Tomatoes are in the nightshade family of plants. These plants produce toxic substances to prevent themselves from being eaten. (Check it out on the internet) These toxins are not good for fish. That is why tomatoes should not be fed to your fish. I am not here to argue with you. I am just trying to help you provide your fish with a diet that is good for them.
DIY fish food
- Thread starter Chitala Ornata Mama
- Start date
Whatever. You want to be right, so be right.
Feed your fish whatever you'd like. I am not going to argue with you. Have a lovely weekend.
Feed your fish whatever you'd like. I am not going to argue with you. Have a lovely weekend.
You posted a recipe for fish food on a public forum that can potentially be dangerous to fish. I just wouldn't want others to copy it. Tomatoes and spinach are not good for fish. I listed other vegetables that are safe to feed to your fish. I'm done too. Enjoy!
It might not be the best choice, but you can break down those acids with heat making them at least accpetable for fish. Pellets have long been out there and most people generall trust pellets. The reality out there is that most companies dont really know much about fish nutrition. I use Hikari, personally. Do you know who does the majority of testing on fish food? Its the farmers. Ive watched two new, healthy pellets get tested on trout for a few months. Its funny how two state of the art "healthy" pellets can have such a drastic difference in what it does to fish. I would think about your pellets a little more if you think a pellet trumps home made any day. Pellets are great but many brands are very sore losers. Ever think about wheat, corn or soy? They are not there for nutritionl value, they are only there for fillers. Corn? seriously as a filler, we cant even eat corn. Most brands dont even test their pellets as long as their ingredients have already been deemed safe. Research your food before you think it is the safest option to feed your babies
Some good points made by Joe.
More food for fodder ...........
Fish aren't hard wired to assimilate the fatty acids found in beef, anymore than they are hard wired to assimilate large amounts of carbs. These excess lipids get stored in & around the organs, and eventually shorten the fishes lifespan. Can these foodstuffs offer amino acids, and solid growth, yes, no question about that, but that doesn't qualify them as being a good source of food.
Dr. Peter Burgess MSc, Ph.D.,of the Aquarium Advisory Service in England, is not only an experienced aquarium hobbyist, but also a scientist that specializes in the health & disease in fish. He has written over 300 articles and five books on fish health and is a visiting lecturer in Aquarium Sciences and Conservation at Plymouth University, where he works with the University of Plymouth training students in scientific research. Among his other positions, Dr. Burgess is a senior consultant to the Mars FishCare business and regularly runs fish health & husbandry courses for aquarists, fish scientists and vets. He's also a regular contributor & Fish Health consultant for the Practical Fishkeeping Magazine, as well as other magazines devoted to the fish keeping hobby.
Below is an excerpt from an article that Dr. Burgess wrote for Practical Fishkeeping Magazine titled;
To which I will also add, when a fish has to excrete excess amino acids, they must first be deaminated via the liver, a process that not only requires energy (which could be used for growth etc) but over time also places an extra burden on the fishes liver.
Kevin previously stated:
Really, how so Kevin? I know a number of people that have been feeding their various puffers pellets, some of them exclusively, for several years with no ill effects. Quite the opposite, all very healthy fish. This includes both marine & freshwater species. I'm certainly not saying that one can't feed fresh food, such as clams etc to a puffer, but to state that a pellet diet is terrible for them is based on what science exactly? Something that you read on an internet chat forum?
As far as terrestrial based grains, carbs, starches, etc ..........
The term "filler" is a bit of a misnomer. No ingredient used in commercial fish food is used to simply fill a void, they are all added for their nutritional value. With regards to carbs/starch, this only becomes a problem when used in excess, which clearly can be seen in some of the lower quality feeds out there.
I do not know of a single species of fish (marine or freshwater) that have been studied for dietary requirements that has not demonstrated the ability to produce natural enzymes such as amylase that allows them to break down, assimilate, and utilze carbs/starch, including those derived from terrestrial grains. While it is true that most species of fish do not use carbohydrates very efficiently, carbs do in fact help synthesize both lipds & protein.
There is no question that some manufacturers get carried away with these types of ingredients as carbs can be utilized as a cheap source of energy, and protein, but this does not equate to these types of ingredients having zero nutritional matter. As long as their inclusion rate is limited, as in a small amount for binding the food, there is no major negative. Would I feed a food that is loaded with starch/carbs, absolutely not, no matter if their origin was aquatic based, or terrestrial based, fresh/frozen, or cooked.
