Are NLS foods really that good?

[MoliroMan]

Hey Vincent,

Do I feed one food exclusively with good results with most freshwater fish? Yes.

Come on, don't be shy...tell us what is the food u believe in your opinion gives you good results. And how do u judge in your opinion what a good result is?

Ps....i hope u aren't a distributor of another fish food product!!!

Dave

[waruna]

"There are certainly foods developed within aquaculture that are as complete as NLS, and the nutritional profiles of these are typically readily available."

Question 1. Can you name them??

Question 2. Can you name a food that could keep some of the sensitive species of marine fish such as Achilles Tang or Surgeon fish for a prolonged period of time??

Waruna

[mtchye]

Question 1. Can you name them??

Question 2. Can you name a food that could keep some of the sensitive species of marine fish such as Achilles Tang or Surgeon fish for a prolonged period of time??

Waruna

Hi Waruna,

1) I could name them, but I'd rather not. I don't want this to become a "this food is better than that" debate. The particular food I use is not available in quantities practical for the average hobbyist anyway. Every species has its own ideal nutritional profile, there is plenty of research out there for anyone who can be bothered to look. Many articles are in journals that will probably be found only in your local university catalogue, others are available as abstracts on the web. Most articles of note will contain amino acid and fatty acid breakdowns and an analysis of ideal profiles based on trials. Here is a link to start you off below. Not that useful I suppose considering most commercially available foods do not divulge amino acid or fatty acid profiles. Again, you seem to be getting defensive - why not tell me why there are plenty of organisations spawning and rearing marine fish previously thought to be too difficult on artificial microparticulate diets successfully, yet so few use NLS in this regard... Could it be that NLS is not the undisputed best food on the earth? I have already commented on this thread and in others that NLS is a good food, convenient etc but if people want to make their own, why question it? I have heard it often asked, what is missing from NLS that is present in a varied/homemade/etc diet? Perhaps the question should be the other way around. From my point of view there is nothing wrong with making your own food and it certainly has been used successfully for many years from a commercial and hobbyist's perspective. Again, I am NOT anti NLS. I am also not involved in any food distributing or in the aquarium industry in any way aside from spending too much money on it as a hobby

2) Don't know anything about those species hence I qualified my statements with "freshwater". Again, all I have said is my own opinion only. In this case you are asking me about something that I never even put forth an opinion about.

As for the other question on indicators of success - again this is so subjective I'd rather not get into it. Good health, colour, breeding, longevity: I would consider that I have achieved all this; perhaps I am wrong, perhaps I could have done better... but it is just my opinion.

Just to qualify again all my statements in this thread: I am not anti NLS, I had no complaints about it during the time I used it for a year (including exclusively on some of my fish) and 2.25 kg's later I decided it was not worth the expense at the time. This is too short a time period to form a definitive opinion, so it was just my own, very subjective decision. In addition, let me say that this was several years ago, and it used to be about twice the price if I am not mistaken.

What I am about here is trying to encourage open, objective, considered discussion around fish nutrition. Something we are all on the same side on, we all want the best for our fish. Let's get less adversarial, less commercial, and try to hear each other's experiences and opinions. In the end we will all make our own decisions, mistakes, successes, etc and this is part and parcel of fishkeeping. :D

When I have more time I will try to get you all some journal articles that are simple enough to understand for the layman regarding the breakdown of types of "proteins" and "fat/lipids", their uses in the body, and how this relates to your fish's colour and health. In that regard, NLS as a one stop shop with no worries about what fish you can feed it to is very convenient for the average fishkeeper. You won't go wrong using NLS - this has been my experience. However, I don't think you would go wrong using other foods either, of course depending on the food.

That is all I am trying to say,

Hope I did not offend anyone,

Vincent

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/action/do...amp;journal=are

Forgot the link

[RD.]

Hey Vincent,

I'm very familiar with the studies posted on blackwell-synergy, but keep in mind that these are aquaculture studies, usually performed with nothing but commercial interests at stake. IOW, they aren't long term studies for the most part, and they are geared towards commercial fish farms, where the only goal is to raise these fish as fast & as big as humanly possible, for human consumption, not ornamental species kept in aquariums by hobbyists. BIG difference. In one study I recently read on that site they were using as much as 50% spirulina as a protein source for Siberian sturgeon.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/1...%28spirulina%29

Now read this & tell me if you would use an inclusion rate of 50% spirulina in your fish?

http://www.aceforums.com.au/index.php?showtopic=26720

pseudo science indeed.

