Chinese-English translation of food ingredients

RD.

Crazy Canuck
MFK Member
May 9, 2007
10,298
5,474
2,780
60
Fu Manchu
Real Name
Billy Jack
Gender
Male
Awesome Chili Red(?) Neil (and the rays aren't too shabby either:), thanks for sharing. I wonder what your buddy feeds that beauty?
Unfortunately my friend sold out years ago, and relocated. He had that tank (500 gallon) another 550 gallon filled with Asian aros etc, and numerous 120's with juvenile aros that he imported from Singapore, and black rays from a breeder in the Netherlands, for resale here in Canada. His aros & rays ate a mixed bag of pellets, market prawn, freeze dried krill, salmon, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: islandguy11

islandguy11

Redtail Catfish
Original poster
MFK Member
Sep 17, 2017
1,196
1,786
154
Thailand
Real Name
Barrett
Gender
Male
EQ has been the go to preservative of fish meal for decades, so if you see fish meal on a label, chances are pretty high that it was preserved with EQ. If it was preserved with something more organic/natural, that too will be on the label. No sense spending the extra money if you don't flaunt the bragging rights of using something like Naturox. Consumer lap that stuff up.

Sianlon also states a shelf life of 2 years, which is kind of difficult to do unless at some point the white fish meal, and krill meal, fish oil, etc has been subjected to some form of preservative. Moisture levels aside, eventually fat goes rancid.

Again, I don't have any issues with EQ, unless a manufacturer is using 2-3 times the level of what has been approved for the pet food industry, which is what NF was apparently caught doing.
Thanks for continuing the conversation and contributing Neil -- I reckon most will pass the thread by as a snoozer lol but some might find the info/opinions of interest.

Sure EQ has been the most popular preservative in fish meal for a long time (and I'm pretty sure no proven fish related deaths due to it, though same cannot be said for dog food industry, where at least a few have blamed it for the death of their canine, hence increasing popularity of stuff like Naturox). But I'm pretty sure you'll agree that popularity comes mostly down to simple economics and cost-effectiveness: EQ is much cheaper than Naturox -- and yes, fungal polysaccharides too (let alone on an industrial scale).

And in fact Sianlon does mention the fungal polysaccharides on their can, as does Ultra-fresh, though the latter goes a step further and shows a nice picture of the shroom their polysaccharides are derived from:

1369639

But at the same time you're right in way: it doesn't make sense for esp. Sianlon to overly flaunt it, because the customer base this food is aimed at -- primarily Asian/SEA aquarists -- as a gross generalization (even Asian Asian Arowana owners), for the most part don't really care so much about technical things like EQ, Naturox, or poly-whatever; they're more 'results' (and value) oriented on the whole and less into the finer details.

Regardless of EQ's usage stats, it's also undeniable that there's an ever increasing call to find better, more natural, non-synthetic ways of preserving our (and our pets' food), similar to like we see with calls to move away from the over-use of antibiotics, hence new laws in Canada and other countries -- and that's what I'm mostly interested in (and not just trying to bag on EQ per se).

And while Naturox is some great stuff, this of course doesn't preclude other natural solutions from being studied and hopefully put into practical use -- maybe things like fungal polysaccharides :)

I'm not trying to be a Google or Wikipedia warrior, let alone write a book, but after researching more about fungal polysaccharides I've become very interested in their potential (and of course not only in the fish food industry -- even more importantly in the human/medical side of things). And I'm not alone -- a quick search will show there has been an ever increasing scientific/medical interest (e.g. published studies) about this 'secret' the Chinese have apparently known about for approx. a thousand years lol.

And in regard to my question above wondering if the fungal polysaccharides in Sianlon (and Ultra-Fresh) might be acting as a stabilizer instead of EQ (and maybe BHA/BHT too), I came across a very interesting 2018 study by a Chinese university and published on ScienceDirect.com (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1386142518308308?via=ihub). It certainly doesn't prove my amateur hypothesis, but it does give some credence to the notion or at least possible potential I believe.

Its titled: Molecular characterization of the effects of Ganoderma Lucidum polysaccharides on the structure and activity of bovine serum albumin
And of course anyone can read it their self, but a couple of interesting points jumped out to me in this study:

1) "To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report on the binding mechanism, nonenzymatic glucosylation, fibrillation, thermal stability, and structure information of GLP-BSA system."