Another common misconception is that raw always trumps cooked, in the case of feeding fish that simply isn't true. Most carbs/starches are more easily assimilated by fish if they are processed (heated) first. Yes some vitamins are lost in the process, but certainly not all, and vitamins & minerals can be made up if one uses quality supplements. With regards to carbs derived from terrestrial sources, cooking those raw ingredients (such as running them through an extruder) also reduces most of the anti-nutriinal matter found in these types of ingredients.
As an example, many people believe that raw peas are a great food source for fish, yet that couldn't be further from the truth. Fresh/canned peas are a very poor source of nutrition for fish.
Peas must be processed first, as they contain anti-nutritional matter, such as tannins, protease inhibitors, saponins, cyanogens, and phytic acid, which when consumed in excess can have a very negative effect on the growth & overall health of fish.
Also, the anti-nutritional factors found in peas can vary greatly from crop to crop & season to season. Something as simple as dry weather, or a cold spell, can push tannin levels up drastically.
The heat from processing will reduce most of this anti nutritional matter, but even then most fish can only digest & assimilate so much terrestrial based plant matter, carnivores/piscivores much less than herbivores. All of this has been well documented in commercial aquaculture for many years.
I find it more than just a bit humorous that someone would state that a company that has millions of dollars invested in this area, and whose food is being fed to fish at some of the most prestigious public aquariums in North America, with people such as Charles Delbeek M.Sc., senior biologist at the Steinhart Aquarium in San Francisco overseeing the feeding, wouldn't really know much about fish nutrition, but a DIY Betty Crocker posting on an internet chat forum, would.
More food for fodder ...........
Fish aren't hard wired to assimilate the fatty acids found in beef, anymore than they are hard wired to assimilate large amounts of carbs. These excess lipids get stored in & around the organs, and eventually shorten the fishes lifespan. Can these foodstuffs offer amino acids, and solid growth, yes, no question about that, but that doesn't qualify them as being a good source of food.
Dr. Peter Burgess MSc, Ph.D.,of the Aquarium Advisory Service in England, is not only an experienced aquarium hobbyist, but also a scientist that specializes in the health & disease in fish. He has written over 300 articles and five books on fish health and is a visiting lecturer in Aquarium Sciences and Conservation at Plymouth University, where he works with the University of Plymouth training students in scientific research. Among his other positions, Dr. Burgess is a senior consultant to the Mars FishCare business and regularly runs fish health & husbandry courses for aquarists, fish scientists and vets. He's also a regular contributor & Fish Health consultant for the Practical Fishkeeping Magazine, as well as other magazines devoted to the fish keeping hobby.
Below is an excerpt from an article that Dr. Burgess wrote for Practical Fishkeeping Magazine titled;
To which I will also add, when a fish has to excrete excess amino acids, they must first be deaminated via the liver, a process that not only requires energy (which could be used for growth etc) but over time also places an extra burden on the fishes liver.
Kevin previously stated:
Really, how so Kevin? I know a number of people that have been feeding their various puffers pellets, some of them exclusively, for several years with no ill effects. Quite the opposite, all very healthy fish. This includes both marine & freshwater species. I'm certainly not saying that one can't feed fresh food, such as clams etc to a puffer, but to state that a pellet diet is terrible for them is based on what science exactly? Something that you read on an internet chat forum?
As far as terrestrial based grains, carbs, starches, etc ..........
The term "filler" is a bit of a misnomer. No ingredient used in commercial fish food is used to simply fill a void, they are all added for their nutritional value. With regards to carbs/starch, this only becomes a problem when used in excess, which clearly can be seen in some of the lower quality feeds out there.
I do not know of a single species of fish (marine or freshwater) that have been studied for dietary requirements that has not demonstrated the ability to produce natural enzymes such as amylase that allows them to break down, assimilate, and utilze carbs/starch, including those derived from terrestrial grains. While it is true that most species of fish do not use carbohydrates very efficiently, carbs do in fact help synthesize both lipds & protein.
