Fish Food Summary
- Thread starter Aquamojo
- Start date
dogofwar;5113750; said:
Matt,
You'd have to define what morbidly obese meant. I always think of my good friend Chris's (Cichlid Scene) fish when I hear obese. For no other reason than I have never seen fish that size. I have always leaned on feeding less rather than more.
I think you are spot on with "the ones constantly debated". Like people, what you eat and how much can easily put a yardstick on your life span. I think some of the hard keeper fish are greatly affected by the lack of good nutrition.
Hi Mo,
My point is that massive overfeeding (with any food) could impact health / lifespan a lot more than feeding NLS vs. Hikari vs. another high quality prepared food.
There IS a big difference on health / lifespan between feeding BAD food (hot dogs, dog food, cat food, etc.) vs. a quality fish food. And of course massive overfeeding of bad food isn't good either!
I think that the best yardstick is how a fish appears in the wild. If a riverine fish is fat and lumpy...and not sleek and graceful...it's getting too much to eat! That said, I'm a sucker for a hungry, lunker of a big cichlid as much as the next guy...and I'd imagine that neither overeating nor old age are the most common causes of death in the wild...
I think it also makes a lot of sense to understand HOW a particular fish feeds in the wild. Some fish costantly graze relatively low protein foods. Guess what happends if they constantly graze high protein foods? Some fish - predators - can go days without eating in the wild...and then have a really big meal. Probably makes sense to fast them a couple of days a week in captivity.
Matt
My point is that massive overfeeding (with any food) could impact health / lifespan a lot more than feeding NLS vs. Hikari vs. another high quality prepared food.
There IS a big difference on health / lifespan between feeding BAD food (hot dogs, dog food, cat food, etc.) vs. a quality fish food. And of course massive overfeeding of bad food isn't good either!
I think that the best yardstick is how a fish appears in the wild. If a riverine fish is fat and lumpy...and not sleek and graceful...it's getting too much to eat! That said, I'm a sucker for a hungry, lunker of a big cichlid as much as the next guy...and I'd imagine that neither overeating nor old age are the most common causes of death in the wild...
I think it also makes a lot of sense to understand HOW a particular fish feeds in the wild. Some fish costantly graze relatively low protein foods. Guess what happends if they constantly graze high protein foods? Some fish - predators - can go days without eating in the wild...and then have a really big meal. Probably makes sense to fast them a couple of days a week in captivity.
Matt
Aquamojo;5114099; said:
Agreed, but morbid obesity is not generally the cause of premature death in aquarium fish, fatty liver disease is. (at least according to some of the experts in this field)
The problem with fatty deposition of the liver is you can't see it with the naked eye, it can build up very quickly, and if not corrected can shave years off of the life of an otherwise healthy specimen.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a932079092
Also from this study;
This had nothing to do with massive overfeeding, or fish that appeared obese. Without performing a necropsy, and examining the histological changes in the liver under a microscope, the average hobbyist wouldn't have clue one as to the potential long term damage they were doing to their fish.
The fish used in this study were only 4 weeks old when the feed trial began, and averaged 0.06 g in weight, and 1.5 cm in total length.
Now imagine what happens to the liver of an adult CA/SA cichlid (with much lower metabolisms) when fed diets that contain excessive amounts of lipids. (fat)
The juvie H. ahli (s. fryeri) used in this study fared much better being a carnivore, but it still showed a lipid accumulation in the hepatocytes. (<50%) The P. socolofi had extensive lipid accumulation when fed the TP diet.
This study came about after some cichlid farms in south FL suffered from some large mortalities in both 1998 & 1999. When the dead fish were examined they showed fatty infiltration of the liver, heavy vacuolation, and severe necrosis of the liver, pancreas, and spleen.
It was suggested to the farms that they replace ther feeds with one that had a lower lipid content (less than 10%) and supplement the feed with a vitamin premix. Clinical signs in the affected farms were resolved after implementation of these recommendations.
Good insight regarding the dangers of fatty deposits on the liver. Fish are different than humans (in among other ways) that they can grow throughout their lives.
If a fish eats twice as much (of the same) food as another fish, isn't it consuming twice as much fat?