Another thing, there is an oft quoted study on african cichlids fed NLS and trout chow and developing fatty livers... Firstly, trout chow is not what most of us feed our fish. Secondly, not all lipids result in fatty livers. There are vastly different types of lipids all grouped under the label of "fat" and many are essential to health.

This is one study which is highly misleading in the way it is often quoted, as in saying NLS is low in fat therefore it is good. Other foods are high in fat therefore bad. Not true. Depends what type of fats. We must be very careful making these assumptions and inferences.. leads to the worst kind of science... pseudo science :D

While you are correct about lipids being essential to a fishes health, IMO neither the study, nor my quoting that study is misleading at all. If you can supply me with any papers/studies by independent sources that report adult freshwater fish requiring an excess of 10% crude fat, please do so. The fact that excess lipids in fish formulas cause liver damage is common knowledge in the aquaculture industry, and has been for many years.

The vast majority of foods designed for the hobbyist use fish oil as their source of lipids, some add extra oil to increase the crude fat level to spare more costly protein, and/or to increase palatability of the food , in others the fish oil is simply derived from the fish itself.

Make sure to read the comments posted about the lipid levels used in HBH by an HBH rep himself. (Frankwyman)

Keep in mind that the 3rd ingredient in this formula is fish oil.

http://www.cichlid-forum.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=88079

Frank states from the get go that this particular formula (Super Soft) was developed as a breeder/conditioner food, which explains the high fat content, yet to the best of my knowledge this formula is not marketed or sold for that purpose. It's Min crude fat content is 13%, and that's at 18% moisture, so now figure out what the "minimum" crude fat content would be at 8% moisture, which is more in line with the moisture content found in most commercial formulas.

Frank also states;

HBH ash is usually high because it represents bone meal similar to what is found in nature. High ash has never proved to be a problem in our studies, either on the fish or the tank.

High ash content has never proved to be a problem? Really? How interesting, considering the fact that ash is basically mineral waste, and although all fish foods will contain ash, the fact remains that the more ash a food contains, the more pollution is added to your tank. This isn't pseudo science, it's simple science, and is pretty common knowledge stuff. Again, calculate the ash content after removing approx 10% moisture.

These aren't my words, they come directly from an HBH rep who made those comments on a public forum, so take that info as you will. If you feel that a food that contains those amount of lipids, and that amount of ash is going to produce superior results in your fish, and in your tanks, then by all means use it.

I've said this many times in the past, and I'll say it again, for the most part freshwater fish are very easy to keep alive, and even on only so-so foods will usually show decent color, breed, and live for several years. I suspect that most could be kept alive on nothing more than crumbled up supermarket dog chow.

But ..... try doing that with some of the more sensitive marine species, such as Rock Beauty, Moorish Idol and Achilles Tang.

This is a very important point, and it's why I brought it up earlier in this thread.

Freshwater fish - for the most part very easy to keep alive, even on so-so foods will show decent color, will breed, and will live for several years.

Marine fish - not always so easy to keep alive, and with some species pretty much impossible to keep alive longer than 6 months in captivity, unless they are fed a super premium diet. Not only will their color fade away, within a few short months (or sooner) they will develop serious health issues such as HITH, lateral line disease, and fin erosion.

So when I ask people how many of them know anyone that has kept marine species such as Butterfly Fish, Parrot Fish, Philippine Regal Angels, Majestic Angels, Rock Beauty, Moorish Idol, Achilles Tang, Cuban Hogfish, Clown Tang, Blue Ring Angel, Blue Face Angel, and Trimaculatus Angel, alive & thriving for several years, there's a reason for this.

When I refer to the health benefits of NLS, I am referring to ALL fish, not just freshwater species.

Any idiot can create a formula that will keep freshwater fish alive, including myself, but how many fish food manufacturers can state that their food is so good that it can keep the marine species listed above alive, and thriving, for close to a decade?

Anyone?

Is it such a huge leap of faith to believe that if one can keep some of the most difficult marine fish known to mankind alive & thriving on a single commercial dry food, that in turn this food must be having the same positive effects on a fresh water species overal health & well being?

