@Kmuda, when are you going to do an analysis on New Era, Seachem, Kent, Fluval, Marineland, San Francisco Bay & Elive?
Fish Food Analysis
- Thread starter Zcddrew
- Start date
- Status
kmuda ........ What the most current labels look like I couldn't tell you, but what I can tell you is that I haven't seen a container of NLS sans an expiration date stamped on the lid in 3-4 yrs, maybe longer. That was also back around the time that soybean isolate was dropped from the food.
Hopefully Pops doesn't mind me answering that question, here.
Hopefully Pops doesn't mind me answering that question, here.
@RD mine does have an expiration date on the lid (Dec 2014), lot #101. I bought it late last year at my local Petco.
Thanks very much for the question. I will get to these in the next few months. Anytime a generic "Fish Meal" is used as the primary ingredient, as is the case with New Era, an attempt has to made to nail down the processes of the company involved. You can't just attempt to rate the food because by default, generic fish meal of unknown origins would receive a low grade.
I have used the Fluval flakes. Subtract the preservatives and the ingredient list and it is actually pretty good. I did a short little blurp on them here but will get a full write up soon.
A short blurp on the Marineland Foods can be found here., but I'm due a full review on these as well.
I am not familiar with Elive. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
Check the ash content on most containers of New Era and the "processes" become fairly obvious - lots of heads, scales, and bones.
I listed some of the pros & cons of NE in the following past discussion.
http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/showthread.php?526563-New-Era-fish-pellets-thoughts
I listed some of the pros & cons of NE in the following past discussion.
http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/showthread.php?526563-New-Era-fish-pellets-thoughts
Fluval doesn't look overly impressive to me ......... dried potato and soybean meal are not ingredients that I would personally consider "outstanding", in fact I consider them to be low grade ingredients that should be avoided, and are more typical of what one generally sees in low cost farm feeds.
FYI to kmuda, soybean meal is not used as a binding agent, it's used as a source of protein. Potato is also often used as a lower cost source of protein, as it is in the Marineland food. Terrestrial plant matter does not always equate to binders.
FYI to kmuda, soybean meal is not used as a binding agent, it's used as a source of protein. Potato is also often used as a lower cost source of protein, as it is in the Marineland food. Terrestrial plant matter does not always equate to binders.
Soybean meal is so low on the ingredient list that I doubt it participates significantly in the protein profile of the food. Being that it's only included in the pellet and not the flake, it would appear to be used as a binder. If Soy can be used in this fashion to at least limit the use of wheat and other terrestrial starches, great. I'd rather see soy than wheat as soy protein is almost as digestible to most fish (omnivores and herbivores) as fish meal. Wheat is much less digestible. I hate feeding bacteria instead of fish. The list of "secondary" ingredients is excellent.
At least the first three ingredients are preferred proteins. Granted, the herring meal is almost certainly comprised of processing left overs, krill is almost certainly listed at its wet weight (and is Euphausia pacifica instead of Euphausia superba), and shrimp meal is on the lower end of preferred proteins. Of the necessary starch binders, I don't see anything worse about dried potato than wheat with the exception that potato use normally indicates a search for additional protein. The question is with Potato removed how much higher would the wheat content be?
As with any food, the question is what it the overall ratio of starch vs digestible protein.
Once again, soybean meal is not used as a binding agent, it's used as a source of protein. I never said that in this case it played a significant role in the protein profile of the food, I doubt that it does, but make no mistake about it at the end of the day all of the protein found in every raw ingredient plays into the total crude protein content in commercial fish food. The fact that you even question that once again demonstrates your overall ignorance on this subject.
The problem with soy is that not only is it a terrestrial based protein, it's a raw ingredient that can carry excess baggage in the form of anti-nutritional matter. Ditto to pea protein. (dried peas) One can greatly reduce that issue via cooking, but the anti-nutritional matter can vary greatly from batch to batch, and season to season. Soy isolate and soy concentrate don't have this problem, but they are FAR more costly, and almost never used in the fish food industry due to the cost. In fact, in years past I know of only one manufacturer that ever used soy in that form. The co$t of raw ingredients will typically paint the most accurate portrayal of the final product. When I see raw ingredients such as soybean meal, dried potato, etc, I simply stop reading. I personlly refuse to feed it to my fish.
Protein and energy digestibility of any raw ingredient, is based on numerous factors, including species of fish (not all omnivores and/or herbivores process the same ingredients in the same manner), the type of processing of that raw ingredient, including the manner in which it is processed. A single screw extruder vs a twin screw extruder running at higher temps can result in different digestibilty, and bioavailabilty, of the exact same raw ingredient. Protein apparent digestibility coefficients (ADCs) have been shown to be as high as 100% for wheat gluten meal, when fed to a carnivorous species such as Rainbow Trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, yet most trout/salmon are turned off by the taste of soybeans, hence they eat less, and thus grow less.
As far as questioning the herring meal, as though the herring meal used in the vast majority of fish foods is comprised of waste (processing left overs), the reality is it's the exact opposite. The pelagic species (herring, anchovy, menhaden, sardines, etc) that are used most often for this purpose are made from "whole" fish, not leftover processing waste. White fish meal would fall under the latter.
http://www.thefishsite.com/articles/1288/production-consumption-of-fishmeal
Herring meal specifically;
http://www.wcrl.com/products/product_spec_sheets/herring_meal.htm
These are small bony fish, common sense should confirm that the fish is being used on a whole basis, not filleted as a salmon or cod would be.
Fish food manufacturers don't add raw ingredients such as soybean meal and dried potato to increase the nutritional value of the food, they do so in an attempt to save production costs.
The problem with soy is that not only is it a terrestrial based protein, it's a raw ingredient that can carry excess baggage in the form of anti-nutritional matter. Ditto to pea protein. (dried peas) One can greatly reduce that issue via cooking, but the anti-nutritional matter can vary greatly from batch to batch, and season to season. Soy isolate and soy concentrate don't have this problem, but they are FAR more costly, and almost never used in the fish food industry due to the cost. In fact, in years past I know of only one manufacturer that ever used soy in that form. The co$t of raw ingredients will typically paint the most accurate portrayal of the final product. When I see raw ingredients such as soybean meal, dried potato, etc, I simply stop reading. I personlly refuse to feed it to my fish.
Protein and energy digestibility of any raw ingredient, is based on numerous factors, including species of fish (not all omnivores and/or herbivores process the same ingredients in the same manner), the type of processing of that raw ingredient, including the manner in which it is processed. A single screw extruder vs a twin screw extruder running at higher temps can result in different digestibilty, and bioavailabilty, of the exact same raw ingredient. Protein apparent digestibility coefficients (ADCs) have been shown to be as high as 100% for wheat gluten meal, when fed to a carnivorous species such as Rainbow Trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, yet most trout/salmon are turned off by the taste of soybeans, hence they eat less, and thus grow less.
As far as questioning the herring meal, as though the herring meal used in the vast majority of fish foods is comprised of waste (processing left overs), the reality is it's the exact opposite. The pelagic species (herring, anchovy, menhaden, sardines, etc) that are used most often for this purpose are made from "whole" fish, not leftover processing waste. White fish meal would fall under the latter.
http://www.thefishsite.com/articles/1288/production-consumption-of-fishmeal
Herring meal specifically;
http://www.wcrl.com/products/product_spec_sheets/herring_meal.htm
These are small bony fish, common sense should confirm that the fish is being used on a whole basis, not filleted as a salmon or cod would be.
Fish food manufacturers don't add raw ingredients such as soybean meal and dried potato to increase the nutritional value of the food, they do so in an attempt to save production costs.
- Status
