Nutritionally varied mundane diet!

[esoxlucius]

When we buy the big brand fish food from the stores which the "professionals" have carefully concocted and manufactured, we are led to believe that the food we have purchased is all our fish need. It's our go to one stop food. After all it contains everything that fish require to be healthy. So, you'd be quite right to feed this food everyday. Right?

But if we fed nothing but this food day after day then we'd be guilty of not meeting our fishes dietry requirements, because we're not varying it. Right?

And, even more of a conundrum. If you give your fish a daily mixture of all sorts of stuff, can it be said that this, on a day to day basis, isn't varied, because you're feeding a multitude of foods, but every single day, so where's the variation?

I feed absolutely all sorts. Some is the "professional" food, some is collected and prepared by myself, which can be an hassle, and takes time.

Is there any mileage in feeding one quality food only, all the time, never changing, ever?

 

[RD.]

It seems that quite often folks forget that most commercial foods are created from a "wide variety" of raw ingredients, so whose to say what diet is better than another, when there is no data to support the nutritional needs for the vast majority of tropical species of fish that are kept in captivity. If it works, it works.

I posted the following here many years ago, and again just yesteday.....

To be honest, from a nutritional aspect the average hobbyist typically has no idea what the exact nutrient levels are of the various raw foods that they feed their fish, or how each species will assimilate those various nutrients. You can't simply feed a fish that in the wild is predominantly a frugivore, such as Heros efasciatus, slices of apples & oranges, and assume that this is in any way a more natural form of food for the fish, than a well balanced pellet. In the wild a frugivore will seek out the fruits & seeds that contain the highest level of protein/fat, not the ones that mostly consist of starch. Add to that the nutrient requirements of most species change as they mature, so what might be ideal for a fry/juvenile, could be (and often is) completely different compared to a mature individual.

The reality is, for the vast majority of ornamental species of fish no one (including myself) has the slightest clue what the optimum dietary requirements are, as the vast majority of these fish have never been studied long term with regards to dietary requirements. Most haven't been studied on even a short term basis. You might be able to mimic a fishes natural feeding behaviour by feeding live foods, but most hobbyists will never mimic the seasonal variations of a natural diet that take place in the wild. Raising your own live bearers, fresh water shrimp, crickets, and worms generally won't even come close to matching what a cichlid in the wild consumes on a regular basis. The nutrient profile of each foodstuff is dependent on what each of those foodstuffs in turn consumes, which in captivity is usually nothing remotely close to what those live fish, insects, crustaceans, nymphs & worms would consume in the wild.

This is why if one refers to the nutrient profile of say an earthworm, one can only ball park that data as the protein/fat/mineral content will be entirely based on the environment of where that worm originated, as in what that worm consumes on a regular basis.

So comparing terrestrial based plant matter, vegetables. fruits, etc on a whole is only a guessing game, as for the most part the only raw ingredients that have been closely evaluated by men of science over the past 100 years are those that are primarily grain based, and only involving species of fish that are raised for human consumption. And most of that data is based on short term feed trials, as most of those fish aren't destined to become family pets - they are destined for a barbecue.

 

[RD.]

One thing that we do know with certainty, with data to support it, is that diets high in fat are generally not a good idea for the vast majority of species. Over time the fish will become obese. Prolonged feeding in this manner may result in excess lipid deposition and necrosis of the liver. (fatty liver disease) I've been saying this for the past 25 years, and many of those who work in the field of aquatics agree - one of the most common causes of death in captive fish is related to excessive fat deposits in and around the organs. Excess fat ends up stored in various tissues, specifically the liver. Over time this can lead to the degeneration of the liver, which is more commonly referred to as "Fatty Liver Disease". Years ago I read an article which included some info from a fish parasitologist at a Canadian University. He was involved with performing autopsies on dead fish at public aquaria and the single most common cause of death he's seen since he started to do the autopsies was "fatty liver disease". Ruth Francis Floyd from the U of Florida has stated the same.

 

[esoxlucius]

Fish diet is a minefield for the casual hobbyist. Even if they put all their trust in one go to product, many many threads on here have highlighted that, in reality, many top products are not as good as they lead you to believe, partly due to the fillers they use.

There are also threads highlighting the possible problems with terrestrial based plant matter, which are also fed by many hobbyists.

And if these "poorer" foods are being overfed, another huge issue, it's hardly surprising that fish are falling foul to the issues you mention.