I have NEVER once attempted to tell anyone that they can't keep their fresh water fish long term with other foods, obviously they can. Some people simply want the best that they can provide their fish, and they want the convenience of a commercial dry food, in which case IMHO New Life is heads & shoulders above the rest.

Do you have to use it with frsh water fish? No. Should you? That's up to each hobbyist to decide for themselves, I am simply providing those hobbyists who are interested with information. What they do with that information is up to them.

What I am about here is trying to encourage open, objective, considered discussion around fish nutrition. Something we are all on the same side on, we all want the best for our fish.

ditto

What decision each fish keeper makes on the food they use is up to them, I'm not holding a gun to anyones head. I'm simply coming forward to provide information on a subject that IMO has been seriously lacking in this hobby for far too long.

Those that know me, know that this is the exact same thing that I have been doing for years. I've spent hundreds of hours volunteering on various forums, including moderating in the health, illness, and nutrition forum on one of the largest cichlid sites on the WWW, and I did this of my own free will, and for no compensation in any way shape or form. This was also long before I had any vested interest in NLS.

So feel free to challenge anything that I post, I have nothing to hide, and lots more left to learn.

Thanks

RD

[Nigel]

I thought I would put up this information from the US its the latest figures on fish food popularity. I guess it sort of answers the original question that was asked in this thread (Are NLS foods really that good?) according to the Nth American market the answer is no.

According to the latest figures in the U.S. this is how the big foods stack up.

#1 Tetra

#2 Omega One

#3 Wardleys

#4 Hikari

#5 Ocean Nutrition

I understand that NLS does not even rate a mention in the top 20 fish foods sold by major and specialist aquarium shops in Nth America. It looks like the fish food I favour does not even get mention either so it just goes to show how things really are.

[cobaltcraig]

I thought I would put up this information from the US its the latest figures on fish food popularity. I guess it sort of answers the original question that was asked in this thread (Are NLS foods really that good?) according to the Nth American market the answer is no.

According to the latest figures in the U.S. this is how the big foods stack up.

#1 Tetra

#2 Omega One

#3 Wardleys

#4 Hikari

#5 Ocean Nutrition

I understand that NLS does not even rate a mention in the top 20 fish foods sold by major and specialist aquarium shops in Nth America. It looks like the fish food I favour does not even get mention either so it just goes to show how things really are.

Hi Nigle

As someone who once repped in the aquarium industry sales vs quality Does not stack up

I use to sell HBH which I beleive is a great food "Although I now use mainly NLS"

Retail sales are really based on what the retail outlet sells and gets the better price on

I cant remember how many times I would tried to sell good foods to people that didnt have a clue

They would mainly stock and recomend Wardleys ,Tetra,and Nutrfin and you would agree that they would have the most dominate inpact in the Australian market "Why" you ask

Because retailers are made to take on these products so they can get access to other parts of there range that distributor would have

So I reckon even in Australia Tetra,Nutrafin,Wardleys would be number one,two and three

Anyone here "People who Know fish" want to go into bat for those brands and say they are better than

NLS,SERA,hIKARI,OSI

No way

I noticed in your sales figures OSI/SERA/HBH didnt get a mention 2 great foods you would agree

Anyway Just my 2 Cents

Cheers

Craig

[Nigel]

I thought I would put up this information from the US its the latest figures on fish food popularity. I guess it sort of answers the original question that was asked in this thread (Are NLS foods really that good?) according to the Nth American market the answer is no.

According to the latest figures in the U.S. this is how the big foods stack up.

#1 Tetra

#2 Omega One

#3 Wardleys

#4 Hikari

#5 Ocean Nutrition

I understand that NLS does not even rate a mention in the top 20 fish foods sold by major and specialist aquarium shops in Nth America. It looks like the fish food I favour does not even get mention either so it just goes to show how things really are.

Hi Nigle

As someone who once repped in the aquarium industry sales vs quality Does not stack up

I use to sell HBH which I beleive is a great food "Although I now use mainly NLS"

Retail sales are really based on what the retail outlet sells and gets the better price on

I cant remember how many times I would tried to sell good foods to people that didnt have a clue

They would mainly stock and recomend Wardleys ,Tetra,and Nutrfin and you would agree that they would have the most dominate inpact in the Australian market "Why" you ask

Because retailers are made to take on these products so they can get access to other parts of there range that distributor would have

So I reckon even in Australia Tetra,Nutrafin,Wardleys would be number one,two and three

Anyone here "People who Know fish" want to go into bat for those brands and say they are better than

NLS,SERA,hIKARI,OSI

No way

I noticed in your sales figures OSI/SERA/HBH didnt get a mention 2 great foods you would agree

Anyway Just my 2 Cents

Cheers

Craig

I agree with you Craig and I make no judgment on the findings either way I just thought people my be interested or not.

