What are you feeding YOUR fish?!

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
Status
Not open for further replies.
OP that kisser looks amazing for it's age how big is it?

Thanks. At his age, he is still going strong. He is about 10" (TL). I got him in 1990. He thinks he's a cichlid as he lived his first 8 years with Discus then was housed with an Oscar, then with firemouths, and then with Angelfish, which remain his current tank mates.

For clarification, my intent has never been to get people to stop feeding pellets. For the longest time, my recommendation has been to feed a diet 80% in pellets with supplemental feeding of appropriate live, frozen, and freeze dried foods. As I've stated numerous times, in other locations, feeding a diet absent the prepared foods carries more risk than feeding a diet that contains the chemicals I am trying to get away from. Such a diet would be too heavy in fats and short necessary vitamins.

My intent WAS to find better, but no better can be found. So the intent switches to attempting to convince the aquarium hobbyist community to request the fish food industry do better, much has occurred in the dog food industry. It does not mean they stop doing what they are doing. What I hope it means is someone offers that "top of the line" holistic food absent artificial preservatives, artificial colors, and synthetic vitamin K (K3), with appropriate protein sources. I am of the opinion there is a market for such a product waiting to be filled.

In the meantime, I'll make my own pellets.
 
This sounds like some kind of marketing ploy. Are people supposed to ask you to make them your pellets now?


As far as I knew NLS was top of the line, if there is a more nutritious brand I for one would make the switch.

_________________________________________________________________________
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!* :cheers:
 
Kmuda ......... there is no need to break down your simplified analysis for me, I got it the first time around. I'm well aware of what the US Coast Guard regulations are, etc-etc-etc.

The problem is, for the most part you are simply playing a guessing game, and talking out of your arse about things that you clearly do not understand. Such as the Brown Bullhead study, which proved about as much as the study that involved rats back in 1987, at an inclusion rate of 5000 ppm.

Even in the 2008 study, *The synthetic antioxidant, ethoxyquin, adversely affects immunity in tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus)* it stated in the abstract (which gee, you seem to have accidently left out) ...........

However, after 30 days of experimental challenge with feed containing 150 mg kg−1 of EQ, no significant difference was observed in mortality. Although EQ at the approved level in feed causes immunosuppression in fish, the severity of immunosuppression does not lead to a lowering of disease resistance for short feeding periods.

So even after 30 days @ 150ppm, it didn't even lead to a lowering of disease resistance, let alone liver or kidney failure.

And again, another number that will NOT be found in commercial fish foods, at least none that I use.

You asked;
Am I to assume that the same industry that pumped melamine into meal products to increase protein content is suddenly going to be concerned about maintaining lower levels of Ethoxyquin?

The "industry" that involved adding melamine into wheat gluten, and rice protein concentrate was based in China, a country that is known for some VERY unsafe practices involving food, even food destined for human infants. No comparison, and no fish food manufacturer in North America is buying fish meal from China. So to answer your question, one has nothing to do with the other, which is appearing to be a common theme in your debate.

When I previously stated; "Krill contains fluoride (a known toxin to fish), many "natural" fresh/frozen foods found at the local fish market contain mercury, dioxins, PCB's, furans, and other environmental contaminants that all known toxins to aquatic life." ................
I wasn't talking about farmed salmon, or salmon meal, I was referring to fish collected in the oceans, lakes, and rivers here in North America. Even krill collected in the pristine waters of the South Antarctic Ocean are exposed to, and will contain a certain amount of, environmental contaminants.

So, if you are going to be fixated about tossing out the baby with the bath water, you best remove pretty much everything found in nature as well, because in today's world almost everything on the planet comes with some kind of baggage attached. Krill, Shrimp, Tilapia, Mussels, Salmon, Cod, etc-etc-etc.


You state;
Regardless, "safely" in the above comment remains debatable. There are many vets and dog owners that would disagree with it completely.

There are many vets, and dog owners, that are complete morons, and your point is?

No science, just the same knee jerk crap that I have been reading for the past 15 years or so, by a bunch of mental midgets who aren't smart enough to stop & consider that many of their dogs auto immune ailments were probably associated with the massive amounts of terrestrial based grains in their dog food. Grains that are today known for their allergic qualities and causing serious health issues in MILLIONS of dogs world wide. Something that I have been speaking out against in dog food for decades, just as I have in fish food. Corn, soybeans, wheat gluten, etc.

Even quality raw ingredients such as chicken, eggs, etc can cause severe allergic reactions in dogs, and make them very ill, even deathly ill if the cause isn't found & corrected. Not to mention that some of these vets have hidden agendas, such as their own line of "health" foods & supplements, and best selling books of same. As I said previously, don't be so naive.