2) "The results showed that the formation of GLP-BSA complex by mainly hydrogen-bonding forces resulted in the conformational changes of protein. GLP acted as a stabilizer to increase the thermal stability of BSA solution having a novel and more stable conformational state during the thermal denaturation process, but also affected the ANS binding ability of BSA."

Again while I'm not even remotely sure this is what's going on with Sianlon and Ultra-fresh's use of fungal polysaccharides, as a layman the conclusion above does strike me as kind of like saying 'this stuff might help to keep container ships from blowing up'. About the fat/rancidity issue, I'm not sure on that one yet but it deserves checking out further.

Really I don't wqnt to come across as a Sianlon or Ultra-Fresh fan boy (or EQ antagonist for that matter), I'm sure these foods have some thing or another in them that's not so good, I'm just trying to show there might be different approaches besides EQ, BHA, BHT (and maybe even Naturox too, it's unfortunate it's so expensive).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jaws7777

islandguy11

Redtail Catfish
Original poster
MFK Member
Sep 17, 2017
1,196
1,786
154
Thailand
Real Name
Barrett
Gender
Male
Unfortunately my friend sold out years ago, and relocated. He had that tank (500 gallon) another 550 gallon filled with Asian aros etc, and numerous 120's with juvenile aros that he imported from Singapore, and black rays from a breeder in the Netherlands, for resale here in Canada. His aros & rays ate a mixed bag of pellets, market prawn, freeze dried krill, salmon, etc.
I just tried cod last night. The BB was ok with it, the GH stopped after a few bites, I think he found it rubbery compared to Iridescent shark. I think I'll try a bit of salmon in near future.

But your good info about amylase is making me wonder: with feeding about 35-40% pellets to Aros, do you think this carb/starch inclusion ratio is too high or ok?
 

RD.

Crazy Canuck
MFK Member
May 9, 2007
10,298
5,474
2,780
60
Fu Manchu
Real Name
Billy Jack
Gender
Male
Sure EQ has been the most popular preservative in fish meal for a long time (and I'm pretty sure no proven fish related deaths due to it, though same cannot be said for dog food industry, where at least a few have blamed it for the death of their canine, hence increasing popularity of stuff like Naturox).
Just so there is no confusion, to date, the FDA has found no scientific or medical evidence that ethoxyquin used at approved levels is injurious to human or animal health. Also, the FDA has found no documentation of the claims of harm to any animal. Not even one. In 30+ years of following this topic I suspect that the real issue was some hysterical/fanatical dog owners that most likely had dogs that had allergen issues from fillers (grains & grain by-products etc-etc).

That still happens today, with numerous feed ingredients, and numerous breeds. Anyone interested in reading my thoughts on the subject of EQ, and finfish, dogs, rats, etc, can read the following past discussion where I go into great detail.


IMHO EQ has always been a non-issue when used at approved levels, especially with regards to tropical fish.


As far as foods made in Asia, I don't trust any of them. Not one. Been doing this for far too long, Barrett, and seen too much BS out of Asia. Their regulations are a joke. Remember the Melamine fiasco? That was very real, and did kill many family pets. I called China out on that before it was even mentioned on the news wires.

The first label that you posted in your initial post showed white fish meal, and krill meal, neither of which would be preserved by fungal polysaccharides.

The second label shows the shroom, and it also lists yeast. Remember who first posted "probably yeast" when immunostimulants was mentioned? That was me, because various "yeast" sp. have been used for decades in commercial fish foods, for various reasons. They are not used as an antioxidant, to prevent the food from becoming rancid. Some sp. might help, in the same way that ascorbic acid helps, but that's about it.

What I do find interesting on the label above, is that none of the raw ingredients that they are promoting on the label, are even in the ingredient list? lol Crab, squid, sword prawn, Australian spirulina, and garlic - are nowhere to be seen? Just another example of why I don't generally have much faith/trust in the marketing of, or ingredients found in, Asian foods.


But your good info about amylase is making me wonder: with feeding about 35-40% pellets to Aros, do you think this carb/starch inclusion ratio is too high or ok?
I wouldn't worry about it at all, especially if you are supplementing with assorted fresh/frozen sea foods. :thumbsup:
 
  • Like
Reactions: islandguy11

islandguy11

Redtail Catfish
Original poster
MFK Member
Sep 17, 2017
1,196
1,786
154
Thailand
Real Name
Barrett
Gender
Male
Just so there is no confusion, to date, the FDA has found no scientific or medical evidence that ethoxyquin used at approved levels is injurious to human or animal health. Also, the FDA has found no documentation of the claims of harm to any animal. Not even one. In 30+ years of following this topic I suspect that the real issue was some hysterical/fanatical dog owners that most likely had dogs that had allergen issues from fillers (grains & grain by-products etc-etc).