[Ash]

It is interesting Nigel, but by the same token Holden & Ford outsell Lexus & BMW don't they?

Brand loyalty & simple bottom line rule the majority in ANY field.

[CThompson]

I thought I would put up this information from the US its the latest figures on fish food popularity. I guess it sort of answers the original question that was asked in this thread (Are NLS foods really that good?) according to the Nth American market the answer is no.

According to the latest figures in the U.S. this is how the big foods stack up.

#1 Tetra

#2 Omega One

#3 Wardleys

#4 Hikari

#5 Ocean Nutrition

I understand that NLS does not even rate a mention in the top 20 fish foods sold by major and specialist aquarium shops in Nth America. It looks like the fish food I favour does not even get mention either so it just goes to show how things really are.

All that is demonstrating is popularity, not quality. The other foods have been around a lot longer than NLS also. I would be interested to see a running percentage scale to see how much market NLS is gaining. Most people on this (and on similar sites) will say “blah blah blah…but I’m using NLS…” What that is showing is that people who are seeking information and getting it from web sites, are switching to NLS.

Most peoples/shops bottom line is profit, and that will be what drives them to stock their shelves. This comes from the wholesaler to the shop, and flows through to the customer.

NLS is going in the opposite direction. It is coming from the customers with knowledge, seeking out NLS after they have learned about it on a web site, and the shop will get it from the wholesaler in Australia. Who incidentally only sells NLS. That is, a shop doesn’t have to buy this food to have access to other products as Craig mentions.

Craig

[RD.]

Hmmmm, I thought this discussion was about which foods offer the best nutrition, not which company has the largest volume in sales? Are the two somehow connected?

New Life has only been marketing their food for the past 8+ years, so their sales volume compared to a company as large as Tetra should be a given. Tetra wins!

An interesting comment with regards to this subject is found on WetWebMedia. I'm sure that anyone who's had any involvement in the marine portion of this hobby will know who Bob Fenner is. Oh, and please note, New Life does not sponsor his site, and Bob Fenner has no commercial connection whatsoever to NLS.

http://www.wetwebmedia.com/AqBizSubWebIndex/bizfdsfaqs.htm

Fish food facts..=)

Hi,

First I would like to thank you and all the folks at WWM for all the great

information. My question is about stocking a pet store. your article states

that we should carry good better and best fish foods. how does one determine

what is good better and the best?

<Good question (at least it's causing me to think!). Likely this refers to

"the most popular"... in which case Tetra's line has got to be ranked at

top... but "good" and "better" might refer to "most nutritionally valuable",

so Spectrum Fish Foods would rank way up there... or perhaps most profit

margin... in which other lines might be more important... or best marketing,

labeling, most complete lines... like Hikari, or SaltCreek's Ocean

Nutrition, or Denny Crew's Omega-C... I would definitely stock whatever

brand/s your competitors have (likely Tetra) as principal offerings and what

you yourself are using at the store... or if space and inventory monies

allow, go for a "good, better, best" assortment philosophy here... and

CAREFULLY place them (take a look at excellent displays, like at Wal-Mart,

Lowe's...) on your shelves>

Seems every manufacturer of fish foods claims to be the best. Any help in

this matter would be greatly appreciated..=)

Thanks

Randy

<Thank you for writing. Bob Fenner>

....................................................

BTW - I supply a well established & highly respected retail store that is in the process of phasing out all other brands of dry fish food, and going with NLS exclusively. I must admit that this shocked me, but the owner is so convinced that NLS is such a superior food, and it's his #1 seller by far, so much so, that he feels he no longer needs to carry any other brand of pellet or flake food. I don't suppose this will cause so much as a blip on the North American market share, but hey, it's a start.

[Nigel]

People don't shoot the messenger just because you don't like the message. As I said I make no judgement on it either way.

[JLL]

People don't shoot the messenger just because you don't like the message. As I said I make no judgement on it either way.

I think someone should shoot the person that started this thread! At least ban him for life.

