NLS ingredient change ?
- Thread starter jaws7777
- Start date
Technically, this is obviously an accurate statement. I think it actually rates out to 75% pelagic fish to 25% processing leftovers. But does it accurately represent what is available in fish food? I think an inordinate amount of that 25% winds up in fish food.
When scanning across the breadth of fish foods I think salmon meal is the single most used primary ingredient. Coming from someone who would prefer to stay away from Atlantic Salmon as the primary component of my fish's diet, it can be pretty hard to find "Made in the USA" flake foods that do not contain Salmon Meal as the primary ingredient. And while we may disagree on the semantics of the wording, if it's not labeled "Whole Salmon Meal" then it is likely processing left overs. Certainly, nothing of the fish is wasted. Processing left overs become "salmon meal".
I would also assume that many of the meals utilized by Hikari are processing left overs (based upon use of the generic term and ash content) and that most everything from the low tier foods such as Tetra and Wardley are processing left overs, or at least low quality meals. I suppose when your primary focus is cost, a fish meal made from processing left overs cost less than "Whole Herring Meal". Or fish meal (Anchovy) from Peru cost less than Herring Meal sourced locally.
I will also stand by the concept that anyone using "fish meal" (the generic term) as an ingredient on their label is almost certainly using processing left overs, albeit this is admittedly not a 100% accurate statement.
Then you get into the "condensed fish solubles" discussion, as to if it has been removed from the meal or added back, and does it make a difference in the quality of the product? Absent the solubles, it's not considered "Whole". Which makes a difference between "Whole Herring Meal" and "Herring Meal" or Whole Anchovy Meal and "Anchovy Meal".
Last edited:
Another person on a different site also confirmed that thereA and reg formula remained unchanged and the jumbo fish had wheat listed as the second ingredient.
Yeah sure! All good stuff is used. From Wikipedia:
In pet food
Fish meal is found in approximately 8% of pet foods as a non-descriptive source of protein, low in omega fatty acids as the oil is pressed out. The quality of the ingredient in pet food is suspect, as poor quality and rancid fish are often used.[9]
Your average fish food cost what? 8 - 9 dollars a pounds. Not going to get too many top quality ingredients for that price. Most of what we feed our fish is junk.
[QUOTE="joe jaskot, All good stuff is used." [/QUOTE]
Hey Joe (sorry, could not resist, I'm a Hendrix Fan). You cannot use Wikipedia as a source for issues such as this, especially with the dog food world providing edits. Some folks take diligence to an extreme and in the dog food world this is more the norm than the exception.
While the Wikepdia statement has some bases in reality, it's not as widespread in this part of the world as in others. The only use Wikipedia has in these type of discussions is as a potential starting point to easily collect some reference articles from the "References" section.
It's pretty easy to determine if rancid product was used in the manufacture of a meal. You'll smell it. It will smell rancid. I've had this happen once, with Ocean Nutrition Formula 2 Flakes.
Hey Joe (sorry, could not resist, I'm a Hendrix Fan). You cannot use Wikipedia as a source for issues such as this, especially with the dog food world providing edits. Some folks take diligence to an extreme and in the dog food world this is more the norm than the exception.
While the Wikepdia statement has some bases in reality, it's not as widespread in this part of the world as in others. The only use Wikipedia has in these type of discussions is as a potential starting point to easily collect some reference articles from the "References" section.
It's pretty easy to determine if rancid product was used in the manufacture of a meal. You'll smell it. It will smell rancid. I've had this happen once, with Ocean Nutrition Formula 2 Flakes.
Wikipedia ....... now there is a source that we should all bow down to. 
Certainly everyone using meals in pet food are using rancid ingredients. WTF? That must be true, because it say so on Wiki.
