Red Devil color change
- Thread starter vfrstephen
- Start date
BTW MM, I think that the following statement can be taken to mean that there is in fact a breaking point or plateau, with regards to carotenoids (at least the ones used in their experiment) and overall coloration in this species.
You mean the statement "low" instead of "void"?
The black remains when the fish has an incomplete melanophore die off and removal, so the underlying xanthophores don't become visible in those areas.
The black remains when the fish has an incomplete melanophore die off and removal, so the underlying xanthophores don't become visible in those areas.
Yes, exactly - obviously I don't know what their definition of "low" is, or was in this study, but it does suggest that at some point one isn't going to be gaining much, if anything. But again, this would only apply to the carotenoids, and their levels, used in this particular study. There is a LOT in that abstract that is open to interpretation.
While I can't say that I have personally tested the following with amphilophus species, I have seen species of fish that are naturally yellow, turn orange, by adding unnatural amounts of synthetic color enhancing ingredients, such as Carophyll Pink. The same with fish that are naturally pink, turning blood red. (this includes polychromatic species) It's a cheap trick used by some manufacturers that aren't concerned about natural color enhancement, only enhancing certain pigments such as red, even if it makes the fish look like something that genetic wise it truly isn't.
While I can't say that I have personally tested the following with amphilophus species, I have seen species of fish that are naturally yellow, turn orange, by adding unnatural amounts of synthetic color enhancing ingredients, such as Carophyll Pink. The same with fish that are naturally pink, turning blood red. (this includes polychromatic species) It's a cheap trick used by some manufacturers that aren't concerned about natural color enhancement, only enhancing certain pigments such as red, even if it makes the fish look like something that genetic wise it truly isn't.
This is the full artical. Interesting thread guys great info.
http://www.public.asu.edu/~kjmcgraw/pubs/PBZ2010b.pdf
http://www.public.asu.edu/~kjmcgraw/pubs/PBZ2010b.pdf
The interesting part about that study is they make reference to a couple other studies, one done with guppies and one with artificial strains of bettas that show a correlation between carotenoids and color in as little time as 3 weeks with a plateau in 6 weeks.
Which either means these guys messed up big time in their study of the midas or that different species of fish have vastly different diet requirements and a broad "catch all" food to feed across genera is not a great idea.
Which either means these guys messed up big time in their study of the midas or that different species of fish have vastly different diet requirements and a broad "catch all" food to feed across genera is not a great idea.
I was thinking the same thing, so called color enhancing foods while may actually do something for some types of fishes do nothing or at best very little for others? I would like to see a test/study using different light spectrums and it's long term effect on coloration, ie a full spectrum bulb with strong spikes in the UVA & B, if one has already been done I'm not aware of it. Maybe what study showed is that someone needs to come up with a diet specially formulated for the midas complex.
Good find Tom, thanks!
It seems both of you missed the main points in that study, and/or don't fully grasp the role that natural color enhancing agents play in the diet of fish, all species of fish. It isn't just about color.
Certainly some species of fish will be able to utilize higher concentrations of certain carotenoids for both color and/or immunity, but that doesn't equate to stating that one needs to, or even should, feed less carotenoid levels to a midas, vs a guppy.
The authors clearly state that with regards to color enhancement their results may have been affected by complex interactions among the carotenoids used. (which is sometihing that I alluded to earlier) and with regards to immunity they also clearly stated that their negative results may be attributed to the fact that they used in vitro assessments of innate immunity - and explained how/why that could influence their results.
This study also didn't take into account the dietary carotenoid requirements of this species in a juvenile stage of life, which could in fact vary greatly from sexually mature adults.
What you both are suggesting, is that while eating 3 carrots daily has been proven to be good for ones health, no one should eat 5 carrots, as to date there isn't any data to prove that eating the 4th & 5th carrot will offer any extra health benefits. And the down side to eating those two extra carrots would be ......?
The only goal of this study was to examine the potential trade offs, between coloration & immunity. Nothing more, nothing less.
And as I mentioned previously much of this is still open to interpretation due to the types & levels of the carotenoids used, and the potential interaction between each group.
The bottom line is, the OP of this discussion doesn't need to add any "extra" color enhancing agents, or carotenoids, to his fishes diet of NLS.
It seems both of you missed the main points in that study, and/or don't fully grasp the role that natural color enhancing agents play in the diet of fish, all species of fish. It isn't just about color.
Certainly some species of fish will be able to utilize higher concentrations of certain carotenoids for both color and/or immunity, but that doesn't equate to stating that one needs to, or even should, feed less carotenoid levels to a midas, vs a guppy.
The authors clearly state that with regards to color enhancement their results may have been affected by complex interactions among the carotenoids used. (which is sometihing that I alluded to earlier) and with regards to immunity they also clearly stated that their negative results may be attributed to the fact that they used in vitro assessments of innate immunity - and explained how/why that could influence their results.
This study also didn't take into account the dietary carotenoid requirements of this species in a juvenile stage of life, which could in fact vary greatly from sexually mature adults.
What you both are suggesting, is that while eating 3 carrots daily has been proven to be good for ones health, no one should eat 5 carrots, as to date there isn't any data to prove that eating the 4th & 5th carrot will offer any extra health benefits. And the down side to eating those two extra carrots would be ......?
The only goal of this study was to examine the potential trade offs, between coloration & immunity. Nothing more, nothing less.
And as I mentioned previously much of this is still open to interpretation due to the types & levels of the carotenoids used, and the potential interaction between each group.
The bottom line is, the OP of this discussion doesn't need to add any "extra" color enhancing agents, or carotenoids, to his fishes diet of NLS.
What you both are suggesting, is that while eating 3 carrots daily has been proven to be good for ones health, no one should eat 5 carrots, as to date there isn't any data to prove that eating the 4th & 5th carrot will offer any extra health benefits. And the down side to eating those two extra carrots would be ......?
Eating somthing that tastes like crap while getting no extra benifit from it! (JK) Just a little humor.
I do understand your point, and while the artical was interesting, it is I agree still inconclusive. We've had the discussion about my RD and NLS and I'm the last guy to knock it. It did a great job for me and always has palatability issues aside. Whlie we agree NLS is a great food supplementing a diet with Krill or earthworms ect does I think have physiological benifit to the animals overall wellbeing.
So, what about the light? Nobody wants to weigh in on the diet and light theory?
Eating somthing that tastes like crap while getting no extra benifit from it! (JK) Just a little humor.
I do understand your point, and while the artical was interesting, it is I agree still inconclusive. We've had the discussion about my RD and NLS and I'm the last guy to knock it. It did a great job for me and always has palatability issues aside. Whlie we agree NLS is a great food supplementing a diet with Krill or earthworms ect does I think have physiological benifit to the animals overall wellbeing.
So, what about the light? Nobody wants to weigh in on the diet and light theory?