[CThompson]

What I am about here is trying to encourage open, objective, considered discussion around fish nutrition. Something we are all on the same side on, we all want the best for our fish. Let's get less adversarial, less commercial, and try to hear each other's experiences and opinions. In the end we will all make our own decisions, mistakes, successes, etc and this is part and parcel of fishkeeping. :D

Mate - that is exactly what we are having

open, objective, considered discussion around fish nutrition

. I don't see any abuse (mind you it would be deleted anyway).

If you know another food that you think is the equal of NLS, for myself I would lilke to know, so please inform me.

Craig

[Nigel]

People don't shoot the messenger just because you don't like the message. As I said I make no judgement on it either way.

I think someone should shoot the person that started this thread! At least ban him for life.

Now that is funny I dont think anyone wants to do that.

[RD.]

I thought I would put up this information from the US its the latest figures on fish food popularity. I guess it sort of answers the original question that was asked in this thread (Are NLS foods really that good?) according to the Nth American market the answer is no.

I guess I missed it, how do those stats answer the original question, Nigel?

Are we now choosing fish foods via a popularity contest, or sales volume statistics?

If so, then yes, the debate is clearly over!

[Nigel]

I thought I would put up this information from the US its the latest figures on fish food popularity. I guess it sort of answers the original question that was asked in this thread (Are NLS foods really that good?) according to the Nth American market the answer is no.

I guess I missed it, how do those stats answer the original question, Nigel?

Are we now choosing fish foods via a popularity contest, or sales volume statistics?

If so, then yes, the debate is clearly over!

They don't and have no bearing on the debate at all just a bit of useless information on my part.

[Ash]

So is the general concensus the following...

* NLS is a very good quality dry food

* it might not improve colour & longevity in all situations, but it certianly won't hurt

Is that agreeable enough for everybody?

[Nigel]

* it might not improve colour & longevity in all situations, but it certianly won't hurt

I think the jury is still out on this one as only time will tell.

[Ash]

* it might not improve colour & longevity in all situations, but it certianly won't hurt

I think the jury is still out on this one as only time will tell.

couldn't that be said of every other food on the market too? Edit: to elaborate, surely for instance Tetra Colour Bits doesnt have exactly the same formula as when it first appeared? Any manufactuer would have to make small recipie changes over time as ingredients become unavailable, pricing changes or Govt/s legislate about what additives/preservatives can be used? remember, I meant in general in an overall way for ALL aquarium fish, not just targeted at tropheus.

[Nigel]

* it might not improve colour & longevity in all situations, but it certianly won't hurt

I think the jury is still out on this one as only time will tell.

couldn't that be said of every other food on the market too? remember, I meant in general in an overall way for ALL aquarium fish, not just targeted at tropheus.

It can for foods that have only been on the market a few years but the ones that have been around for years I would think not. Also there is the question of ingredients are they what is stated on the packaging as I don't think there is any control over fish food. If I am wrong then I stand corrected and do not imply any thing by it.

[Ash]

I added a bit about established foods BTW, sorry I guess I added that in while you were already replying

[RD.]

Also there is the question of ingredients are they what is stated on the packaging as I don't think there is any control over fish food.

You are wrong.

And on that note, I think I've spent enough time spinning my wheels here, happy fish keeping all!

[Nigel]

Also there is the question of ingredients are they what is stated on the packaging as I don't think there is any control over fish food.

You are wrong.

And on that note, I think I've spent enough time spinning my wheels here, happy fish keeping all!

I can live with being wrong it was just a question not a statment.

[Ash]

Also there is the question of ingredients are they what is stated on the packaging as I don't think there is any control over fish food. If I am wrong then I stand corrected and do not imply any thing by it.

that could be said for every brand though.

[mtchye]

I'm very familiar with the studies posted on blackwell-synergy, but keep in mind that these are aquaculture studies, usually performed with nothing but commercial interests at stake. IOW, they aren't long term studies for the most part, and they are geared towards commercial fish farms, where the only goal is to raise these fish as fast & as big as humanly possible, for human consumption, not ornamental species kept in aquariums by hobbyists. BIG difference. In one study I recently read on that site they were using as much as 50% spirulina as a protein source for Siberian sturgeon.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/1...%28spirulina%29

Now read this & tell me if you would use an inclusion rate of 50% spirulina in your fish?

http://www.aceforums.com.au/index.php?showtopic=26720

pseudo science indeed.

