What are you feeding YOUR fish?!

[kmuda]

Why wheat over soy? I would think soy would be preferred due to improved digestibility, lower carb count, and an absence of gluten, although it's higher in fats. Of course, with an understanding that we are looking for a total binder ratio less than 20% and the lower the better.

 

[xEchOx]

I suggest that one finds a manufacturer that they can trust, and that has already withstood the test of time. For myself, that means that for a starter what I can see has to add up & make sense, or for certain what I can't see most likely will not.

Well throw a guy a bone here RD. You obviously know your stuff so help us out a bit. Whats your go to food?

Are you saying that manufacturers that are using quality ingredients are less likely to break the rules? - I guess that does make sense... If ethoxyquin is less of an issue to you, where do your concerns lie?

 

[RD.]

Why wheat over soy?

A number of reasons, the main one being wheat has far better binding qualities.


xE ........... I currently work within the industry & have a vested interest in one brand of food, so you probably wouldn't consider me a trustworthy source.

 

[kmuda]

A number of reasons, the main one being wheat has far better binding qualities.

So would it be safe to assume that soy products are added almost exclusively to improve protein levels while wheat products, excluding I assume Wheat Germ, are added primarily as binders and fillers. While corn products are exclusively fillers?

 

[RD.]

Yes, soy is added to improve protein levels, but it will also add some binding qualities as well. I'm personally not a fan of any type of soy products (in fish food), and would like to think that I was at least partially responsible for the removal of soy from all NLS formulas. (even though not all of the labels have been updated)

The term filler really doesn't apply to pet food in the sense that a filler adds no nutrient value to a food. I think that this is a common misconception. All ingredients cost money, so if there is no real purpose in adding an ingredient then a company simply wouldn't add it. Make sense? Terrestrial based grains are often used as low cost sources of energy, and in some cases protein. The exception would be soy isolate and/or concentrate, both of which are fairly expensive raw ingredients, which is why they are not more commonly used as a source of plant protein.

The following paper is referring to commercial applications, but most of the science applies.

http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/420/420-256/420-256.html

Carbohydrates (starches and sugars) are the most economical and inexpensive sources of energy for fish diets. Although not essential, carbohydrates are included in aquaculture diets to reduce feed costs and for their binding activity during feed manufacturing. Dietary starches are useful in the extrusion manufacture of floating feeds. Cooking starch during the extrusion process makes it more biologically available to fish.

In fish, carbohydrates are stored as glycogen that can be mobilized to satisfy energy demands. They are a major energy source for mammals, but are not used efficiently by fish. For example, mammals can extract about 4 kcal of energy from 1 gram of carbohydrate, whereas fish can only extract about 1.6 kcal from the same amount of carbohydrate. Up to about 20% of dietary carbohydrates can be used by fish.

 

[F1 VET]

NLS is the best I can find and have tried. I once had this argument with rd for awhile, I claimed 01 is the best, took his advice and tried NLS, week later color was better and fish seemed more healthy and active. Just read the label, there is so much good stuff in it!

I believe even if rd wasn't in the industry he would still recommend NLS without bias!

_________________________________________________________________________
http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/showthread.php?504763-Cheap-plants-less-nitrate!-POTHOS

*Go S. Vettel #1 rb8--2 MORE RACES LEFT! SEE YOU IN TEXAS BOYS! LET'S MAKE IT 3 BACK TO BACK WDC!*

 

[tomomothy]

NLS is the best I can find and have tried. I once had this argument with rd for awhile, I claimed 01 is the best, took his advice and tried NLS, week later color was better and fish seemed more healthy and active. Just read the label, there is so much good stuff in it!

I believe even if rd wasn't in the industry he would still recommend NLS without bias!

_________________________________________________________________________
http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/showthread.php?504763-Cheap-plants-less-nitrate!-POTHOS

*Go S. Vettel #1 rb8--2 MORE RACES LEFT! SEE YOU IN TEXAS BOYS! LET'S MAKE IT 3 BACK TO BACK WDC!*

I agree. As I mentioned before RD converted me. Instead of thinking of it as a guy trying to convince me he is right and his product is worth buying, I thought of it as a guy that clearly knows more than me who has a way to give direct input to product development. After reading citations from RD as well as those arguing a case against, I came to the conclusion RD has a pretty solid case. Nothing in life is perfect, and I'm sure theres always going to be ways things can be improved but I try to be realistic about what I have control over.