Or (conversersely) if a fish eats twice as much food with lower fat (say 5%) as a another fish that eats higher fat (10%) food, aren't their fat consumptions the same? Are there other - positive or negative - implications of eating higher fat foods (in moderation)? Excess calories (or other nutrients) from eating MORE food (regardless of fat)?
If some level of minimization of fats (that could accumulate on the liver) is the goal, why does the chart list "Minimum Fat/Lipids Percentage"? MAXIMUM fat would seem like a better metric... Maybe I'm missing something!
Thanks Mo for sparking a thought provoking (for me at least) discussion
Matt
If a fish eats twice as much (of the same) food as another fish, isn't it consuming twice as much fat?
Or (conversersely) if a fish eats twice as much food with lower fat (say 5%) as a another fish that eats higher fat (10%) food, aren't their fat consumptions the same? Are there other - positive or negative - implications of eating higher fat foods (in moderation)? Excess calories (or other nutrients) from eating MORE food (regardless of fat)?
If some level of minimization of fats (that could accumulate on the liver) is the goal, why does the chart list "Minimum Fat/Lipids Percentage"? MAXIMUM fat would seem like a better metric... Maybe I'm missing something!
Thanks Mo for sparking a thought provoking (for me at least) discussion
Matt
dogofwar;5114435; said:
It is probably because a lot of fish food manufactueres only list minimum values, to hide the fact that they produce garbage feeds. Pardon my french.
Personally i only feed my fish a brand that lists guaranteed analysis of the content in max values.
Settle down now Mr. Hagel, it has nothing to do with anything of the sort. Where do you come up with some of these conspiracy theories of yours?
Most commercial fish foods will have what is known as a typical analysis, and a guaranteed analysis, and they take a middle ground to ensure that the readings are never over or under their guaranteed %. So for say protein %, if a manufacturer claims a min of 45% protein, there had better be at least 45% protein in that food if/when any regulatory body tests the food. For a value such as ash content, if the manufacturer lists 10% max ash content, it had best not be over 10%. Even state agricultural divisions will test feeds, and if values aren't correct they will take the manufacturer to task, even is it's only over or under by a percentage or two. As an example, below is a link to one of the state of Rhode Islands Feed & Fertilizer analysis performed in 2007.
http://www.dem.ri.gov/programs/bnatres/agricult/pdf/feedinsp.pdf
If you jump down to Table 1., you'll find that the second company listed (Aqua Pet Americas) which is the mother company for Ocean Nutrition, you'll see that out of 1 sample selected, and 3 guaranteed analysis tests, 1 of those tests failed to meet the companies stated quantity on their label.
If you scroll further down in the document you can see that in this case Ocean Nutritions stated min protein % was listed as 55.4%, and when tested it was determined by the state to be 52.31%. Ooops.
The logic behind min & max values is that 99% of manufacturers aren't going to list a min of 45% protein (protein being the most expensive portion of the food) and then have 60% actual protein. If you're a cheater, you're going to go under the value advertised, not over. For max value listings such as ash content, same thing, no one is going to list MORE than what may be found in their product, if they are attempting to pull a fast one they will list a lower % on their label than what may actually be present.
Bottom line is, anyone playing number games will get caught with their pants down soon enough, so it doesn't make any sense from a business perspective to screw around with the government at a state or federal level.
Make sense now?
Matt - what you stated about fat consumption is true, in theory one could feed a food that is high in both protein & fat, as long as they do so much more sparingly than they would a food with much lower quantities of both.
I think that would work fine for someone such as yourself who understands how & what various species consume in the wild, but would be a recipe for disaster for those that are constantly asking; "what can I feed for the quickest growth humanly possible".
I just recently read such a thread, posted by someone who for this & other reasons will probably end up wiping out most of the fish in his tank before he's done. The unfortunate reality is that the vast majority of people in this hobby, overfeed. Add to that a diet that greatly exceeds a fishes immediate energy requirements, and problems slowly begin to build up. And don't forget, high carb/starch diets can result in the same thing as excessive fat. No different than if you ate a loaf of white bread every day.