The ONLY reason that ethoxyquin was removed by dog/cat food manufacturers, is because the outcry from the ethoxyquin lunatics became so loud most companies decided it was much easier to cave in & switch, than argue, no matter how sound the science or logic behind their use of the substance. Unfortunately you can't stop stupid.

Does that mean that today's dog foods are safer, or that there was ever any science that demonstrated ANY unsafe levels in ANY brand of dog or cat food that was on the market- NO. Same as today's fish food.

This is the result of the tree hugger mentality that I previously mentioned.


For some bizarre reason you want to compare food safety between food destined for humans, and food destined for ornamental fish, and apparently do not understand why the safety standards for one is different than the other.


Are you kidding me???


Tom summed things up nicely.

This boils down to the exact same point we have been going in circles about. What is safe for fish and people will vary. Pharmacuetical companies dont depend heavily on lab rats anymore since the correlation between rat and human tolerances are nil. I dont see the value in applying human standards to fish. Also, as stated before, there are a lot of things that are acceptable in some level, toxic in another.

You claim uncertainty is risk, but what could possibly be certain about new fish food developed to avoid the use of etho? How would you even know what is in it and how dangerous that concoction could be.

Sounds like I'm just spinning my wheels here anyhow


Bingo!


Kmuda ...........if you actually read the EPA's safety assessment on ethoxyquin you might actually understand how ridiculous some of your assertions are. Humans are not fish, fish are not rats, rats are not humans, nor are they dogs. In fact, according to the EPA (the same source of information that you have been constantly quoting) dogs are more susceptible to ethoxyquin toxicity than rats! When you consider the size difference, one would think that it would be the other way around, but it doesn't work that way.

The primary target organs affected by ethoxyquin in experimental animals are the liver and the kidneys. Dogs are more susceptible to ethoxyquin toxicity than rats with elevated liver enzymes and microscopic findings in the liver occurring at doses as low as 4 mg/kg/day over a 90 day feeding period. Studies indicate that ethoxyquin is not a teratogen or a developmental toxicant in rats or rabbits; ethoxyquin did not cause developmental effects in rats tested at doses of 350 mg/kg/day during gestation, or in rats at doses as high as 500 mg/kg of a 67% ethoxyquin formulation, and no developmental effects were seen in rabbits where the maximum dose of 3 mg/kg/day was administered.

Also, under the EPA's *Hypothetical Cancer Dietary Exposure Results and Characterization* - cancer risks are calculated by multiplying the 70 year exposure estimate for the U.S. population by the Q*1 , and are expressed as a probability of developing cancer. Ethoxyquin has been determined to not be a carcinogen and no adequate guideline studies for rats and mice have been submitted for carcinogenic potential of ethoxyquin. To ensure safety in the absence of ethoxyquin specific carcinogenicity studies, a bounding Q*1 of 0.04 (mg/kg/day)-1 was created using the Q* bounding estimation procedure and the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of ethoxyquin.

Again, that is calculated by multiplying a 70 year exposure estimate.

Both the acute and chronic reference dose had a safety factor of 100 applied.




At some point you just have to stop & use some common sense.


If in fact the level of ethoxyquin typically found in tropical fish foods caused any type of serious health issues in ornamental species of fish, such as liver and/or kidney disease, this would have become rather obvious 30 or 40 years ago. Where are all these sickly dieing fish with impaired liver & kidney functions? I certainly haven't owned any, or maybe I've just been lucky when my fish live out a healthy, normal lifespan?

How can it be possible that an industry that has been utilizing this same preservative for over 50 years, has somehow managed to have fish surviving in captivity for decades?

Fish that in captivity & consuming trace amounts of this substance on a daily basis yet even surviving well beyond the typical lifespan of the species. Fish raised from tiny larvae, right on up to 20, 30, even 40+ years in captivity. How on earth is this possible?


So the intent switches to attempting to convince the aquarium hobbyist community to request the fish food industry do better, much has occurred in the dog food industry.


Yes, and by apparently using the same kind of lame data and logic that they used. So far kmuda you haven't presented a single shred of evidence that demonstrates that at the levels used by tropical fish food manufacturers, there is one iota of a safety issue with ethoxyquin.

What you are "warning" about with this preservative, could also be said about almost every raw ingredient found in tropical fish food, including many of the vitamins.

You do understand that, yes?
 
I've never mentioned Ethoxyquin as a carcinogen. My concern has been with immunosuppression and liver failure, both items clearly identified in the 2008 Tilapia study and validated as a concern by studies of other animals. They studied fish for 30 days and found problems. Were those problems paramount? No. Could they become paramount over an extended period of time? Absolutely. No study exists to validate or dispute the concern.

