\nALL these foods are fine to feed ALL tropical fish<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\nTo establish that a food is bad for the fish there is a scientific method that is followed. This method has been used for many years in hundreds of millions of dollars of research in commercial aquaculture of fish such as tilapia, trout, and salmon. Whole books have been written on the subject.<\/p>\n\n\n\nPygocentrus nattereri – Red Piranha<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\nThis article reviewed many research books on fish nutrition:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cFish Nutrition and Feed Technology\u201d, Garg, 2018<\/li>\n\n\n\n \u201cTilapias, Biology and Exploitation\u201d, K. Jauncy (2000)<\/li>\n\n\n\n \u201cPrinciples of Fish Nutrition\u201d, W. Steffens (1989)<\/li>\n\n\n\n \u201cPractical Manual on Fish Nutrition and Feed Technology\u201d, Jain, 2018<\/li>\n\n\n\n \u201cNutrient Requirements of Warmwater Fishes\u201d, Wittwer, et. al. 1977<\/li>\n\n\n\n \u201cFish Nutrition\u201d, John Halver 1972<\/li>\n\n\n\n \u201cFish Nutrition and Feed Technology: A Teaching Manual\u201d, Felix, 2012<\/li>\n\n\n\n \u201cIntroduction to the General Principles of Aquaculture\u201d, Ackefors et. al. 1994<\/li>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe Biology of Fish Growth\u201d, Weatherly, Gill 1987<\/li>\n\n\n\n \u201cEnvironmental Biology of Fishes\u201d, Jobling 1999<\/li>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe Physiology of Fishes\u201d, Evans, Claiborne 2006<\/li>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe Physiology of Tropical Fishes\u201d, Val, et. al. 2006<\/li>\n\n\n\n \u201cNutrition & Feeding of Fishes\u201d, Raghunath, 2012<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\nThese books all referenced thousands of various research papers.<\/p>\n\n\n\nPterophyllum scalare Red Devil Angelfish<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\nAs the basis for the thousands of studies that make up the basis for these books, many fish are fed a given food for their lifetime and the progress of the fish charted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Since even a 1% slower growth rate is significant for the low-profit margin world of fish farming, there have been many things found that impact the growth rate of fish. For instance, some fish digest chitin and some fish don\u2019t digest chitin. So slight differences are noticed in fish-fed chitin. But per this type of research, the only foods that can SIGNIFICANTLY impact the HEALTH of adult fish are foods that have less than 30% protein or more than 50% grains and starches in them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So foods like corn, rice, carrots, or fruit, having less than 30% protein and more than 50% carbohydrates, should be fed only occasionally. And having 40% or more of the protein come from vegetables such as soybeans, potatoes or wheat gluten can cause some slight problems with all fish.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For breeding fish and raising fry, it is best to have food with more than 40% protein, 10% fat, and some \u201cwhole fish\u201d or \u201cfish meal\u201d containing fish bones. But for most fish, it is not critical.<\/p>\n\n\n\nAulonocara maulana – Bicolor<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<\/span>The Profit Motive<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\nMaking dry commercial tropical fish food is a market of some 750 million dollars. The author has personally been \u201ccalled out\u201d and personally attacked for daring to question the idea that the foods listed above are damaging for fish. It turns out the commentators doing the attacks were fake accounts from manufacturers of dry commercial fish food.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This sort of \u201cfake news\u201d has been going on since the inception of commercial fish food. There are no regulations that prevent it. Before the advent of social media the books and pamphlets one purchased at your local fish store were full of such fake news. The books and pamphlets were written either by the fish food manufacturers or by authors who were getting fat fees from the manufacturers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This \u201cfake news\u201d is like the ads that come on TV in the middle of the night. They have all sorts of remedies for hair loss. \u201cJust put some XXXX cream on your head for a few weeks and your hair will grow back<\/em>.\u201d And people buy the creams at hugely inflated prices.<\/p>\n\n\n\nUnderstand, a container of dry fish food that costs $10 probably costs about a quarter to make. This high-profit margin simply can\u2019t be ignored by the fish food manufacturers. So the manufacturers ALL<\/strong> actively denigrate fish foods they don\u2019t make, including changing the narrative in open sources such as Wikipedia.<\/p>\n\n\n\nPundamilia nyererei<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<\/span>Bloodworms<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\nTake for instance bloodworms. There is no research that shows any negative effect whatsoever from bloodworms. Bloodworms are the larvae of a midge, an insect, or a fly (occasionally one will find very red tubifex worms identified as \u201cbloodworms\u201d). They can hurt nothing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