I have learned a whole lot from this thread. Everytime there is a food v food type of thread theres opportunity. Sometimes we learn, sometimes things just get heated and go nowhere. I'm glad I actually took the time to read all of this. To RD and Kmuda especially thanks taking the time to provide informative resources for us to read about.

 

[kmuda]

I don't think the intent was to turn this into a food v food thread, but it appears that is where they all wind up. I am still trying to understand Ingredients that are added to fish food, why are they there, what people need to know about them, and how best to determine one food is better than another, with the additional purpose of trying to get people to not accept what we have today as the best it can be. Because it's not. It can be better. Regardless of which side of the Ethoxyquin discussion you come out on, if nothing else, a food without it (in the U.S.) is indication of a food sourced from local (to the manufacturer) ingredients, or at least ingredients from the United States (not imported) that have been transported by train or truck, or ingredients which were frozen until arrival, which is a potential indication of a fresher product entering the manufacturing stage of the food.

U.S. Coast Guard regulations prevent the import of any fish meals older than 12 months of age. So meals can be over 12 months old before they wind up in your fish food. All you have to go on, for the moment, is reputation of the company and faith in what they are producing is a quality product.

Other items I have issue with are related to AAFCO. AAFCO guidelines for ingredient labeling only allow for the singular definition of "Fish Meal". There are multiple grades of fish meal. So you can have whole fish pulled straight from the ocean and converted into high quality fish meal with very digestible protein and this will have the same name on the ingredient label as 12 month old scraps (scales, skin, heads, bones, internal organs) that oxidize the moment the container is opened.... and both must have, according to AAFCO, the exact same name on the ingredient label. Not that I am recommending a manufacturer MUST list the grade of the meals, but AAFCO should expand out the definitions to allow them to do so. Not only would this allow us, as the consumers, to better identify a quality product, but it would also encourage the industry as a whole to produce a better product.

There are good foods out there today and there are bad foods (more bad than good). But even the best of them can be improved upon, provided we ask for it and are subsequently willing to pay for it.

 

[tomomothy]

As far as labeling of grades of fish meal go, is anything actually stopping manufacturers from labeling what composition they are using? I understand they are not required to by law, but is the AAFCO preventing them from doing it or do manufacturers just not feel the need? I see your point but I then have the question of why not request similar labeling for krill meal, algae meal or extracts that are labeled on the ingredient list? I'm not familiar with any concerns that may be involved in those ingredients.

 

[kmuda]

It's a good question tomomothy. My understanding is that any manufacturer who is not in compliance with AAFCO standards is subject to stop sale actions. The question would be enforcement. As RD will tell you (and has in this thread), the "rules" are rather complicated. Not only do you have federal rules but individual states have their own.

But from the communications I've had with various domestic companies, their foods may contain whole fish (as an example, "Whole Salmon") but it's not listed on the ingredient label that way because it would "technically be out of compliance with AAFCO standards." Although some companies have held up the AAFCO regulation as a distraction. In other words, they reference the AAFCO regulation claiming they cannot label the product as "whole fish" without clarifying that they do in fact use whole fish. And then again, obviously, some companies are "technically out of compliance" by including an ingredient such as "Whole Salmon Meal" in their ingredient list. It's all very confusing but the AAFCO rules are clearly defined. For some reason, some companies must follow them, some companies don't, and some hide behind them.

I think the issue is even more pronounced for any foods imported from overseas as they are apparently held to a higher level of enforcement.

The "I read too much Tom Clancy" side of me suspects the rules are the way they are is because that's the way the big dogs in the industry want it. What prevents a company from utilizing a name such as "Grade A Fish Meal" (made up name) in their ingredient list is that the big dogs in the industry, who really do not want these types of labeling definition extensions because they use the worst quality ingredients, could call them out on it and be legally correct, potentially resulting in stop sale actions.

Keep in mind, these definitions are unique to the ingredient label and are not unique to fish foods. The same ingredient labeling rules apply to all animal feeds. And these rules are independent of marketing, product naming, and other descriptions that can be used on the product labels.

While this link does not deal specifically with fish food or ingredient labels, it gives you an idea of how detailed aspects of pet food labels are regulated (also provides some very good information when selecting dog or cat foods).
http://www.fda.gov/animalveterinary/resourcesforyou/ucm047113.htm

All of the ingredient definitions are in AAFCO Manual 51.14, which is only available to you if you pay $129 for it. So to directly answer your question about Krill and Algae, I don't know as I have not yet obtained a copy of the manual. I was able to get a scanned copy of the section that deals with fish meal.