Did you even bother to read any of this, Joe, a paper written by men of science, who are published in numerous peer reviewed publications.
https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/FA/FA12200.pdf
The authors:
R. D. Miles, professor, Department of Animal Sciences; and F. A. Chapman, associate professor, Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences; UF/IFAS Extension, Gainesville, Florida
FYI - manufacturers don't buy fish meal by the pound, they buy it by the ton, a cost which has risen an insane amount over the past 20 yrs. in 2014 alone the cost rose a whopping 60%!
https://www.quandl.com/data/ODA/PFISH_USD-Fishmeal-Price
https://www.undercurrentnews.com/20...odity-to-high-price-strategic-marine-protein/
Kmuda, much of what you state is again based on assumptions, not facts. In fact, many of your assumptions have been proven to be inaccurate, or completely false. This is not a personal shot, I'm just saying .....
Personally I have no idea who uses what in their food, as I am not privy to that kind of information. How is it that you are? Do you have inside sources, or is your information based on nothing more than personal feelings, non educated guesses, and Wikipedia type sources, like Joe uses? I'm being serious, state your sources please. Otherwise best to word your responses more carefully, and certainly be more cautious when writing articles on subjects such as this - as even though you are most certainly not an authority on this subject, many who read your comments apparently must believe otherwise. This is why I hammer you a little harder in these discussions. Nothing personal.
For many many years, the number 1 source of fish meal used in the vast majority of pet foods made in the USA was Menhaden meal. It was used the most because it was the cheapest to source, and always available.For a fish food manufacturer it makes no sense BUT to use the "whole" fish, fish meal, because they require the fatty acids in the food, or they have to source out yet another raw ingredient (fish oil) and add it back. Logically, the latter makes no sense. If you see a terrestrial based oil being added to the formula, such as soybean oil, etc, then a red flag should go up.
From the link poted above; "The aquaculture industry is the main buyer for fish oil globally, consuming some 74% of available supply, primarily for use in salmon feed."
From the following article:
http://www.livingoceans.org/initiat...-fish-meal-and-fish-oil-fisheries?language=en
"Farmed salmon are no different from their wild cousins in that they require a certain amount of animal protein in their diet to stay healthy and grow. This protein comes from the harvest of forage fish species for reduction into fish meal and fish oil. Forage fish such as anchoveta, capelin, herring, menhaden and sardines are important food sources for many other marine species further up the food chain. Along with other fish, 98 percent of the anchoveta stocks harvested in Peru and 85 percent of sardines harvested in Mexico’s Gulf of California are currently being made into fish meal and fish oil mostly used for animal feed. In 2006 it was estimated that the global aquaculture industry utilized 68.2 percent of fish meal supplies worldwide or 3.724 million tonnes and 88.5 percent of fish oil supplies or 835,000 tonnes. From the same report, the global landings of forage fish in 2008 was 31.5 million tons with 90% of which is destined to the fish meal and oil industry."
Mostly used for animal feed .......
Salmon require a higher fatty acid content, some formulas as high as 30% crude fat, so to those aquaculture feeds they not only have the soluble remaining in the food, but they have to actually add even MORE fish oil back to the feed during the manufacturing process. Are the numbers starting to make sense yet? The cost of fish meal (whole) has become so rich over the past several years, that the feed producers are now looking for alternative sources for both protein, and fat. Enter the use of terrestrial based plant matter, and oil, and even animal by-products, from various sources. Now we have salmon feed that reads like this:
ingredients: Poultry Meal, Fish Meal, Poultry Fat, Fish Oil, Whole Wheat, Soybean Meal, Corn Gluten Meal, Feather Meal, Rapeseed Oil, etc
And Kmuda, not all of the salmon meal found in pet foods comes from the East coast, Skretting is also based on the West Coast where there are massive commercial salmon farming operations.
"Over two-thirds of the total global salmon aquafeed production is produced by two companies: Skretting (Nutreco) and Ewos (Cermaq).4"
And while I personally will always prefer to know the type of fish meal being used in a food, such as herring meal, over generic fish meal, the reason that you will begin seeing more of this has NOTHING to do with the term "whole", and everything to do with rising costs and a very volatile market, where demand can often exceed supply.
https://www.undercurrentnews.com/20...odity-to-high-price-strategic-marine-protein/
So if/when herring isn't available, then anchovy may have to be used, or menhaden, or sardines, or, or.
