Trialling a new flake food

[malrift]

Lol they are still pooping but no where near as much. Conditioning for breeding has been excellent. Colour is also very good. Activity is non stop. And they slap the water to get to it.

Nitrates have dropped slightly. Too.

But it could be anything causing that.

[humbug]

You beat me to it Ducksta!

When the primary reason for me choosing one fish food over another is the amount of waste created, then that's the day I need to give up fish keeping!  Adequate filtration and sensible tank maintenance is the way to deal with fish waste – not diet! Surely sound nutrition should be our primary focus when choosing a food???????

I'm personally not one for chopping and changing between foods.  I make my choices based on detailed research.  My primary concerns are steady growth of juvis, healthy adults displaying good colour and correct body proportions, active breeding, and long life. I’m also hoping that each generation of fish is at least as good as the previous generation, if not better.  

It’s not possible to assess any of that in a short-term trial.  That's why I personally place so much emphasis on research in my decision making - scientific data presented in peer-reviewed papers, independent analyses, long-term experiences of other hobbyists etc, etc. 

We keep seeing it; a new product comes on the market and a whole heap of people sing its praises, and then a year or two on its just dropped off the radar and there’s something new that’s the “in thing”.  Often that “in thing” is whatever is being pushed hardest at the present time by the distributor, or who is being given hand-outs in exchange for favourable reviews. 

As with anything new on the market – I’ll sit back and watch with interest.  I’ll let others use their fish as the guinea pigs.  If it’s still around in 2 years’ time, and people I respect are still using it as a staple with their valuable fish while still producing good results, then I’ll give it some consideration. 

But using dodgy claims in an attempt to get sales isn’t a particularly clever approach in my eyes.  That just indicates to me that the distributor is struggling to find ways to differentiate the product based on its own merits from the established, proven brands.  Certainly not singling out this product - the practice is commonplace throughout the trade.

Just my two cents worth.

[RD.]

Some excellent points made by Ducksta, and humbug, and pretty much spot on with my line of thinking.  This form of marketing is not new, it has been taking place for years in most forms of pet food. (grain free)  The goal should be to remove terrestrial based ingredients of ALL forms, from fish food. At the least, minimize it's use, and  as a binding agent only.

FYI regarding the Oscar forum, and kmuda. Kmuda seems to be a nice guy, with good intentions, but he can be very naïve about what really takes place in the pet food industry, and often fails to understand what a lot of the info that he personally attempts to digest, truly means.  

 

As an example, his 6 star rating for Northfin recently got a major hole put in it.

https://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/threads/northfin-food.677309/#post-7612648

Hopefully that link is allowed, if not, my apologies to all.  The bottom line is that this food was represented as being ethoxyquin free, when lab reports (plural, from different accredited labs) came back showing the opposite.  Not only was there EQ, but one formula came back sky high, over 300 ppm. Oops, there goes that 6 star rating. I had mentioned to him a few years back that he was far too quick to accept certain claims as fact, with nothing to back that info up. Including comments from various manufacturers that told him that their food was EQ free. I think that he just learned a valuable lesson, yet I see that he has yet to update his website?  Information is generally only as good as the people supplying that information.

 

Quote

There was an article written for a well known widely used food that said wheat and grains cannot be utilised by fish. 

 

That  statement is false. Even most species that are strict carnivores in nature produce at least some enzymes, such as amylase, that allow them to utilize some carbs in their diet. The key words being "some carbs".  This is also true with cold water species, such as trout.  With fish kept in captivity carbs are not a huge issue, unless they are used in excess. (which unfortunately is often the case) Fish utilize carbs as an energy source, which in turn spares lipids and proteins that can go towards growth, and normal day to day metabolic functions.  But IMO I would prefer to see marine based carbs (also in limited amounts), not terrestrial due to the potential of anti nutritional matter found in terrestrial sources.

BTW - fish waste is actually one good way to analyze food, it goes towards the total digestibility of the food. Not the be all to end all, but it is certainly one important manner in which to scrutinize the quality of a food.

 

 

 

[malrift]

Thanks RD I was actually looking firward to your input beleive it ir not.

When you say minimise its use for binding agent what sort of percentage are you looking at of the ingredients.