That still happens today, with numerous feed ingredients, and numerous breeds. Anyone interested in reading my thoughts on the subject of EQ, and finfish, dogs, rats, etc, can read the following past discussion where I go into great detail.


IMHO EQ has always been a non-issue when used at approved levels, especially with regards to tropical fish.


As far as foods made in Asia, I don't trust any of them. Not one. Been doing this for far too long, Barrett, and seen too much BS out of Asia. Their regulations are a joke. Remember the Melamine fiasco? That was very real, and did kill many family pets. I called China out on that before it was even mentioned on the news wires.

The first label that you posted in your initial post showed white fish meal, and krill meal, neither of which would be preserved by fungal polysaccharides.

The second label shows the shroom, and it also lists yeast. Remember who first posted "probably yeast" when immunostimulants was mentioned? That was me, because various "yeast" sp. have been used for decades in commercial fish foods, for various reasons. They are not used as an antioxidant, to prevent the food from becoming rancid. Some sp. might help, in the same way that ascorbic acid helps, but that's about it.

What I do find interesting on the label above, is that none of the raw ingredients that they are promoting on the label, are even in the ingredient list? lol Crab, squid, sword prawn, Australian spirulina, and garlic - are nowhere to be seen? Just another example of why I don't generally have much faith/trust in the marketing of, or ingredients found in, Asian foods.
As stated before agreed that in regulated amounts EQ probably isn't so bad for our pets -- that said there must be a good reason why most gov'ts in the world only allow it's usage for human consumption in very limited amounts and why so many are seeking alternative solutions. So while it's not super bad, it's also undeniable there are better ways of doing it, we should seek these out (as NLS has done with Naturox), and some day for sure there will be better alternatives that are more workable on industrial scales.

Regarding yeast, I would take a similar approach as above and apply it to yeast. Yes maybe there are better ingredients that can do the same thing, but like EQ, having yeast in a fish food also is not end of the world, probably even less so and is not going to significantly affect your fish's health/longevity -- I also doubt there are any fish or pet deaths that are directly related to inclusion of yeast in fish food, in fact natural yeasts are found in the normal microbiota of both wild and farmed fish. Fungal polysaccharides are prebiotics, yeast is the probiotic, they should be working together, it's not a deal breaker at all and I'm not surprised to see it included.

But valid point about the Ultra Fresh label lol, I noticed that as well and am not sure what's going with that -- it's the same on all the Ultra-Fresh labels -- I should drop them a line to get clarification about this. The Sianlon label has no such discrepancies as far as I could tell.

And I get where you are coming from regarding Asian vs. Western made fish foods, I will also readily admit that on the whole I trust the latter more than the former.

But looking at the bigger picture, I think most of us can agree whether a fish is fed NLS or Hikari (or Sianlon or Ultra Fresh for that matter) is not going to be the only and arguably not even the main determinant in that fish's long-term health -- there is absolutely no documented let alone scientific proof that fish live longer/better eating NLS, Northfin or Omega One compared to Asian foods (even if on paper they are mostly better). Basically if I showed someone a fish properly raised on NLS or NF and showed them the same kind/size of fish properly raised on Hikari, absolutely nobody in the world would be able to tell the difference. I would also maintain that whether it was fed NLS or Hikari, there would be no significant difference in longevity, other factors such as proper tank/water conditions would have greater influence over its long-term health than whether it was fed a Western or Asian fish food.

This doesn't detract from your arguments that NLS is on paper very arguably the best made fish food, nor that Sianlon or Ultra Fresh are not perfect -- it just means millions and millions of people have had plenty of awesome success using these Asian brands that are often looked down upon-- which granted isn't helped by Asian manufacturers being so secretive or obtuse about their formulas.
 

RD.

Crazy Canuck
MFK Member
May 9, 2007
10,298
5,474
2,780
60
Fu Manchu
Real Name
Billy Jack
Gender
Male
With regards to EQ, and human consumption …….