They don\u2019t have \u201cbarbs that penetrate the lining of the intestines\u201d. Bloodworms do not have \u201cinternal parasites\u201d and \u201cworms\u201d which can parasitize fish. They are not \u201cdifficult to digest\u201d. All of these \u201cestablished facts\u201d are simply parroted myths. There are huge swarms of midges which are found over Lake Malawi. Their larvae (i.e. bloodworms) are an important food source for all fish in the Lake.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There was a post on a Facebook forum that went like:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cwhenever I feed my angelfish bloodworms, one of them dies in a few days\u201d.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\nThis is what is known in scientific circles as a \u201cbiased anecdotal opinion\u201d. It simply means absolutely nothing. Anecdotal evidence has nothing to do with science and will almost invariably lead one astray. There is a saying in science: \u201cCorrelation is not causation\u201d. Simply because angelfish die after feeding bloodworms is not proof bloodworms are bad. Fish die all the time!<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Now quite possibly this individual got a packet of frozen bloodworms that had been improperly processed or defrosted in transit. Spoiled bloodworms, indeed any spoiled frozen food, can kill fish via good old food poisoning. This is a risk with ANY<\/strong> frozen food.<\/p>\n\n\n\nMetriaclima estherae Yellow Zebra<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\nThere is a scientific way to \u201cprove\u201d a hypothesis. It has been developed over many hundreds of years. In order to have meaning the person would have needed to say<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cI have six aquariums of ten angelfish each. I fed three aquariums bloodworms once a day and three aquariums I didn\u2019t feed bloodworms to. The aquariums with the bloodworms have, over a one-month time frame, had at least three deaths per aquarium. The aquariums not fed the bloodworms have had no deaths.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\nThis is a much different statement than the one above, MUCH DIFFERENT<\/strong>! No one has done such research on bloodworms.<\/p>\n\n\n\nNote it is not recommended to buy bloodworms live from the fish store. They don\u2019t have pathogens but they do have such critters as snail leeches and flatworms (planaria). And if the bloodworms are frozen always at least partially defrost the worms and then smell them. If the worms were not properly processed or if they became unfrozen in transit, they can spoil. If this is the case, they will have a bad smell and they can kill the fish.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There is one caution with bloodworms and tubifex worms. These worms are grown in what is essentially sewage. So even if frozen they should be treated as being very contaminated. If one rubs one\u2019s eyes after handling even frozen bloodworms you can get a very nasty case of pink eye, as this young lady learned:<\/p>\n\n\n\nPink Eye from Bloodworms<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<\/span>Tubifex Worms<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\nTubifex worms are true annelid worms, not insect larvae like bloodworms. But like bloodworms they have a huge number of myths which are continuously repeated in social media. Even Wikipedia buys into the various urban legends about tubifex worms. This is a quote from Wikipedia:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cUsing these worms as a live food has come with certain problems over the years. When harvested from sewers, open bodies of water, and even from hatcheries, they may be infected with various fish diseases. This risk can be partially solved by keeping the worms under brisk running water until they have voided the contents of their digestive systems. However, the worms can still be vectors for whirling disease. Additionally, they are very difficult for some fish to obtain in the wild, so certain fish, such as Rift Valley cichlids, will obsessively consume them until they make themselves sick. Additionally, while the worms have good-quality proteins, they also are very fattening, and are poor in certain important amino acids. Fish fed on them can grow rapidly, but may be less healthy and colorful than fish with more balanced diets.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\nThere are no references listed for these comments. There is a good reason there are no references. Every single point here is false. EVERY SINGLE POINT<\/strong>. Wikipedia is an \u201copen\u201d source so is simply not a reliable source of data unless there are valid references supporting the data.