I know the intentions of this manufacturer was not to mislead. But to make a fully grain free fish food using expensive grade ingredients hence why they sourced the organic human grade forms of these. Including the fish meal. As said this food is still in its trial stage with no final ingredients list and no analysis done yet.

 

[RD.]

In todays aquaculture it is all about less seafood (fish meal) and more terrestrial based plants. That is where all of the science has headed for the past 20 yrs or more.  That, and more novel ingredients for protein, such as black fly larvae meal.  At least one commercial food maker is using the ingredient below in their tropical fish food. (Nutrafin Bug Bites)

http://www.allaboutfeed.net/New-Proteins/Articles/2015/11/Insect-larvae-as-fish-meal-replacement-2704935W/

The problem is that for the vast majority of tropical warm water fish, that are kept as ornamental species, the exact nutrient requirements are unknown.  We are not spending millions of dollars in research on what is the most ideal long term diet for Tropheus sp. So for the most part we go with our gut, and then use our own long term feed trials to decide what works, what works best, and what doesn't work.  Using many years experience of hands on feeding, as well as the scientific data currently available as a measuring tool, and a healthy dose of common sense,  I would say in a perfect world carbs would be best set at a 10% inclusion rate for carnivores, 20% for omnivores, and 30% for herbivores. Those would be fairly safe cut offs across the board  I think.

 

 

 

[malrift]

So in this food currently the cassava which is being the talk of the others here at a rate of 200g per 5kg. According to the manufacturer. 

They are also looking at a few other ingredients like squid and met clay to be added. With others that he hasn't mentioned. 

In the vege version he has said he decreased the fish and krill but increased the spirulina, chlorella and vege ingredients. Which when combined makes them the highest portion of this food.  

[humbug]

On ‎30‎/‎05‎/‎2017 at 2:07 AM, RD. said:

As an example, his 6 star rating for Northfin recently got a major hole put in it.

https://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/threads/northfin-food.677309/#post-7612648

Thanks for that link RD.  I’d missed those discussions.  They make for a rollicking good read!  Will be interesting to see how well Northfin recovers from this one.   

It serves as a great example, though, of the importance of truth in advertising.  Perhaps rather than helping to gain market share, half-truths, and blatant mistruths, just undermine consumers’ confidence in other claims made by the manufacturer/retailer.

[malrift]

I don't think in this case its the food you have a problem with humbug but the actual manufacturer himself. Correct me if I'm wrong

 

[humbug]

2 hours ago, malrift said:

I don't think in this case its the food you have a problem with humbug but the actual manufacturer himself. Correct me if I'm wrong

 

I have absolutely no visibility of who the manufacturer of this product is, so not sure where that statement comes from. 

Perhaps me pointing out the misinformation provided by a retailer flogging Danichi indicates a bias against that retailer . . . . . or the manufacturer . . . . . or the product???  Or sharing hobbyist’s experiences with API test kits: does that indicate a bias against API? I guess my posts on different forums over the years pointing out the misleading claims made by products such as Easylife and many of the sodium thiosulfate based water conditioners shows a bias towards the manufacturers of those products???

I suspect my sharing links to the discussion on the problems with Northfin on different forums in the future will likely constitute a bias against Northfin in some people’s eyes.  Just the other day I stumbled across some data that suggests Hikari foods may be irradiated on entry into Australia.  I’ve requested info from the Australian wholesaler of Hikari products, and I’m eagerly awaiting a response.  I suppose if that response proves “interesting”, and I share that info, then I’m biased against that brand of food too?  Or is it the wholesaler I’m biased against? 

Not sure how encouraging people to research the products they use, and retain a healthy scepticism of the info they are being fed by people with a vested interest in flogging a product – ANY product – can constitute a bias, but if its seen that way, then I suppose I’ll just have to wear it.

[malrift]

It took me 15 seconds to find this product advertised and see the claims being made.

hhmm but you found it ok. And you know the advertiser is tha manufacturer.

[humbug]

Sorry - but how am I to know that the advertiser is the manufacturer????  Does the advertiser manufacturer all of the products they sell???  I wasn't aware that they manufactured ANY of their products.