There is no question that some manufacturers get carried away with these types of ingredients as carbs can be utilized as a cheap source of energy, and protein, but this does not equate to these types of ingredients having zero nutritional matter. As long as their inclusion rate is limited, as in a small amount for binding the food, there is no major negative. Would I feed a food that is loaded with starch/carbs, absolutely not, no matter if their origin was aquatic based, or terrestrial based, fresh/frozen, or cooked.
Another common misconception is that raw always trumps cooked, in the case of feeding fish that simply isn't true. Most carbs/starches are more easily assimilated by fish if they are processed (heated) first. Yes some vitamins are lost in the process, but certainly not all, and vitamins & minerals can be made up if one uses quality supplements. With regards to carbs derived from terrestrial sources, cooking those raw ingredients (such as running them through an extruder) also reduces most of the anti-nutriinal matter found in these types of ingredients.
As an example, many people believe that raw peas are a great food source for fish, yet that couldn't be further from the truth. Fresh/canned peas are a very poor source of nutrition for fish.
Peas must be processed first, as they contain anti-nutritional matter, such as tannins, protease inhibitors, saponins, cyanogens, and phytic acid, which when consumed in excess can have a very negative effect on the growth & overall health of fish.
Also, the anti-nutritional factors found in peas can vary greatly from crop to crop & season to season. Something as simple as dry weather, or a cold spell, can push tannin levels up drastically.
The heat from processing will reduce most of this anti nutritional matter, but even then most fish can only digest & assimilate so much terrestrial based plant matter, carnivores/piscivores much less than herbivores. All of this has been well documented in commercial aquaculture for many years.
I find it more than just a bit humorous that someone would state that a company that has millions of dollars invested in this area, and whose food is being fed to fish at some of the most prestigious public aquariums in North America, with people such as Charles Delbeek M.Sc., senior biologist at the Steinhart Aquarium in San Francisco overseeing the feeding, wouldn't really know much about fish nutrition, but a DIY Betty Crocker posting on an internet chat forum, would.
Wow... That was a long post.Some good points made by Joe.
More food for fodder ...........
Fish aren't hard wired to assimilate the fatty acids found in beef, anymore than they are hard wired to assimilate large amounts of carbs. These excess lipids get stored in & around the organs, and eventually shorten the fishes lifespan. Can these foodstuffs offer amino acids, and solid growth, yes, no question about that, but that doesn't qualify them as being a good source of food.
Dr. Peter Burgess MSc, Ph.D.,of the Aquarium Advisory Service in England, is not only an experienced aquarium hobbyist, but also a scientist that specializes in the health & disease in fish. He has written over 300 articles and five books on fish health and is a visiting lecturer in Aquarium Sciences and Conservation at Plymouth University, where he works with the University of Plymouth training students in scientific research. Among his other positions, Dr. Burgess is a senior consultant to the Mars FishCare business and regularly runs fish health & husbandry courses for aquarists, fish scientists and vets. He's also a regular contributor & Fish Health consultant for the Practical Fishkeeping Magazine, as well as other magazines devoted to the fish keeping hobby.
Below is an excerpt from an article that Dr. Burgess wrote for Practical Fishkeeping Magazine titled;
To which I will also add, when a fish has to excrete excess amino acids, they must first be deaminated via the liver, a process that not only requires energy (which could be used for growth etc) but over time also places an extra burden on the fishes liver.
Kevin previously stated:
Really, how so Kevin? I know a number of people that have been feeding their various puffers pellets, some of them exclusively, for several years with no ill effects. Quite the opposite, all very healthy fish. This includes both marine & freshwater species. I'm certainly not saying that one can't feed fresh food, such as clams etc to a puffer, but to state that a pellet diet is terrible for them is based on what science exactly? Something that you read on an internet chat forum?
As far as terrestrial based grains, carbs, starches, etc ..........
The term "filler" is a bit of a misnomer. No ingredient used in commercial fish food is used to simply fill a void, they are all added for their nutritional value. With regards to carbs/starch, this only becomes a problem when used in excess, which clearly can be seen in some of the lower quality feeds out there.
I do not know of a single species of fish (marine or freshwater) that have been studied for dietary requirements that has not demonstrated the ability to produce natural enzymes such as amylase that allows them to break down, assimilate, and utilze carbs/starch, including those derived from terrestrial grains. While it is true that most species of fish do not use carbohydrates very efficiently, carbs do in fact help synthesize both lipds & protein.
