some is due to marketing. The simple reality is that many consumers buy food based on nothing more than what's displayed on the label, there's no getting around that fact. A discus person wants to see a discus on the label, not some generic label with several species of cichlids. Ironically a number of times over the years I have had people ask me if they can feed their "cichlid" formula to their discus. My response is usually "discus are cichlids, aren't they?"
But with NLS the term marketing ploy is a bit of a stretch, when one considers that some manufacturers will have consumers believe that they need 7 or 8 formulas, just for goldfish. Even going so far to have a formula just for Oranda, and one just for Lionheads, as though each of these goldfish require different nutrients. WTF?
New Life has attempted to keep things as simple as possible, all ingredients used in NLS are fairly identical, but the ingredient proportions are in fact different in a number of the formulas. It's a simple concept, when you find something that works very well, you don't want to deviate too far from the original recipe. If/when things can be improved, you improve them, which the owner of NLS has done several times over the years, and continues to if/when new research in various areas becomes available.
New Life spends zero on marketing, they don't even have marketing reps, or sales reps. They've made their mark in this business through the quality of their product, and by keeping things real. Marketing through education, not through BS, and millions of dollars in advertising. New Life International is a USA based family owned & operated business, not some foreign public traded company that answers to shareholders.
Many companies have moved towards "species specific" branding, as though the thousands of tropical fish in this hobby all require a different diet. The truth is all fish require in captivity is varying degrees of amino acids, lipids, vitamins & trace minerals. Ask the "species specific" people what the specific carbohydrate requirements are for each of these specific species & I'm guessing they'll quickly end the conversation.
Here's a recent one that I especially love, where the term "Perfect Protein" has become a registered trade mark.
And somehow this food is the first fish food designed to provide the ideal balance of the essential amino acids your fish require. They actually state that in their full page advertisements. Unbelievable, and yet millions of consumers buy into this type of marketing without giving any of it more than a few seconds of thought. Some probably buy it just because of the pretty label.
With regards to fishmeal, I'm not sure what your issue is with meal ingredients, but perhaps the following article on fish meal will help alleviate some or all of your concerns. It was written by R.D. Miles, Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, and F.A. Chapman, Associate Professor, Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences; University of Florida.
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fa122
And one on krill meal .......
http://www.aquafeed.com/article.php?id=439§ionid=5
Don't let all the hyperbole that you read on the internet about fish meal etc being "bad" cause you any concern. Most of the people that attempt to put a negative spin on meal products typically don't know what the hell they are talking about. New Life buys direct from the biggest & best suppliers out there, and manufacture their food on site in their own FDA approved state of the art facilities.
BTW - one of the slickest forms or consumer deception is by listing fresh whole products in pet foods as the main ingredient. These ingredients such as whole fresh chicken, whole salmon, whole beef, etc, contain on average 80-90% water content. Remove the water & the percentage of that so called "main" ingredient will land several ingredients down the list.
Just something to keep in mind when you're shopping for dog food.
And of course some fish food companies that list raw ingredients such as "whole salmon & cod", don't mention the fact that what they are really using is processing plant waste, that consists of heads, bones, and scales. Not exactly "fresh fish from the ocean" as they would like everyone to believe.
Hopefully this isn't going to turn into another one of those 20 page long discussions, by now most of this info should be available via the search function.
RD.;5137529; said:
Thanks for the info RD. I don't have anything against meal products per se. I've just always figured that if I'm comparing 2 products where 1 has "krill" and the other has "krill meal" as the first ingredient then I would prefer going with the one that has krill. Same for dog food...if the first ingredient is "chicken" in one product and "chicken meal" in another then I prefer to go with the one with chicken. I admit it's for my own peace of mind because krill sounds better than krill meal.
I hadn't noticed that the information on Ken's website was outdated but I just checked the label on the product I received from them and the ingredients list is in fact different on the product than what it lists on the website. Thank you to those who pointed that out. I'm going to send an email to them letting them know and requesting they update though I don't know if anything will come from it.
I have seen and read the majority of the other tens of hundreds of pages from threads about fish food and their ingredients and it was not my intention to have this thread turn into that. I do, however, know that different species of fish would require different types of proteins, lipids, etc. For example the Tropheus of Lake Tanganyika being herbivores cannot process the same type of proteins that, say, a piscivore like a Pbass would require so specialty Tropheus foods are supposedly specifically formulated for their dietary requirements. I was simply wondering if the same type of attention to detail went into the formulas for other fish types such as Koi/goldfish vs. cichlids. I definitely agree that different formulas for lionheads vs. orandas etc is silly.
In the end I'm sure that the quality of the pellet and the size of the pellet are much more important than the formula unless we're talking about Tropheus or other specialized eaters.