[chopstick_mike]

mal Can I ask why you seem to be taking humbugs opinion personally? Are you an investor in this food?

[malrift]

No I have nothing to do with this product but I do know the manufacturer and to acuse someone of deliberately lieing you would have to know them personally.

[chopstick_mike]

I don't think hum accused someone of lying just that advertising no wheat or soy shouldn't be a selling point because all companies do is just swap that binding ingredient with another one which makes it no different.

[Ducksta]

Everybody go take a deep breath. Have a beer. Then seriously ask yourself if it's worth getting wound up over a conversation about fish food on the Internet. Then maybe drink another beer.

[chopstick_mike]

Hahaha well said duck

[malrift]

So even though it works out that it contains 40grams of cassava per 1kg. Which is 4% of the entire mixture.

It contains no wheat. No grains and no soy it is spin for advertising. Now if it was 30% of the product I would agree that is spin. 

So 96% of the flake is actual useful ingredients. But it is your books still false advertising.  

[Ducksta]

Ok well I'll bite, again.
No - it's not false advertising, it is marketing.  Nobody has said anything like it being false advertising.
The point being made about marketing is that claims made in marketing can be COMPLETELY TRUE but also completely meaningless.
(There can also be outright lies as pointed out in claims from a totally different brand.)

As I said originally - to my mind, it sounds like this has been formulated around the marketing concept. I don't say that with malice, but as a basically neutral statement. Money rules the world, and marketing is inescapable.

But now purely to play devils advocate (please read only my words, and don't assume any tone - this is just a debate, not an attack.)
You came here to spruik this new product.
You then came to the defence of the inclusion of cassava and said you consider it a nutritionally valuable ingredient, rather than just being used as a grain replacement for bulking or binding.
Now you seem to be saying yea but don't worry it is only 4% cassava.
Which way is it?  What is the expected significant value add nutritionally of 4gram cassava per 100gram flake?
Is it just a bulking and carb loaded ingredient (taking place of the grains) used in sensibly small quantities, or is it a super food ingredient but with so little included it may as well not be there? (Like Acai health products)

Now for the record I don't hate cassava - I eat loads of it when I travel in South America and Polynesian islands.  (Cassava chips are delicious.)  I don't think I've ever even seen it for sale in Australia, though.
I also didn't automatically write this formula off just because it contains cassava.  As has been pointed out - some Hikari formulas include cassava and I use these Hikari foods knowing what is in there.
Admittedly I have no immediate interest in trying the food since I'm not using any flake - my fish are all large.  However in normal social situations I am 'the fish guy' so people do ask me for product recommendations for their tanks all the time, and I liked to give advice informed by trusted sources, if I can't give advice from my own experience.  Most people who ask these sort of questions want something better than goldfish flakes but can't afford (or don't want to pay for) super premium foods for $2 fish.  So think of it as convincing me that this is direction I should be pointing them.

[humbug]

Good on ya Ducksta for taking the middle road, but I’ll also take the bait and go a step further.  I’m a sucker for punishment.

 

As I pointed out earlier, the advertising spin on this product does two things:
 

Firstly, it INFERS that it is in some way superior to other products because it contains no “wheat or soya”.  You could go round and round arguing that one. Fillers are required by all fish foods so they hold together as a usable product. Different foods use different fillers.  Is tapioca better or worse than wheat or soy?  Based on the reading I’ve done, I personally can’t find any particularly strong evidence one way or another. 

In the cat and dog food market there has been a “grain free” push for many years.  Much of the argument around that is not evidence-based (and at times borders on irrational), but manufacturers have modified their products simply to supply a customer demand.  I can’t help thinking the choice of cassava as a wheat replacement in the example of this product is a similar situation - substituting one ingredient for another in an effort to be seen to be different.  The marketing of the product seems to support that theory.
 

But the second point is the one which I personally found more unpalatable.  At the time this thread started, the advertising for this product on both eBay and the retailer's website stated “without the use cheap grain fillers like Soya and Wheat which are non digestible to fish”.  As I pointed out earlier in this discussion, that statement would likely prove to be a rather difficult claim to defend should another manufacturer challenge it. 