And that is why some companies use more simplistic terms on their labels, such as "fish meal". Think of it as being a commodities broker, always looking for the best product for the $$, which is exactly what takes place for those that purchase their own raw ingredients and manufacture their own foods, as well as those who count on commercial feed mills to act as a middle man and purchase ingredients, and then manufacture their feed. In the case of the latter, that feed mill is also banking on making money on each raw ingredient that they purchase in bulk, so a win-win for them when purchasing their ingredients. BUT, if one boxes themselves in a corner, with say just one form of fish meal, they could pay dearly for that when the market shifts in the wrong direction. It's like going to Vegas and putting it all on black, not such a great idea any longer when it comes to sourcing certain raw ingredients.
I hope that helps explain some of the process more clearly.
Certainly everyone using meals in pet food are using rancid ingredients. WTF? That must be true, because it say so on Wiki.
Did you even bother to read any of this, Joe, a paper written by men of science, who are published in numerous peer reviewed publications.
https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/FA/FA12200.pdf
The authors:
R. D. Miles, professor, Department of Animal Sciences; and F. A. Chapman, associate professor, Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences; UF/IFAS Extension, Gainesville, Florida
FYI - manufacturers don't buy fish meal by the pound, they buy it by the ton, a cost which has risen an insane amount over the past 20 yrs. in 2014 alone the cost rose a whopping 60%!
https://www.quandl.com/data/ODA/PFISH_USD-Fishmeal-Price
https://www.undercurrentnews.com/20...odity-to-high-price-strategic-marine-protein/
Kmuda, much of what you state is again based on assumptions, not facts. In fact, many of your assumptions have been proven to be inaccurate, or completely false. This is not a personal shot, I'm just saying .....
Personally I have no idea who uses what in their food, as I am not privy to that kind of information. How is it that you are? Do you have inside sources, or is your information based on nothing more than personal feelings, non educated guesses, and Wikipedia type sources, like Joe uses? I'm being serious, state your sources please. Otherwise best to word your responses more carefully, and certainly be more cautious when writing articles on subjects such as this - as even though you are most certainly not an authority on this subject, many who read your comments apparently must believe otherwise. This is why I hammer you a little harder in these discussions. Nothing personal.
For many many years, the number 1 source of fish meal used in the vast majority of pet foods made in the USA was Menhaden meal. It was used the most because it was the cheapest to source, and always available.For a fish food manufacturer it makes no sense BUT to use the "whole" fish, fish meal, because they require the fatty acids in the food, or they have to source out yet another raw ingredient (fish oil) and add it back. Logically, the latter makes no sense. If you see a terrestrial based oil being added to the formula, such as soybean oil, etc, then a red flag should go up.
From the link poted above; "The aquaculture industry is the main buyer for fish oil globally, consuming some 74% of available supply, primarily for use in salmon feed."
From the following article:
http://www.livingoceans.org/initiat...-fish-meal-and-fish-oil-fisheries?language=en
"Farmed salmon are no different from their wild cousins in that they require a certain amount of animal protein in their diet to stay healthy and grow. This protein comes from the harvest of forage fish species for reduction into fish meal and fish oil. Forage fish such as anchoveta, capelin, herring, menhaden and sardines are important food sources for many other marine species further up the food chain. Along with other fish, 98 percent of the anchoveta stocks harvested in Peru and 85 percent of sardines harvested in Mexico’s Gulf of California are currently being made into fish meal and fish oil mostly used for animal feed. In 2006 it was estimated that the global aquaculture industry utilized 68.2 percent of fish meal supplies worldwide or 3.724 million tonnes and 88.5 percent of fish oil supplies or 835,000 tonnes. From the same report, the global landings of forage fish in 2008 was 31.5 million tons with 90% of which is destined to the fish meal and oil industry."
Mostly used for animal feed .......