Human safety margins are FAR greater than pets, livestock, etc, for obvious reasons. We have to not only consider healthy adults, we have to consider the old, the frail, the ill, pregnant women, and small infants. We also have to consider the average lifespan of a human, compared to a dog, a rat, and a fish. Hence the 100 X safety factor in humans, and the 70 year exposure estimate.

See the following quote of mine from the NF discussion......

The EU are basing their opinions on human health safety, a subject that you and I have already discussed.

Humans are not fish, fish are not rats, rats are not humans, nor are they dogs. In fact, according to the EPA (the same source of information that you have been constantly quoting in the past) dogs are more susceptible to ethoxyquin toxicity than rats. When you consider the size difference, one would think that it would be the other way around, but it doesn't work that way.

Also, under the EPA's *Hypothetical Cancer Dietary Exposure Results and Characterization* - cancer risks are calculated by multiplying the 70 year exposure estimate for the U.S. population by the Q*1 , and are expressed as a probability of developing cancer. Ethoxyquin has been determined to not be a carcinogen and no adequate guideline studies for rats and mice have been submitted for carcinogenic potential of ethoxyquin. To ensure safety in the absence of ethoxyquin specific carcinogenicity studies, a bounding Q*1 of 0.04 (mg/kg/day)-1 was created using the Q* bounding estimation procedure and the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of ethoxyquin.

Again, that is calculated by multiplying a 70 year exposure estimate.

Both the acute and chronic reference dose had a safety factor of 100 applied.

Human safety margins are FAR greater than pets, livestock, etc, for obvious reasons. We have to not only consider healthy adults, we have to consider the old, the frail, the ill, pregnant women, and small infants. We also have to consider the average lifespan of a human, compared to a dog, a rat, and a fish. Hence the 100 X safety factor in humans, and the 70 year exposure estimate.

So when one considers that, it only makes sense that acceptable levels in humans would be 50x lower than what is accepted in fish food, and 25x lower than what is accepted in dog food.

That seems pretty straightforward to me.

Then factor in the fanatics of the world, such as Greenpeace into the equation. The following is also from the NF discussion.

And ........ the only reason that EQ is currently being discussed in the EU, is due to the fact that it is being reauthorized for use in the EU, which is supposed to be finalized by July of this year. Greenpeace is behind a LOT of the current brouhaha in the EU.

http://www.feednavigator.com/Regulation/EFSA-updates-on-timeline-for-ethoxyquin-risk-assessment

And just for the record, I have never once stated "anyone who does not want these products in their animal feeds are "wackos". ......... but a lot of them certainly come across that way. Is that better? :)


Honestly Barrett, you might want to just review that discussion with regards to EQ, it's probably the most in-depth conversation on the subject that you will ever find on a forum regarding fish, dogs, cats, whatever. My dear friend kmuda brought a swiss army knife to a gun fight. lol

One day we may be told that eggs are once again not good for us, and neither is too much Naturox, or too much fungal polysaccharides. Stay tuned! What long term feed trials do we have regarding finfish, and Naturox, and with what species, and at what levels? I assume one will see much higher levels of Naturox, than what one typically sees in EQ. I would think 2-3 times the level, or much shorter shelf life of the food.

Will it be safer for fish? Probably, but at this point I don't think that anyone can give definitive answers about any of this. So the change is made to appease the masses.

At the end of the day the fanatics got their way, the feed manufacturers aren't going to resist, especially in parts of the world such as the EU, and with billions of $$$ of pet food sales at risk most pet food manufacturers will eventually follow suit. The ironic part is all of this is about human grade food, such as fish destined for human consumption, and has nothing to do with the tropical fish industry, where millions of fish die each year before they even reach the hands of a consumer, and millions more shortly after. I get the human safety risk factor, babies, pregnant women, the elderly - but what I don't get is how this should have any effect on the pet trade.

Some days I hug a snowflake just because I know that it makes them feel better, but it doesn't change the world that we live in.

I don't want to turn this into some kind of brand war, so I will leave you with this - IMHO the #1 cause of mortality in home aquaria is caused from overfeeding. In that regards it doesn't matter what brand the food is, overfeeding will eventually cause organ damage, if continued it will be followed by organ failure. But hey, fish are easy to replace, not like a dog or a cat, right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: islandguy11

islandguy11

Redtail Catfish
Original poster
MFK Member
Sep 17, 2017
1,196
1,786
154
Thailand
Real Name
Barrett
Gender
Male
With regards to EQ, and human consumption …….