Shortly after this thread started, the eBay advertising was modified to remove most claims (except in the product title).  More recently the website description has been altered to read “cheaper grain fillers/binders like Soya and Wheat which are not fully digestible”.  In my view that’s a more accurate statement, but probably still misleading (refer back to point one, and Ducksta’s comments).  But progress has been made and the changes demonstrate that the discussion has already proven worthwhile!!! 

 

I personally can make no real assessment of the quality or otherwise of this product, based on the information available. You have suggested that the ingredients aren’t finalised, and that the ingredient list used in the advertising isn’t ordered based on relative quantities of ingredients.  That doesn’t give anyone much to go on.  But I do find it interesting that the marketing “spin” is focussed solely on the fillers, which as you point out are 4% of the total weight.  I would have thought that a product made from “organic human grade ingredients” as you have suggested would be touting that sort of information as a selling point rather than solely focussing on the filler used. OK – I’m stretching an analogy here – but when I go out to dinner, I’m more interested in the quality and palatability of the food the restaurant offers, rather than whether the plate it’s served on is china or glass.  Why focus solely on those plates in the advertising?

 

One final point – the example of Northfin.   For years Northfin have been clearly stating that their products are entirely preservative free.  It’s pretty much their strongest selling point.  Not everyone has the same level of concern over preservatives in foods, but I would suggest that the manufacturer’s claims were the driver for a significant proportion of their sales.   It’s a major point which set them apart from other well established brands.

For a long time there have been real doubts over the Northfin “no preservative” claims.  Late last year results surfaced indicating extremely high levels of preservatives in samples of a Northfin product sent to two independent labs (one sample was over twice that commonly considered as the maximum safe level).  In the six months since the reports surfaced, Northfin have apparently been silent on the subject, offering no explanation.  So, we appear to have a company that has been caught out big time.  Consumers see that a significant claim made in marketing is just blatantly wrong.  How does that leave the consumer’s confidence in any OTHER claim that the same company makes????  If a manufacturer "bends" the truth in one area, could they be doing the same elsewhere??  Once bitten, twice shy????  Can you see why I bring this example up in the discussion?  Misleading statements, be they deliberate or even honest mistake, have the potential to leave a lingering doubt in the consumer's mind.

[RD.]

Good points made all around. Just a couple things that I wanted to mention, not all soy products used in commercial fish food is "cheap", far from it. Soybean isolate and soybean concentrate are fairly expensive due to their high protein content (80-90%). Ditto to wheat, lots of different forms of wheat that are being utilized by fish food manufacturers, and some are also fairly high in cost.  

https://www.cals.uidaho.edu/edcomm/magazine/winter09/fish.asp

"A related challenge: developing affordable alternatives to fishmeal
ARS lead scientist Rick Barrows says blends of corn gluten meal, soy protein concentrate, and wheat gluten meal are currently too costly for most trout producers. “We need less expensive ingredients—either by developing new strains of plants or new methods of processing them”

 

In today's pet food critic circles  anything grain related is coined as being a "filler", when in reality many of these ingredients are anything but, and many are anything but, cheap.  As you can see most trout famers in the USA can't afford using these high cost grain ingredients  in their farm feed formulations.

 

Personally I have no use for flake food, no matter the brand. Pellets are generally far more nutrient dense, and far more stable in water.

 

 

 

[humbug]

 

I have a question that RD. may be able to help shed some light on.  Where has the push for “low waste” and high “digestibility” actually come from? Is it consumer driven, manufacturers' spin, or is there some evidence-based science behind the move?
 

For decades we have understood the importance of dietary fibre in the human diet.  Dietary fibre is the indigestible portion of food found in plant material.  I’m interested to try to better understand why reducing the indigestible components in fish food to a minimum is considered such a selling point. 
 

I can understand that different fish would have differing requirements for non-digestible components in their diets, but logic seems to tell me that herbivorous grazing fish in particular would have a basic physiological requirement for a significant percentage of roughage in their diet.  People often point at protein content etc of diet as the reason behind bloat in herbivores, but perhaps roughage plays a more significant role than we care to admit?
 

This was actually a topic brought up in the presentation given by Anton Lamboj in Sydney early last year, and has had me thinking ever since. 