Salmon require a higher fatty acid content, some formulas as high as 30% crude fat, so to those aquaculture feeds they not only have the soluble remaining in the food, but they have to actually add even MORE fish oil back to the feed during the manufacturing process. Are the numbers starting to make sense yet? The cost of fish meal (whole) has become so rich over the past several years, that the feed producers are now looking for alternative sources for both protein, and fat. Enter the use of terrestrial based plant matter, and oil, and even animal by-products, from various sources. Now we have salmon feed that reads like this:
ingredients: Poultry Meal, Fish Meal, Poultry Fat, Fish Oil, Whole Wheat, Soybean Meal, Corn Gluten Meal, Feather Meal, Rapeseed Oil, etc
And Kmuda, not all of the salmon meal found in pet foods comes from the East coast, Skretting is also based on the West Coast where there are massive commercial salmon farming operations.
"Over two-thirds of the total global salmon aquafeed production is produced by two companies: Skretting (Nutreco) and Ewos (Cermaq).4"
And while I personally will always prefer to know the type of fish meal being used in a food, such as herring meal, over generic fish meal, the reason that you will begin seeing more of this has NOTHING to do with the term "whole", and everything to do with rising costs and a very volatile market, where demand can often exceed supply.
https://www.undercurrentnews.com/20...odity-to-high-price-strategic-marine-protein/
So if/when herring isn't available, then anchovy may have to be used, or menhaden, or sardines, or, or.
And that is why some companies use more simplistic terms on their labels, such as "fish meal". Think of it as being a commodities broker, always looking for the best product for the $$, which is exactly what takes place for those that purchase their own raw ingredients and manufacture their own foods, as well as those who count on commercial feed mills to act as a middle man and purchase ingredients, and then manufacture their feed. In the case of the latter, that feed mill is also banking on making money on each raw ingredient that they purchase in bulk, so a win-win for them when purchasing their ingredients. BUT, if one boxes themselves in a corner, with say just one form of fish meal, they could pay dearly for that when the market shifts in the wrong direction. It's like going to Vegas and putting it all on black, not such a great idea any longer when it comes to sourcing certain raw ingredients.
I hope that helps explain some of the process more clearly.
Last edited:
RD, I never claim to be anything other than what I am. The second paragraph of the article in question contains the following disclaimer:
As for my sources, I spend as much time in peer reviewed articles as anyone. When it comes to ingredients, I ask the companies themselves. Requesting specific such as is the "whole animal used", are the types of fish know, can they identify the country of origin? Is it a single species, multiple species, etc.... When it comes to salmon is is wild caught or farmed?
In many cases, the replies are basically the same you've stated above. From one batch to the next it changes so they don't know. I don't consider this a good thing. If they can't even tell me the country of origin then I consider that an issue.
I find, generally, with the exception of NLS, those who are proud of their ingredients and believe in their quality are more than willing to share the information. Those who are using sub-par ingredients are less forthcoming. Some hide behind AAFCO. But yes, you are correct, when it comes to attempting to rate a food there is some level of assumption involved. I assume Tetra will not be using the same quality meal product as NLS . Reputation plays a role but there is always a measure of attempting to evaluate the quality of meals based upon available information (Fat, Ash, phosphate, other ingredients being added to compensate for poor quality meal, etc....) along with input from the manufacturer (or company). And for those products I have purchased, the smell test goes a long way.
I will never accept generic fish meal as an ingredient without additional information to make acceptance of its quality viable. Your explanation of using simplistic terms on the ingredient label is a very good one. Makes perfect sense. But I don't have to agree with it. The dog food industry will be held accountable for such a change so those high end foods will likely never implement it. I see no reason why it should be any different in the fish food industry. While it saves labeling cost, it also would allow those more dubious to hide inferior product. As a potential example, It's becoming popular now in the US to help manage the Asian Carp invasion by making "Fish Meal" from Asian Carp. Not something I want to be feeding and I doubt seriously if any vendor would label such a product Asian Carp Meal.
Don't get me wrong. I am not asking for increased laws, albeit I would like to see AAFCO somehow require designation of meal quality. As a consumer, I opt to exercise my right to purchase a product that clarifies the type of fish used and if the whole fish is used. And I encourage others to do the same.