Speaking of pellet size, the kind I have are I believe 4.5 mm and the fish I feed them to are between 6-11". Only the smallest fish in the tank does any chewing and has any small fragments being spit out but the silver dollars take care of those fragments.
I appreciate the information provided and any further opinions are more than welcome.
For anyone that has read some of the following info in a previous life, I'll apologize in advance for my verbosity.
That's actually not true. All fish require the exact same nutrients, the levels of those nutrients will simply vary among various species.
This is the BIG lie that many manufacturers would prefer to keep hush hush. They want to sell you one of everything, as though each fish in your tank has very special individual dietary requirements. Obviously one can't simply come up with one formula for all situations, and all fish, but the whole "species specific" diet spiel has become ridiculous.
The vast majority of fish are opportunistic feeders, and are all omnivorous to a certain extent. Fish that are classified as carnivores don't just eat meat, any more than a fish classified as a herbivore just consumes vegetable matter.
The vast majority of wild fish are opportunistic feeders, and will eat pretty much anything that comes their way, and while herbivores may in fact consume large amounts of plant matter, and carnivores may in fact eat large amounts of fish/crustacean based foods, that plant matter often contains certain amounts of nymphs, larvae, crustaceans, snails, mites, micro-organisms, and zoo plankton (protein/fat), and the smaller fish and/or crustaceans that the larger carnivores consume are typically gut loaded with phytoplankton & other smaller aquatic organisms (plant matter), so in actuality most freshwater fish consume the same types of protein, fats, carbs, etc, just in varying degrees.
While a fish classified as a strict herbivore (such as a Tropheus moorii) may indeed spend its entire day scraping the aufwuchs, I can assure you that they would much rather eat a handful of worms if given the opportunity. In the wild they eat low quality foods because that's the only foods available, not because they choose to.
Their long digestive tracts are designed as such so that in nature they can break down the complex plant matter that they consume, which doesn't mean that they can't properly assimilate more easily digestible forms of protein. This is a concept that many hobbyists fail to grasp.
Myself along with tens of thousands of other hobbyists have raised many species of fish classified as strict herbivores, such as Tropheus sp. on the exact same food as fish classified as piscivores, such as Cyphotilapia sp.
No problem.
A high quality pellet that contains a multitude of high quality raw ingredients will contain complete and balanced nutrition for ALL species, the only secret is understanding how to properly feed some of the different fish. You don't allow a fish such as a Tropheus to gorge themselves on a nutrient rich food, and for those that fall more on the carnivorous side of the equation you make sure they get a higher rate of food. Many frontosa keepers feed on the heavy side, but may only feed 4-5 times per week. Tropheus are better off being fed smaller amounts, more often. The key is reaching an optimum feed conversion ratio within each tank, and understanding that one has to meet the energy & growth requirements of the fish they are keeping.
The worse case scenario is that some of the amino acids (protein) may be excreted by herbivores, while the carnivores will utilize the majority of what's supplied. As long as the fat levels aren't overly excessive, Bob's yer uncle.
I told Pablo years ago that if he created a "herbivore" pellet (with large inclusion rates of seaweed, kelp, spirulina etc, he could make millions, and he agreed, but he wouldn't do it as he knew that in captivity this is not the way to provide optimum nutrient levels to a herbivore. To me that speaks volumes about the integrity of the man behind the food.
Others look at nothing much beyond numbers, and if there's a golden opportunity to meet a supply & demand situation, they will supply what the consumer wants, even if that consumer is uninformed & confused by the massive amount of propaganda and misinformation that has been perpetuated for many years in this industry.
Now we have companies selling 8 different formulas of food for freaking Flowerhorns. Again, WTF? You can feed a flowerhorn the same food that you feed any other cichlid, but as long as consumers remain ignorant there are companies that are cashing in, some of them, BIG time.
A formula to enhance the color red, one for shiny pearls, another for massive nuchal humps, etc-etc. A total crock of BS, but again, they are simply supplying a demand, and the shareholers ain't complaining.
For the past 40+ years, the owner of New Life has maintained ...... 120 ponds (approximately 30,000 gal. each), 1500 concrete vats (250gal.-500gal. each) and 1,000 40 gal. fry tanks on 2 five acre farms. A mix of cichlids that have been classified as strict herbivores, omnivores, and carnivores, including those classified as piscivores. and during this period every last fish on his farm ate the exact same food. No problem.
I mean even a cheap low cost bulk koi food can be fed to a piscivore, they simply won't be able to assimilate such a high carb diet as efficiently as a koi would. Fish do not digest carbs with the same efficiency as terrestrial animals. While it is true that even carnivorous fish are capable of producing some enzymes for digesting carbs, their ability to assimilate & fully utilize carbs is limited, unlike say a koi/carp, where 30-40% carbs can be utilized efficiently.