<\/p>\n\n\n\nParachromis Dovii Wolf Cichlid<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\nIn cold waters tubifex worms can carry a parasite which causes \u201cwhirling\u201d disease in cold water fish and this parasite has been reported in wild fish in three northern states. There is no evidence this disease has occurred in warm waters at all, let alone in tropical fish in the aquarium. Tubifex worms will not hurt any fish, contrary to all the claims made against them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Note it is not recommended to buy tubifex worms live from the fish store. They don\u2019t have pathogens but they do have such critters as snail leeches and flatworms (planaria). And as with ANY<\/strong> frozen food always smell frozen worms. If they smell bad do not use them. ANY<\/strong> frozen food which becomes unfrozen in transit can \u201cgo bad\u201d and kill the fish. This spoiled product will smell bad.<\/p>\n\n\n\nQueen Arabesque L260 pleco<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<\/span>Beef Heart<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\nMany feed their fish beef heart (including Joey, the popular YouTube presenter and author). The big breeders of millions of discus in Southeast Asia find beef heart to be the best food for growing out discus, a known difficult fish. They have done a lot of research to find alternatives to beef heart (such as duck heart and shrimp) as beef heart is very expensive. But beef heart remains the preferred food for these breeders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But many in social media pan this practice as they say saturated fats in mammalian meat are bad for fish. But heart meat has very little fat. In any case, this ignores the fact that the fat in most fish is roughly 20% saturated, 40% polyunsaturated and 40% monounsaturated. This isn\u2019t much different than beef heart (60% \u2013 20% \u2013 20%).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And saturated fat was only hypothesized to create a problem in some genetically susceptible humans because it coated the arteries and caused heart attacks after many years. Fish don\u2019t live long enough for that to be a problem. The feeding of beef was mentioned in several articles in the books above in a positive light. There were no negative research studies in any of the thirteen books.<\/p>\n\n\n\nTomocichla asfraci<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\nNote that the big German supplier of fish food, Tetra, began a concerted campaign to discredit beef heart some fifty years ago. At that time beef heart was the preferred fish food by the \u201cexperts\u201d and was very widely used as fish food. Beef heart was hurting their sales so Tetra invented a bunch of bogus reasons for not using beef heart: \u201cbeef heart causes intestinal obstructions\u201d, \u201cbeef heart causes blood to congeal in the fish\u201d, \u201cthe amino acid balance is incorrect for fish\u201d, etc..<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And dozens of Tetra sponsored books and European authors getting hefty fees from Tetra parroted the party line. And you will still see the profit driven mis-information in dozens of articles and well meaning but ill-informed advice on social media.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For Instance Dr. Peter Burgess MSc, Ph.D., of the Aquarium Advisory Service in England, said:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cLiver Damage and Red Meats<\/em>The routine of feeding beef heart and other red meats to Cichlids can ultimately give rise to health problems. Poultry meat is also suspect. Red meats, including lean meats such as beef heart, contain the wrong sorts of fats \u2013 these harden within the cold-blooded fish, leading to blockages and fatty deposits around the liver.<\/em>Also, the relative proportions of amino acids within the mammalian proteins are different to those required by fish. Hence, feeding red meats will cause the cichlid to excrete more nitrogenous (ammonia) wastes, thereby placing an extra burden on the biological filter.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\nThe huge amount of real research in the thirteen books above say that every word of this quote is incorrect. EVERY WORD!<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nOne YouTube video maker panned the use of beef heart because it was \u201cso low in protein, only 16%\u201d. He then showed a bug bite product that was 50% protein and said this was obviously much better. This well meaning but ill informed video maker was somehow managing to miss the point that beef heart is 71% water. Dry beef heart to become as dry as the bug bites and it becomes 53% protein. <\/p>\n\n\n\nMetriaclima estherae Zebra OB Morph<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<\/span>Land Animal Protein<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\nMany others say that any land animal or warm blooded animal (i.e. chickens and cows) produces protein which cannot be digested by fish. This is just incorrect. All animal protein is virtually identical, regardless of whether the animal is from land or the water. Hundreds of tilapia farmers feed their fish ground chicken byproducts. Does one really propose these farmers are feeding their fish food which they cannot digest?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