There are studies on commercial food fish, for which the objective is to raise the fish as fast as possible. There are also ornamental studies which have been done on nutritional profiles, predominantly in the field of ornamental marine fry, which have more exacting nutritional needs and hence require a reasonable amount of research into the nutrition provided to them to raise them on artificial foods in captivity. These are probably no on Blackwell Synergy and I would have to have a good look for them, this I will do when I have the time.

Again, you are inferring something I did not say at all. Not all aquaculture techniques are useful to the home hobbyist. I have already stated this in my very first post, noting the different goals of hobbyists and commercial institutions. However this does not discount evidence based research on relevant topics which we can all benefit from by taking the parts that are useful to us, for example, on essential lipid profiles where the correct ratios of fatty acids are determined. Granted, these needs will vary for different species, but it does give an indication of what is important, and what the general levels should be.

Again, why so defensive? You are including a single study on 50% spirulina rates and then implying that all aquaculture studies are flawed. You ask, would I use 50% spirulina? Well my answer would be no, from an intuitive perspective, perhaps that opinion could change if the study puts forth useful verifiable results which consider the aspects of fish health that I consider important.

You also note the short term nature of many of these studies, and the orientation for growth at all costs. From a cost perspective many of the lipidosis cases reported early on was a result of feeding trash fish, land animal proteins, etc high in terrestial proteins and fats but cheaper than more appropriate ingredients. This is not necessarily the case these days as the effects of LAP's, and saturated terrestial fats is better understood. Granted, growth is the primary goal of the majority of the studies, but again you are implying that growth and long term health are mutually exclusive. Clearly they are not. You can have good growth and long term health, and it IS pseudo science to assume that all current foods are "McDonalds" like, and fish may like it and grow fast on it, but oooh the liver damage. This of course can occur, especially with the cheaper foods on the market based on barra and trout chow, however I don't think we can just assume that this is the case for every food on the market.

While you are correct about lipids being essential to a fishes health, IMO neither the study, nor my quoting that study is misleading at all. If you can supply me with any papers/studies by independent sources that report adult freshwater fish requiring an excess of 10% crude fat, please do so. The fact that excess lipids in fish formulas cause liver damage is common knowledge in the aquaculture industry, and has been for many years.

The vast majority of foods designed for the hobbyist use fish oil as their source of lipids, some add extra oil to increase the crude fat level to spare more costly protein, and/or to increase palatability of the food , in others the fish oil is simply derived from the fish itself.

Here you are again not making the distinction between crude fat, lipids and the various forms of fatty acids. Excess lipids can cause liver damage. However there is a distinction to be made in terms of the quality of the "fat". Fish oil as an additive can be good or bad, depends on its composition, HUFA or PUFA, ratios etc. Absolute content is not as much an issue unless the manufacturer is "padding out" the food with poor quality oils.

The reason why there have been no studies examining crude fat requirements is because "crude fat" is too general a term, if you do a search on DHA, EPA, AA, HUFA, PUFA etc there are countless studies where experiments have been done on different species, and the interactions between these fatty acids have been delineated. These more specialised studies will probably not be on Blackwell Synergy, which only indexes a few journals and which I linked to as it is most accessible to the general internet user. You will probably need to use the aquaculture equivalent of Proquest, or other proper literature indexing service, to find this. Try the local university library.

To put it simply, we as humans take fish oil (fatty acid) supplements, we also eat lots of McDonalds style saturated fat. Is there a difference? Of course there is. Of course I do see your point of view, you are saying that the majority of ornamental fish food manufacturers are padding out their foods with cheaper oils. I am not privy to their manufacturing cycles so I can't comment on that. I have used some commercial preparations long term without seeing any ill effects, so perhaps even if they are, those cheap oils are not in sufficient quantities to cause a deleterious effect on fish health.

High ash content has never proved to be a problem? Really? How interesting, considering the fact that ash is basically mineral waste, and although all fish foods will contain ash, the fact remains that the more ash a food contains, the more pollution is added to your tank. This isn't pseudo science, it's simple science, and is pretty common knowledge stuff. Again, calculate the ash content after removing approx 10% moisture.

These aren't my words, they come directly from an HBH rep who made those comments on a public forum, so take that info as you will. If you feel that a food that contains those amount of lipids, and that amount of ash is going to produce superior results in your fish, and in your tanks, then by all means use it.