So while many "monster" fish keepers are fixating on protein levels, many miss one of the most important factors, that being the carb/starch levels in their food of choice. In today's market, with the cost of fish meal, krill meal, etc skyrocketing in price, many manufacturers are looking for lower cost terrestrial based plant protein alternatives.
But this is the land of MFK, where it seems that many hobbyists main goal is to grow BIG fish really FAST. The recent dog food topic is a prime example, some people see quick gains in growth & after that their eyes glaze over. The rest of the conversation just became a moot point.
Those are the people that fixate on little besides growth. And I am not pointing fingers at anyone that uses this type of feed once a month, so no hate mail please.
The largest freshwater carnivores in North America, Acipenser transmontanus (White Sturgeon), are raised commercially exclusively on pellet food that typically consists of 40-45% crude protein, and this species exceed both size & weight of the vast majority of tropical fish kept in captivity. Mature breeding (roe producing) adults can weigh hundreds of pounds, and be 7-10 feet long. Yet somehow there are those in this hobby that feel their pet fish (fill in the species blank) require more protein than a TRUE monster, kept in massive flow through systems such as the White Sturgeon. It's difficult for me not to LOL at that type of mentality.
MFK - woot-woot!
The whole fish "meal" is of lower nutrient value, or lesser quality, than whole fish type of logic doesn't exactly play out that way when you take into account all of the variables involved. Unless you are privy to the value of the raw ingredient, the exact inclusion rates, and the manufacturing process (including temps & durations used) you really have no idea which food contains better biological nutrient value or digestibility at post processing levels. Do dehydrated apples have no nutrient value? Of course not, yet this is how many people view fish meal, as though it somehow isn't quite as fresh or nutrient rich as other fish based raw ingredients. The reason that I posted that previous link is because neither of those authors have any vested interest in this subject, and both are considered experts in their field.
The reality is most labels provide a general guideline as to what's in the container, and not much more. Pet food is a multi-billion dollar industry, and most manufacturers hold their cards fairly tight to their chest. I realize that this can at times be confusing as well as frustrating to consumers, but no one is going to hand the competition their proprietary information on a silver platter.
That's actually not true. All fish require the exact same nutrients, the levels of those nutrients will simply vary among various species.
This is the BIG lie that many manufacturers would prefer to keep hush hush. They want to sell you one of everything, as though each fish in your tank has very special individual dietary requirements. Obviously one can't simply come up with one formula for all situations, and all fish, but the whole "species specific" diet spiel has become ridiculous.
The vast majority of fish are opportunistic feeders, and are all omnivorous to a certain extent. Fish that are classified as carnivores don't just eat meat, any more than a fish classified as a herbivore just consumes vegetable matter.
The vast majority of wild fish are opportunistic feeders, and will eat pretty much anything that comes their way, and while herbivores may in fact consume large amounts of plant matter, and carnivores may in fact eat large amounts of fish/crustacean based foods, that plant matter often contains certain amounts of nymphs, larvae, crustaceans, snails, mites, micro-organisms, and zoo plankton (protein/fat), and the smaller fish and/or crustaceans that the larger carnivores consume are typically gut loaded with phytoplankton & other smaller aquatic organisms (plant matter), so in actuality most freshwater fish consume the same types of protein, fats, carbs, etc, just in varying degrees.
While a fish classified as a strict herbivore (such as a Tropheus moorii) may indeed spend its entire day scraping the aufwuchs, I can assure you that they would much rather eat a handful of worms if given the opportunity. In the wild they eat low quality foods because that's the only foods available, not because they choose to.
Their long digestive tracts are designed as such so that in nature they can break down the complex plant matter that they consume, which doesn't mean that they can't properly assimilate more easily digestible forms of protein. This is a concept that many hobbyists fail to grasp.
Myself along with tens of thousands of other hobbyists have raised many species of fish classified as strict herbivores, such as Tropheus sp. on the exact same food as fish classified as piscivores, such as Cyphotilapia sp.
No problem.
A high quality pellet that contains a multitude of high quality raw ingredients will contain complete and balanced nutrition for ALL species, the only secret is understanding how to properly feed some of the different fish. You don't allow a fish such as a Tropheus to gorge themselves on a nutrient rich food, and for those that fall more on the carnivorous side of the equation you make sure they get a higher rate of food. Many frontosa keepers feed on the heavy side, but may only feed 4-5 times per week. Tropheus are better off being fed smaller amounts, more often. The key is reaching an optimum feed conversion ratio within each tank, and understanding that one has to meet the energy & growth requirements of the fish they are keeping.