Human safety margins are FAR greater than pets, livestock, etc, for obvious reasons. We have to not only consider healthy adults, we have to consider the old, the frail, the ill, pregnant women, and small infants. We also have to consider the average lifespan of a human, compared to a dog, a rat, and a fish. Hence the 100 X safety factor in humans, and the 70 year exposure estimate.

See the following quote of mine from the NF discussion......

Then factor in the fanatics of the world, such as Greenpeace into the equation. The following is also from the NF discussion.


Honestly Barrett, you might want to just review that discussion with regards to EQ, it's probably the most in-depth conversation on the subject that you will ever find on a forum regarding fish, dogs, cats, whatever. My dear friend kmuda brought a swiss army knife to a gun fight. lol

One day we may be told that eggs are once again not good for us, and neither is too much Naturox, or too much fungal polysaccharides. Stay tuned! What long term feed trials do we have regarding finfish, and Naturox, and with what species, and at what levels? I assume one will see much higher levels of Naturox, than what one typically sees in EQ. I would think 2-3 times the level, or much shorter shelf life of the food.

Will it be safer for fish? Probably, but at this point I don't think that anyone can give definitive answers about any of this. So the change is made to appease the masses.

At the end of the day the fanatics got their way, the feed manufacturers aren't going to resist, especially in parts of the world such as the EU, and with billions of $$$ of pet food sales at risk most pet food manufacturers will eventually follow suit. The ironic part is all of this is about human grade food, such as fish destined for human consumption, and has nothing to do with the tropical fish industry, where millions of fish die each year before they even reach the hands of a consumer, and millions more shortly after. I get the human safety risk factor, babies, pregnant women, the elderly - but what I don't get is how this should have any effect on the pet trade.

Some days I hug a snowflake just because I know that it makes them feel better, but it doesn't change the world that we live in.

I don't want to turn this into some kind of brand war, so I will leave you with this - IMHO the #1 cause of mortality in home aquaria is caused from overfeeding. In that regards it doesn't matter what brand the food is, overfeeding will eventually cause organ damage, if continued it will be followed by organ failure. But hey, fish are easy to replace, not like a dog or a cat, right?
Great info Neil, Thx for sharing and esp. much agreed with your last paragraph. As a final note, while the thread wasn't originally about Ultra-Fresh, to be fair to them I think I finally figured out (mostly lol) what's going on with their ingredient list. First I think they need to fire their advertising peeps lol.

On the back of the bottle it gives some more info that puts things in somewhat better perspective, but my take is that basically all those things shown in the little pix (crab, squid, sword prawn, Australian spirulina and garlic), followed by the list of "...fresh fish, Norwegian Seaweed, wheat germ....etc.) make up the total ingredient list -- for some stupid reason they just chose to highlight the first ingredients (crab, squid, sword prawn, etc.) by showing them in those pictures with little captions instead of just writing them out normally like most fish foods would.

How I figured this out is that by looking at the back of the bottle they state that all of those pictured items are in the fish food -- except the darn crab, which I can't find anywhere on the back, so not really sure about that one lol.

But whoever does their advertising/marketing materials should arguably be fired lol -- if anything just for showing tomatoes on the label lol. That said I would mostly lay this weird ingredient list presentation down to quirky regional advertising style rather than an attempt to mislead, but of course who knows.

1369724

This is the Carnivorous version. The Goldfish version contains "up to 28% swordfish prawns" and "15% Norwegian seaweed" and also has a quite different level of Vitamins (much less overall). The Cichlid version is not available here as far as I could find.
 

RD.

Crazy Canuck
MFK Member
May 9, 2007
10,298
5,474
2,780
60
Fu Manchu
Real Name
Billy Jack
Gender
Male
You might be right, I'm at a bit of a loss as I have never seen an ingredient list, listed like that on a fish food label.
Very strange, even for an Asian based company. If what you say is true, and I think it might be, it seems like a pretty decent food. One thing that I really like to see, is the high vitamin c content @ 1200 mg/kg, especially if it is in a stable form, such as Polyphosphorylated L‐ascorbic Acid. So incredibly important with regards to stress, and the overall immune system. You could also feed that formula to your FH, just sparingly. I think that it would be fine.
 
zoomed.com
hikariusa.com
aqaimports.com
Store