[RD.]

I wrote the following several years ago regarding bloat. Room for debate, but I can assure everyone that protein does not cause bloat. And most foods on the market should contain adequate roughage for the vast majority of cichlids.  I have personally never fed a vege based food, yet never experienced bloat in any of the numerous bloat prone magnets that I have kept and bred over the years. Fish such as various Tropheus sp., Tanganicodus irsacae, Tropheops Macrophthalmus, P. demasoni, Labeotropheus fuelleborni, Labeotropheus trewavasae, several species of Melanochromis & Metriaclima as well as numerous other species of mbuna classified as herbivores, and over a span of 15+ years in keeping mbuna never once encountered bloat in any of my tanks.

https://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/threads/bloat-causes-cures-and-big-myths.456034/

 

With regards to fiber .....

 

All plant ingredients contain a certain amount of fiber in the form of cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin along with other complex carbohydrates, that are generally indigestible to fish. Fiber adds physical bulk to the feeds, and a certain amount of fiber in food permits better binding and possibly with some diets helps move food through the alimentary canal. It has been noted (De Silva and Anderson (1995) that it was not desirable to have a fiber content above 8-12% in diets designed for any species of fish, as the increase in fiber content would consequently result in the decrease of the quality of an unusable nutrient in the diet.

 

When fiber content is excessive, it results in lower digestibility of nutrients, and an increase in fecal matter. Therefore fiber content should be limited in order to improve overall digestibility of the food. If food moves too quickly through the digestive tract, nutrients may not be fully absorbed. Most commercial feed formulations designed for tropical species of fish contain 3-5% fiber content. 

 

The following quote is from an article by Frank A. Chapman, associate professor and Extension aquaculture specialist, Program in Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences; and Richard Miles, professor, Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida.

 

https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fa159

 

“Typical values for crude protein in fish production feeds normally range from 36% to 42%, for lipid 6% to 15%, and for crude fiber 3% to 5%. Feeds with high protein and lipid content coupled with low fiber are generally considered to be of higher quality than those with a high fiber content. Fish have no specific requirement for fiber, and feeds with high fiber content (higher than 8%) are of low feeding value simply because of the diluting effect of fiber in the diet.”

 

 

 Keep in mind that raw ingredients such as krill meal, shrimp meal, and even insect meal all contain fiber. In the wild many species of herbivorous fish eat food of very low nutritional matter, not by choice, but due to adapting to an environment that they have been forced to live and survive in. That doesn't mean that they can't thrive equally well when given the opportunity to consume more nutrient dense food.

 

A study that was published in 2009 demonstrates just how great intestinal plasticity can be in response to the diet quality of various species of fish found in Lake Tanganyika. And these are wild fish, not domesticated for generations in glass boxes. As the quality of diet changes, so does the length of the fishes intestines. Remarkable information that was not available many years ago when many of the "experts" were speculating on what types of foods cause dietary issues (such as bloat) with various species of cichlids.

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2009.01589.x/full


The above paper clearly demonstrates just how adaptive wild Rift Lake cichlids can be when it comes to their diet.  These fish were born to adapt. 

 

Hope that helps.

 

[humbug]

Many thanks RD.  I'll spend a bit of time "digesting" those links

Your brief comments above regarding bloat mirror my own experiences.  I'll also add that when we first started in cichlids in the early 1980's, the accepted practice was to feed all our Malawis 100% minced beef heart.  We didn't have the same access to quality commercial foods back then, nor much of the basic knowledge of the dietary requirements of our fish that we have now.  I'm by no means advocating a 100% beef heart diet being appropriate for mbuna, but I can certainly report that we never experienced any cases of bloat in our fish. 

[RD.]

Wow, that's unreal. I can't say that I have ever encountered anyone feeding their mbuna a diet consisting of 100% beef heart.  Thanks for adding that to the discussion, just further proves the point.  Cheers!

[humbug]

That was the commonly accepted practice at the time - at least over here.  I'm pretty sure that the specialist cichlid books of the time recommended it as well - which in those days was our only real information source.  Out of interest, I'm going to pull out the dusty volumes and see what they said