The worse case scenario is that some of the amino acids (protein) may be excreted by herbivores, while the carnivores will utilize the majority of what's supplied. As long as the fat levels aren't overly excessive, Bob's yer uncle.
I told Pablo years ago that if he created a "herbivore" pellet (with large inclusion rates of seaweed, kelp, spirulina etc, he could make millions, and he agreed, but he wouldn't do it as he knew that in captivity this is not the way to provide optimum nutrient levels to a herbivore. To me that speaks volumes about the integrity of the man behind the food.
Others look at nothing much beyond numbers, and if there's a golden opportunity to meet a supply & demand situation, they will supply what the consumer wants, even if that consumer is uninformed & confused by the massive amount of propaganda and misinformation that has been perpetuated for many years in this industry.
Now we have companies selling 8 different formulas of food for freaking Flowerhorns. Again, WTF? You can feed a flowerhorn the same food that you feed any other cichlid, but as long as consumers remain ignorant there are companies that are cashing in, some of them, BIG time.
A formula to enhance the color red, one for shiny pearls, another for massive nuchal humps, etc-etc. A total crock of BS, but again, they are simply supplying a demand, and the shareholers ain't complaining.
For the past 40+ years, the owner of New Life has maintained ...... 120 ponds (approximately 30,000 gal. each), 1500 concrete vats (250gal.-500gal. each) and 1,000 40 gal. fry tanks on 2 five acre farms. A mix of cichlids that have been classified as strict herbivores, omnivores, and carnivores, including those classified as piscivores. and during this period every last fish on his farm ate the exact same food. No problem.
I mean even a cheap low cost bulk koi food can be fed to a piscivore, they simply won't be able to assimilate such a high carb diet as efficiently as a koi would. Fish do not digest carbs with the same efficiency as terrestrial animals. While it is true that even carnivorous fish are capable of producing some enzymes for digesting carbs, their ability to assimilate & fully utilize carbs is limited, unlike say a koi/carp, where 30-40% carbs can be utilized efficiently.
So while many "monster" fish keepers are fixating on protein levels, many miss one of the most important factors, that being the carb/starch levels in their food of choice. In today's market, with the cost of fish meal, krill meal, etc skyrocketing in price, many manufacturers are looking for lower cost terrestrial based plant protein alternatives.
But this is the land of MFK, where it seems that many hobbyists main goal is to grow BIG fish really FAST. The recent dog food topic is a prime example, some people see quick gains in growth & after that their eyes glaze over. The rest of the conversation just became a moot point.
Those are the people that fixate on little besides growth. And I am not pointing fingers at anyone that uses this type of feed once a month, so no hate mail please.
The largest freshwater carnivores in North America, Acipenser transmontanus (White Sturgeon), are raised commercially exclusively on pellet food that typically consists of 40-45% crude protein, and this species exceed both size & weight of the vast majority of tropical fish kept in captivity. Mature breeding (roe producing) adults can weigh hundreds of pounds, and be 7-10 feet long. Yet somehow there are those in this hobby that feel their pet fish (fill in the species blank) require more protein than a TRUE monster, kept in massive flow through systems such as the White Sturgeon. It's difficult for me not to LOL at that type of mentality.
MFK - woot-woot!
The whole fish "meal" is of lower nutrient value, or lesser quality, than whole fish type of logic doesn't exactly play out that way when you take into account all of the variables involved. Unless you are privy to the value of the raw ingredient, the exact inclusion rates, and the manufacturing process (including temps & durations used) you really have no idea which food contains better biological nutrient value or digestibility at post processing levels. Do dehydrated apples have no nutrient value? Of course not, yet this is how many people view fish meal, as though it somehow isn't quite as fresh or nutrient rich as other fish based raw ingredients. The reason that I posted that previous link is because neither of those authors have any vested interest in this subject, and both are considered experts in their field.
The reality is most labels provide a general guideline as to what's in the container, and not much more. Pet food is a multi-billion dollar industry, and most manufacturers hold their cards fairly tight to their chest. I realize that this can at times be confusing as well as frustrating to consumers, but no one is going to hand the competition their proprietary information on a silver platter.
Thank you for the links (which I will check out when I have time) and the effort put into your responses. That is the reason I posed the question, to get such responses.
thank you for clarifying. I kind of figured that but didn't express it very well in my response. Basically the point I was trying to make is that some species have different dietary requirements, which you more than explained in great, much appreciated detail.
thank you for clarifying. I kind of figured that but didn't express it very well in my response. Basically the point I was trying to make is that some species have different dietary requirements, which you more than explained in great, much appreciated detail.