There is no question that some manufacturers get carried away with these types of ingredients as carbs can be utilized as a cheap source of energy, and protein, but this does not equate to these types of ingredients having zero nutritional matter. As long as their inclusion rate is limited, as in a small amount for binding the food, there is no negative. Would I feed a food that is loaded with starch/carbs, absolutely not, no matter if their origin was aquatic based, or terrestrial based, fresh/frozen, or cooked.
Another common misconception is that raw always trumps cooked, in the case of feeding fish that simply isn't true. Most carbs/starches are more easily assimilated by fish if they are processed (heated) first. Yes some vitamins are lost in the process, but certainly not all, and vitamins & minerals can be made up if one uses quality supplements. With regards to carbs derived from terrestrial sources, cooking those raw ingredients (such as running them through an extruder) also reduces most of the anti-nutriinal matter found in these types of ingredients.
As an example, many people believe that raw peas are a great food source for fish, yet that couldn't be further from the truth. Fresh/canned peas are a very poor source of nutrition for fish.
Peas must be processed first, as they contain anti-nutritional matter, such as tannins, protease inhibitors, saponins, cyanogens, and phytic acid, which when consumed in excess can have a very negative effect on the growth & overall health of fish.
Also, the anti-nutritional factors found in peas can vary greatly from crop to crop & season to season. Something as simple as dry weather, or a cold spell, can push tannin levels up drastically.
The heat from processing will reduce most of this anti nutritional matter, but even then most fish can only digest & assimilate so much terrestrial based plant matter, carnivores/piscivores much less than herbivores. All of this has been well documented in commercial aquaculture for many years.
I find it more than just a bit humorous that someone would state that a company that has millions of dollars invested in this area, and whose food is being fed to fish at some of the most prestigious public aquariums in North America, with people such as Charles Delbeek M.Sc., senior biologist at the Steinhart Aquarium in San Francisco overseeing the feeding, wouldn't really know much about fish nutrition, but a DIY Betty Crocker posting on an internet chat forum, would.
I know of the people you speak of and I hold them, and their work, in high regards. I agree with you on your nutritional points, which is where i said mineral differences or vitamnis etc. They are not perfect substitutes. As far as the veggies, I wouldnt recommend alot of it in a carnivore diet anyway.
I still say corn or other ingredients like it are fillers. They have a nutritional value, but this value is not all that great for the fish, nor is it digestably a good choice. I use many commercial feeds and trust many of them. But there are companies that DO NOT put much into their research and sell their product cheaply with a High filler content with products such as corn as a way to keep prices low. These feeds are primarily researched through trial and error from the buyers. If the company spends millions on their product and has scientists doing the research, im sure that they are one of the manufacturers that I buy from. Some pellets are a great choice, other pellets fall way short of a healthy diet.
I still say corn or other ingredients like it are fillers. They have a nutritional value, but this value is not all that great for the fish, nor is it digestably a good choice. I use many commercial feeds and trust many of them. But there are companies that DO NOT put much into their research and sell their product cheaply with a High filler content with products such as corn as a way to keep prices low. These feeds are primarily researched through trial and error from the buyers. If the company spends millions on their product and has scientists doing the research, im sure that they are one of the manufacturers that I buy from. Some pellets are a great choice, other pellets fall way short of a healthy diet.
Certainly, as previously stated some food companies do use lower quality (lower cost) ingredients to save money, there is no argument there.
My only issue is with those that that lump all of these ingredients together as being "bad" for a fish, or having no nutritional value. Clearly commercial fish farms are always looking for ways to reduce feed costs, as feed costs are often the main cost of the operation, but at the same time their #1 goal is to raise fingerlings to production size as fast as humanly possible. For commercial farmers of trout, salmon, catfish, etc, it's all about feed conversion ratios. With todays cost of animal based protein, such as fish meal, krill meal, etc, many farms are seeking lower cost alternatives.
Again, ingredients such as corn are not "fillers", the correct term would be lower cost alternatives to more traditional sources of protein. As an example, even cold water carnvivores such as trout are capable of digesting protein derived from corn gluten. Corn gluten is approx 60% crude protein, and according to the research that's been performed in this area 97% of that protein is digestible to a trout. http://aquatech.com.ve/pdf/hardy.pdf
That doesn't mean that one can use a high inclusion rate, as carnivores have a breaking point with regards to digestibility & overall assimilation of carbs, but at 10-15% of the overall formula corn is most certainly not just a "filler". Neither is wheat, or any of the other terrestrial based grains.