Which is why I always recommend the same fat level as the professors in the link posted in my last comment (less than 10% crude fat), and why I also always recommend that hobbyists also avoid formulas that even appear to have a high carb/starch inclusion rate. Sometimes you have to read between the lines a little, and sometimes it's downright obvious as to what makes up the bulk of some feeds.
HTH
Thanks for the thoughtful analysis and explanation, RD...
Matt
Matt
RD.;5114634; said:Settle down now Mr. Hagel, it has nothing to do with anything of the sort. Where do you come up with some of these conspiracy theories of yours?
Most commercial fish foods will have what is known as a typical analysis, and a guaranteed analysis, and they take a middle ground to ensure that the readings are never over or under their guaranteed %. So for say protein %, if a manufacturer claims a min of 45% protein, there had better be at least 45% protein in that food if/when any regulatory body tests the food. For a value such as ash content, if the manufacturer lists 10% max ash content, it had best not be over 10%. Even state agricultural divisions will test feeds, and if values aren't correct they will take the manufacturer to task, even is it's only over or under by a percentage or two. As an example, below is a link to one of the state of Rhode Islands Feed & Fertilizer analysis performed in 2007.
http://www.dem.ri.gov/programs/bnatres/agricult/pdf/feedinsp.pdf
If you jump down to Table 1., you'll find that the second company listed (Aqua Pet Americas) which is the mother company for Ocean Nutrition, you'll see that out of 1 sample selected, and 3 guaranteed analysis tests, 1 of those tests failed to meet the companies stated quantity on their label.
If you scroll further down in the document you can see that in this case Ocean Nutritions stated min protein % was listed as 55.4%, and when tested it was determined by the state to be 52.31%. Ooops.
The logic behind min & max values is that 99% of manufacturers aren't going to list a min of 45% protein (protein being the most expensive portion of the food) and then have 60% actual protein. If you're a cheater, you're going to go under the value advertised, not over. For max value listings such as ash content, same thing, no one is going to list MORE than what may be found in their product, if they are attempting to pull a fast one they will list a lower % on their label than what may actually be present.
Bottom line is, anyone playing number games will get caught with their pants down soon enough, so it doesn't make any sense from a business perspective to screw around with the government at a state or federal level.
Make sense now?
Matt - what you stated about fat consumption is true, in theory one could feed a food that is high in both protein & fat, as long as they do so much more sparingly than they would a food with much lower quantities of both.
I think that would work fine for someone such as yourself who understands how & what various species consume in the wild, but would be a recipe for disaster for those that are constantly asking; "what can I feed for the quickest growth humanly possible".
I just recently read such a thread, posted by someone who for this & other reasons will probably end up wiping out most of the fish in his tank before he's done. The unfortunate reality is that the vast majority of people in this hobby, overfeed. Add to that a diet that greatly exceeds a fishes immediate energy requirements, and problems slowly begin to build up. And don't forget, high carb/starch diets can result in the same thing as excessive fat. No different than if you ate a loaf of white bread every day.
Which is why I always recommend the same fat level as the professors in the link posted in my last comment (less than 10% crude fat), and why I also always recommend that hobbyists also avoid formulas that even appear to have a high carb/starch inclusion rate. Sometimes you have to read between the lines a little, and sometimes it's downright obvious as to what makes up the bulk of some feeds.
HTH
No problem, glad to help.
One thing that perhaps I should have explained is why there can be slight differences in percentages in some of the values. (min-max)
This can happen at times due to the seasonal variations in the raw ingredients. As an example, even if one was to get herring meal from the same source for each & every batch of food produced, herring collected in the winter months will have a slightly higher fat content than those collected in the spring. (approx 3% higher in winter) When dealing with raw ingredients from natural food sources there will always be some slight differences in nutrient values.
One thing that perhaps I should have explained is why there can be slight differences in percentages in some of the values. (min-max)
This can happen at times due to the seasonal variations in the raw ingredients. As an example, even if one was to get herring meal from the same source for each & every batch of food produced, herring collected in the winter months will have a slightly higher fat content than those collected in the spring. (approx 3% higher in winter) When dealing with raw ingredients from natural food sources there will always be some slight differences in nutrient values.