The only long term study conducted of Ethoxyquin was a 5 year study performed by the manufacturer back in the 60s and this study only involved dogs (I believe).

The differences between us is clear. You take the approach that there is no study that specifically clarifies "X Risk" is associated with use of Ethoxyquin under "X-Conditions" and the absence of these studies is somehow proof of Ethoxyquin's safety and we should therefore accept it as status quo. From your manner, it would appear more like you desire to shove the status quo down our throat. I say the studies that do exist either indicate a problem or the potential for one and request either availability of food without those potentials, additional studies, or at least demand the food companies clearly define the amount of Ethoxyquin in their foods to allow a more educated decision be made. For me, the status quo is insufficient and better can be achieved.

You claim the levels of Ethoxyquin is fish foods is low, no where near the 150ppm mark and even lower than the 37.5ppm I arrived at. Please provide evidence. I've been looking for it. The manufacturers themselves certainly are not forthcoming with the information. With that information, we could end this discussion, one way or another. If the number is so low, why are they so secretive about it?

You ask for further evidence.... the old "show me one fish" argument. How many fish have died displaying bloat like symptoms (swollen abdomen) that potentially could be attributed to liver or kidney failure associated with ethoxyquin or other toxins in the food? The answer to that question is no one knows if it has or has not occurred. Who takes such a fish to the vet for an autopsy?

And I'm sorry, there is a far difference between Ethoxyquin and Vitamin C. So I am not going to accept the "every ingredient is potentially dangerous" argument. That's just another "ignore the man behind the curtain" argument. It's like saying "I could get hit by a bus crossing the street" to justify playing Russian Roulette.

As for if I've provided any valid information, while I appreciate your willingness to think for all of us, I'll leave that decision to anyone else who may read this thread.

I have to close with...... people are questioning my motives. I'm beginning to question yours.
 
I'd like to see a case study over the course of a decade that performs autopsies on fish that apparently died of natural causes. If there was a clear broad trend between these fish deaths and etho, and those fish were all fed known pellet food as a staple thier whole lives, that would be enough for me to suspect the levels were too high. Anything short of that leaves too much conjecture for me so until I can see a study like that, then to me any other food is just as risky in terms of unknowns.

To Kmuda I completely support anyhow who likes to think outside of the box and challenge what people to for the purpose of furthering the hobby. I've read through your studies but I dont feel they have the level of transparency that I require to accept them without my typical dose of skepticism that I take with any new idea. Studies must stand up to scrutiny, and furthermore they must be applied appropriately. I didnt see enough background info in these citations to sway me and answer all of my questions. I'm not saying it isnt worth looking into further, but it would take a study like what I mentioned above to really get me to see a correlation between the levels of etho in pellet food and long term fish disease.

I'm not saying youre not on to something, and I think its always worth making noise for the benefit of the hobby. I am concerned as i mentioned before of what alternatives would arise if manufactures start mixing things up. You mentioned a few alternative perservatives, but I know nothing about those and for all I or probably most people know, those may just be a worse alternative.
 
I don't get how someone runs another fish forum but can spend so much time going in circles here?

Some one short looks at someone who's tall and says their tall, someone taller looks at that same person and says their short........accept someone's differences and move on, NLS is awesome, I once used to think 01 was better, rd and I had some fierce discussions and I listened and learned, accepting the fact that maybe I'm not right and seeing the benefits first hand.... With overfeeding being the number one cause of death I think this preservative arguement is wasted time.

_________________________________________________________________________
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!* :cheers:
 
Couldn't agree more. As i said before time reveals all. Until then all we can do is make the best of what we have and take realistic steps to improving the status quo. IMO there are much bigger fires to put out. I do hope that we at least make the effort to keep an open mind and hear new ideas, even if we don't agree with them there can still be lessons we can take away

Sent from the mars rover
 
I'd like to see a case study over the course of a decade that performs autopsies on fish that apparently died of natural causes.

I would like to see such a study myself. Unfortunately, such a study will never happen, So we are left with what studies have occurred and the need to draw conclusions for them, or not.

I would strongly urge you, or anyone else, not to take my word or RDs word on this subject. Research it yourself and come to your own conclusion.

I'll ask a final question, and while RD and F1 Vet do not want any comparison to humans, I'll ask it anyway. Would you feel comfortable consuming yourself, or feeding your family, the daily amount of Ethoxyquin you are feeding your fish. If the answer to that is yes, then I have no argument with you. Press on. If the answer to that is no, then you've acknowledged there is a risk and can ask for better.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
MonsterFishKeepers.com