NLS ingredient change ?
- Thread starter jaws7777
- Start date
I've raised beautiful fish from start to reproduction from all major brands, some I do like better. I do feel the nutritional analysis is most important, sourcing of ingredients second.
True, I've been questioning all major pet food manufacturers these days; don't get me on the dog food topic.....
I must have missed where the OP in his opening post said to not compare food brands.
I am interested in any way to reduce nitrates and thus water changes. Hence my in-depth reading into denitrification processes - posted as a response http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/f...creep-you-guys-should-read-this.563195/page-4
You already responded then with your probiotics post. I keep an open mind and am willing to try ways that other people have had success with, but I have had difficulty in sourcing a similar product in Australia. Finally, looking into the issue again today, I noticed
http://zoxoro.com.au/Products/Drain...la-Eight-Convenient-Pre-Measured-Pouches.html
Can I confirm this is the exact same stuff you used? So you would recommend about 2 teaspoons mixed in a litre of so of tank water for an 180G? Do you do it every water change and dose for whole tank or just amount of water changed? I am not keen on reading through all 33 pages of that thread. Sorry this post is turning off-topic.
Cheers.
Post 29 where the OP stated that his intent was to not have a food fight.
This isn't the place for who feeds what, he was enquiring about some recent changes made to a specific brand. Of course most people just skim, and the result is this ......
As far as probiotics, the following was posted by a large breeder of cichlids in AU.
"Yes, I use the splosht brand, I get the farmer pack size. Ive also used a more modern aquaculture strength brand called spectrum believe it or not. But the splosht get good results to, but cheaper. "
This isn't the place for who feeds what, he was enquiring about some recent changes made to a specific brand. Of course most people just skim, and the result is this ......
As far as probiotics, the following was posted by a large breeder of cichlids in AU.
"Yes, I use the splosht brand, I get the farmer pack size. Ive also used a more modern aquaculture strength brand called spectrum believe it or not. But the splosht get good results to, but cheaper. "
That is not necessarily true. This is what happens when people that really don't know WTH they are talking about, write nutrition articles.
There is no law regarding how one labels fish meal, and prior to a single American company starting the entire "whole" marketing gimmick, approx. 20 yrs ago no manufacturer used such terminology. With regards to legal speak here in North America, no such rule or terminology exists, not within AAFCO, or anywhere else that I'm aware of.
Certainly there are various grades of fish meal, prime, super premium, low ash, high ash, fertilizer quality, etc, but the term "whole" is not a grade, or type, or anything else. Strictly marketing hyperbole. All of the various small bony fish are "whole", but that doesn't always equate to a premium grade of fish meal.
http://www.feedipedia.org/node/208
AAFCO definition: Fish Meal:
Fish Meal: (Feed Ingredient) Fish meal is the clean, dried, ground tissue of undecomposed whole fish or fish cuttings, either or both, with or without the extraction of part of the oil. It must contain not more than 10% moisture. If it contains more than 3% salt (NaCl), the amount of salt must constitute a part of the brand name, provided that in no case must the salt content of this product exceed 7% (AAFCO, 2000).
Last edited:
We'll have to partially disagree on that one, to some extent. Any manufacturer worth a darn has learned they need to include "Whole" to separate themselves from those who are not including the word. Very true, according to AAFCO, there is only "Fish Meal" with no way to designate a quality product from a piss poor one, other than attempts to use Ash, Phosphate, Fat, etc.... to try and determine the quality. But there are still "truth laws". If you claim to be using "Whole Fish" you become liable if you are not.
And while some "Fish Meal" can certainly be a quality product, as a general statement I believe a better product can be achieved with "Whole Fish".
Whole over not whole, Herring over menhaden (close match though), either over Salmon, any of the prior over generic "fish meal". Of course, these are general statements. Trust plays a major part in it. One companies "Fish Meal" may be a better product than another companies "Whole Salmon Meal" but the only way to truly make that determination is to have insider information or base decisions on end user experiences and company reputation.
And I don't know why fish such as Sardines and Anchovies don't play a larger role.... same with insects.
And while some "Fish Meal" can certainly be a quality product, as a general statement I believe a better product can be achieved with "Whole Fish".
Whole over not whole, Herring over menhaden (close match though), either over Salmon, any of the prior over generic "fish meal". Of course, these are general statements. Trust plays a major part in it. One companies "Fish Meal" may be a better product than another companies "Whole Salmon Meal" but the only way to truly make that determination is to have insider information or base decisions on end user experiences and company reputation.
And I don't know why fish such as Sardines and Anchovies don't play a larger role.... same with insects.
I left out how use of the word "whole" may not be an indicator, at all, of if the whole animal is being used.
It involves whether or not the condensed fish solubles, which are basically the evaporated stickwater, are returned to the meal prior to drying. Whole "Fish" Meal has this condensed stickwater added back, Fish Meal does not.
"Stickwater" results from the liquids pressed out of the cooked material. This liquid is run through a centrifuge to remove the oil for other uses. What is left behind is the "stickwater", and contains about 20% of the total solids of the fish. Liquid is then allowed to evaporate, leaving behind "condensed fish solubles", which you'll sometimes find as a separate ingredient on labels. Some products such as the API Foods, use this as their primary ingredient.
When these "condensed fish solubles" are added back to the meal, it becomes "Whole Meal", or in the case of Herring, Whole Herring Meal. If these condensed fish solubles are not added back to the meal, the meal is simply identified as a meal, or in the case of Herring, Herring Meal.
None of which, I understand is guided by AAFCO definitions but is defined in FAO documentation. But again, "truth laws" apply. Use the word "whole" and it better be "whole", including the condensed fish solubles.
It involves whether or not the condensed fish solubles, which are basically the evaporated stickwater, are returned to the meal prior to drying. Whole "Fish" Meal has this condensed stickwater added back, Fish Meal does not.
"Stickwater" results from the liquids pressed out of the cooked material. This liquid is run through a centrifuge to remove the oil for other uses. What is left behind is the "stickwater", and contains about 20% of the total solids of the fish. Liquid is then allowed to evaporate, leaving behind "condensed fish solubles", which you'll sometimes find as a separate ingredient on labels. Some products such as the API Foods, use this as their primary ingredient.
When these "condensed fish solubles" are added back to the meal, it becomes "Whole Meal", or in the case of Herring, Whole Herring Meal. If these condensed fish solubles are not added back to the meal, the meal is simply identified as a meal, or in the case of Herring, Herring Meal.
None of which, I understand is guided by AAFCO definitions but is defined in FAO documentation. But again, "truth laws" apply. Use the word "whole" and it better be "whole", including the condensed fish solubles.