From a past article regarding trout feed posted by some researchers at Idaho State University;
Almost every ingredient fed to a fish kept in captivity will have some kind of pro and con attached to it, the key is to the best of our ability properly balance all of the raw ingredients, at proper ratios, and proper nutrient levels, something that the average aquarist is going to have a very difficult time acheiving when using ingredients such as those listed by the OP of this discussion. (cow liver, V8 juice, and gelatin)
The overall nutrient value of that food becomes a case of by guess, or by golly.
My only issue is with those that that lump all of these ingredients together as being "bad" for a fish, or having no nutritional value. Clearly commercial fish farms are always looking for ways to reduce feed costs, as feed costs are often the main cost of the operation, but at the same time their #1 goal is to raise fingerlings to production size as fast as humanly possible. For commercial farmers of trout, salmon, catfish, etc, it's all about feed conversion ratios. With todays cost of animal based protein, such as fish meal, krill meal, etc, many farms are seeking lower cost alternatives.
Again, ingredients such as corn are not "fillers", the correct term would be lower cost alternatives to more traditional sources of protein. As an example, even cold water carnvivores such as trout are capable of digesting protein derived from corn gluten. Corn gluten is approx 60% crude protein, and according to the research that's been performed in this area 97% of that protein is digestible to a trout. http://aquatech.com.ve/pdf/hardy.pdf
That doesn't mean that one can use a high inclusion rate, as carnivores have a breaking point with regards to digestibility & overall assimilation of carbs, but at 10-15% of the overall formula corn is most certainly not just a "filler". Neither is wheat, or any of the other terrestrial based grains.
From a past article regarding trout feed posted by some researchers at Idaho State University;
Almost every ingredient fed to a fish kept in captivity will have some kind of pro and con attached to it, the key is to the best of our ability properly balance all of the raw ingredients, at proper ratios, and proper nutrient levels, something that the average aquarist is going to have a very difficult time acheiving when using ingredients such as those listed by the OP of this discussion. (cow liver, V8 juice, and gelatin)
The overall nutrient value of that food becomes a case of by guess, or by golly.
I know from trout hatcheries here in Maine, there is a big difference between foods that work and foods that dont. Just because they are offered and/or used for commercial production does not mean it is healthy for the fish. The last feed trial the hatchery performed, the new test food did not grow the fish. The fish ate twice as much as they did on the previous feed and still LOST weight. You can get nutrition from the fillers if they are used properly. If brands like Hikari use corn and my fish are healthy and growing, great. but there are lots of other brands that use the same ingredients in unhealthy ways that do not benefit the fish.
As it has been stated before with the veggies, its not just what you use but how you prepare it.
Does anyone have any other DIY recipes, I typically do not make my own food as I dont enjoy the tedious work of ratios and balancing lol.
You can continue to use the term fillers until you are blue in the face, it's a misnomer, nothing in any form of commercial fish food is used as a "filler". In the manner in which you are using the term, filler is being defined as - something added to augment weight or size or fill space, which in regards to commercial fish food is simply not the case.
These types of ingredients are used to save feed costs on farms, and production costs by some manufacturers. End of story. What, you don't think that Hikari uses corn, wheat, dried bakery products, etc, to save costs?
So what if a trout farm experiments with a feed and it doesn't perform well, what is that supposed to prove? That every ingredient used in that particular formula has no nutrient value? Apparently they attempted to push the limit a wee bit too much in an attempt to reduce their feed costs, and it didn't pan out.
Obviously not all fish food is created equally with regards to overall nutrient value, digestibility, etc, any more than are dog foods, cat foods, bird foods, etc.
These types of ingredients are used to save feed costs on farms, and production costs by some manufacturers. End of story. What, you don't think that Hikari uses corn, wheat, dried bakery products, etc, to save costs?
So what if a trout farm experiments with a feed and it doesn't perform well, what is that supposed to prove? That every ingredient used in that particular formula has no nutrient value? Apparently they attempted to push the limit a wee bit too much in an attempt to reduce their feed costs, and it didn't pan out.
Obviously not all fish food is created equally with regards to overall nutrient value, digestibility, etc, any more than are dog foods, cat foods, bird foods, etc.