I never said I used HBH. As for ash content, that will affect the Feed Conversion Ratio, I would fully agree with that. Funny that, I don't ever recall mentioning ash, HBH, etc or that using foods high in ash will produce superior results in my fish. In fact I didn't even mention superior results anywhere. This sort of thing is the "hijacking" that many in these forums find so irritating.

I've said this many times in the past, and I'll say it again, for the most part freshwater fish are very easy to keep alive, and even on only so-so foods will usually show decent color, breed, and live for several years. I suspect that most could be kept alive on nothing more than crumbled up supermarket dog chow.

But ..... try doing that with some of the more sensitive marine species, such as Rock Beauty, Moorish Idol and Achilles Tang.

This is a very important point, and it's why I brought it up earlier in this thread.

Freshwater fish - for the most part very easy to keep alive, even on so-so foods will show decent color, will breed, and will live for several years.

Marine fish - not always so easy to keep alive, and with some species pretty much impossible to keep alive longer than 6 months in captivity, unless they are fed a super premium diet. Not only will their color fade away, within a few short months (or sooner) they will develop serious health issues such as HITH, lateral line disease, and fin erosion.

So when I ask people how many of them know anyone that has kept marine species such as Butterfly Fish, Parrot Fish, Philippine Regal Angels, Majestic Angels, Rock Beauty, Moorish Idol, Achilles Tang, Cuban Hogfish, Clown Tang, Blue Ring Angel, Blue Face Angel, and Trimaculatus Angel, alive & thriving for several years, there's a reason for this.

When I refer to the health benefits of NLS, I am referring to ALL fish, not just freshwater species.

Any idiot can create a formula that will keep freshwater fish alive, including myself, but how many fish food manufacturers can state that their food is so good that it can keep the marine species listed above alive, and thriving, for close to a decade?

Anyone?

Never mentioned saltwater fish, have no experience with them, and in fact i believe I specifically qualify my statements with "opinion" and "freshwater".

Is it such a huge leap of faith to believe that if one can keep some of the most difficult marine fish known to mankind alive & thriving on a single commercial dry food, that in turn this food must be having the same positive effects on a fresh water species overal health & well being?

It IS a big assumption that a food that can keep difficult marine fish alive and thriving, will have a similar effect on freshwater fish species. Consider this, what if the freshwater fish was already receiving a diet that was already adequate for its nutritional needs? In that case the food that was of benefit to the marine fish may have no effect at all on the freshwater species. In that sense, many resent the implication that NLS is better for their fish than something they are already using successfully. Perhaps there is very little observable difference for freshwater fish on a good diet then converted to NLS, when compared to a marine fish on a diet deficient in some essential aspect, then converted to NLS. You are comparing apples with oranges here. Of course a fish that is missing an essential nutrient is going to see great results when put on a complete diet for its nutritional profile. The key leap of faith you are asking for here is that our freshwater fish are similarly missing in some nutrient. This does not appear to be the case for many of us.

Some people simply want the best that they can provide their fish, and they want the convenience of a commercial dry food, in which case IMHO New Life is heads & shoulders above the rest.

Do you have to use it with frsh water fish? No. Should you? That's up to each hobbyist to decide for themselves, I am simply providing those hobbyists who are interested with information. What they do with that information is up to them.

This part I partially agree with. In fact if I remember correctly, convenience in a commercial dry food is something I have put forward many times, even in this thread, as something NLS is definitely good for. You are passionate about this food, and I firmly believe that you believe in everything you say. I am not implying that you are out to mislead or hard sell something to us. All I would like to comment on are the assumptions and inferences that I personally find a little irritating, and the constant sales pitches that come up. Please don't feel that it is an attack on your integrity or that of NLS. If you read my posts carefully I have made mention of specific points that I feel are negative (none about the food itself, btw!) and some that I feel are positive. I think there is a lot of negativity over in the other direction in this thread as well, which is also unjustified. I believe some of that negativity stems from all the hype about NLS being "head and shoulders" above the rest, and then if someone is already using a diet (not necessarily commercially made) that is providing a complete nutritional profile for their species of fish sees little difference upon switching to NLS, that hype detracts from the fact that NLS is a good, complete food.

Regards,

Vincent

A good article on the basics of fatty acid nutritional needs in different species.

http://www.aquagrow.com/pdfs/RecentDevlop-Sargent.pdf