As for my sources, I spend as much time in peer reviewed articles as anyone. When it comes to ingredients, I ask the companies themselves. Requesting specific such as is the "whole animal used", are the types of fish know, can they identify the country of origin? Is it a single species, multiple species, etc.... When it comes to salmon is is wild caught or farmed?
In many cases, the replies are basically the same you've stated above. From one batch to the next it changes so they don't know. I don't consider this a good thing. If they can't even tell me the country of origin then I consider that an issue.
I find, generally, with the exception of NLS, those who are proud of their ingredients and believe in their quality are more than willing to share the information. Those who are using sub-par ingredients are less forthcoming. Some hide behind AAFCO. But yes, you are correct, when it comes to attempting to rate a food there is some level of assumption involved. I assume Tetra will not be using the same quality meal product as NLS . Reputation plays a role but there is always a measure of attempting to evaluate the quality of meals based upon available information (Fat, Ash, phosphate, other ingredients being added to compensate for poor quality meal, etc....) along with input from the manufacturer (or company). And for those products I have purchased, the smell test goes a long way.
I will never accept generic fish meal as an ingredient without additional information to make acceptance of its quality viable. Your explanation of using simplistic terms on the ingredient label is a very good one. Makes perfect sense. But I don't have to agree with it. The dog food industry will be held accountable for such a change so those high end foods will likely never implement it. I see no reason why it should be any different in the fish food industry. While it saves labeling cost, it also would allow those more dubious to hide inferior product. As a potential example, It's becoming popular now in the US to help manage the Asian Carp invasion by making "Fish Meal" from Asian Carp. Not something I want to be feeding and I doubt seriously if any vendor would label such a product Asian Carp Meal.
Don't get me wrong. I am not asking for increased laws, albeit I would like to see AAFCO somehow require designation of meal quality. As a consumer, I opt to exercise my right to purchase a product that clarifies the type of fish used and if the whole fish is used. And I encourage others to do the same.
Last edited:
I understand your point of view, many we share. The problem is these changes that are taking place within the fishmeal industry are next to impossible for most manufacturers to keep up with. Imagine trying to run your business on a long term competitive basis on the whim of the commodities market. If prices go up, do you then reflect that increase in sticker price? That certainly never ends well. Something has to give, or every company that is involved in this biz takes a hit every year when prices increase. There is no getting away from it. Those that source and buy their own raw ingredients, and make their own food, such as New Life, will generally fair far better than those that rely on a broker. Times are going to get harder, and I predict that the term "fish meal" will come back into common use, just as it was decades ago. Labels cost money, lots of money, and as seen here cause lots of confusion with consumers. Changing them every year due to slight changes in ones main protein source isn't going to happen. I may not like it, and you may not like it, but for the average fish keeper it won't even make so much as a bleep on their radar.
Just curious, but what would be the issue with Asian Carp meal? I honestly don't know anything about it. Personally all I care about when it comes to fish meal is the overall quality, which also covers how it was produced, and stored. Amino acid content, fatty acid content, ash content, etc. That vid of the fish heads doesn't bother me in the least - millions of people world wide would give their first born away to eat so well, I certainly would have no issue feeding a fish, fish heads. (along with other nutrients of course)
Just curious, but what would be the issue with Asian Carp meal? I honestly don't know anything about it. Personally all I care about when it comes to fish meal is the overall quality, which also covers how it was produced, and stored. Amino acid content, fatty acid content, ash content, etc. That vid of the fish heads doesn't bother me in the least - millions of people world wide would give their first born away to eat so well, I certainly would have no issue feeding a fish, fish heads. (along with other nutrients of course)
Never mind, I answered my own question about the carp meal. Probably not the exact same species of carp, but I grew up catching carp as a kid on the Detroit River in the late 60's, early 70's. Large fatty bottom feeding fish with a lot of oil in their tissue tend to accumulate more pollutants. I wouldn't be overly happy about finding that in my tropical fish food either.