None of the thousands of research studies covered by the books listed above said anything negative about warm blooded animal protein. If one looks on Google Scholar for \u201ceffect mammalian feed on fish\u201d you get no science journal article on the subject. There are literally thousands of journal papers on fish nutrition and not one paper about how mammalian feed negatively affects fish in any way. The \u201cproblem\u201d is a myth, it doesn\u2019t exist.<\/p>\n\n\n\nToxotes jaculatrix Archer Fish<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<\/span>Fat<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\nMany say solid animal fat from warm blooded animals can\u2019t be eaten by fish. The concept that warm-blooded fats are bad for cold blooded fish might have a remote possibility of being true if the digestive processes for fats in animals were a simple transfer of fats from the gut to the bloodstream. It doesn\u2019t work that way! The fats are broken down in the intestines, re-arranged in the liver, and then put into the bloodstream. So called solid saturated fats become liquid unsaturated fats if the liver so decides.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There is no evidence fat is bad for fish. As a matter of fact, there is a lot of evidence fat is a better source of calories for fish than carbohydrates. Some aquaculture research has shown high fat content (15%) in fish food is good for fish growth. Growing tilapia fry are supposed to get at least 15% fat in their food. They generally get this fat from chicken, which can have a high saturated solid fat content.<\/p>\n\n\n\nPeacock Dragonblood Blue<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\nFor optimum breeding fish need at least 10% fat in their diet, as fat is required for eggs and sperm. There are many research articles confirming this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Most fish eat a lot of insects and insect larvae. Insects are a high fat food. Their typical composition is 40% fat, 40% protein and 15% fiber (chitin) by dry weight (it has to be by dry weight!). So high fat diets are quite normal for fish. Krill are 20% fat by dry weight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There is one piece of research at the University of Florida which said that very high fat content (17% by dry weight) food gave African cichlids fatty livers (\u201cNutrition for Juvenile African Cichlids: The Effects of Varying Dietary Protein and Energy Levels on Growth Performance and Liver Condition\u201d, Roye, 2004). <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Unfortunately this research only looked at 9% fat versus 17% fat. So little can be said about any level between the two. And there was no research cited which linked fatty livers in fish with poor health. That was only hypothesized.<\/p>\n\n\n\nMetriaclima msobo Magunga<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<\/span>Meat Byproducts<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\nOthers are put off by the label \u201cchicken byproducts\u201d. Chicken byproducts are what human typically are loath to consume, the offal (internal organs), head, and feet. These items are actually much richer in minerals like calcium and iron than the rest of the chicken and are good for the fish, not bad for them. And byproducts do not include feathers, contrary to what some uninformed are claiming.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>Krill<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\nAccording to one social \u201ccommentator\u201d krill is bad for fish. This \u201ccommentator\u201d was found to be a fake account from a fish food manufacturer. When asked to support the comment, the \u201ccommentator\u201d referenced \u201cToday\u2019s and Tomorrow\u2019s Feed Ingredients in Norwegian Aquaculture\u201d, S\u00f8rensen et. al., 2011:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cBased on the nutrient composition, krill is a promising alternative to fish meal in aqua diets. Partial substitution of fish meal with krill meal have shown improved growth rate in Chinook salmon (25% krill meal) (Anderson, et al., 1997) and Atlantic salmon (Olsen, et al., 2006). However, full replacement of fish meal with krill meal has shown a negative effect on growth performance. This is mainly attributed to the exoskeleton of krill that contains chitin. Several experiments have shown that chitin depress growth (Olsen, et al., 2006; Yoshitomi, et al., 2006; 2007; Hansen, et al., 2010) and have a negative impact on lipid digestibility and amino acids (Hansen, et al., 2010). Removing the exoskeleton from krill (deshelling) before processing will therefore improve nutrient digestibility and growth performance and allows greater inclusion levels in fish feed (Yoshitomi, et al., 2006; Yoshitomi, et al., 2007; Hansen, et al., 2010). Meal made from deshelled krill can fully replace fish meal without negative effects on growth rate in Atlantic salmon (Hansen, et al., 2010) and rainbow trout (Yoshitomi, et al., 2007). Full substitution of fish meal with (whole) krill meal in diets for Atlantic cod did not affect growth performance (Moren et al., 2006).\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\nSo whole krill gave lower \u201cefficiency\u201d than fish meal when it was the sole ingredient in the food. So one fish keeper decided that \u201cbased on extensive research\u201d, krill was not as good in fish food as fish meal. Indeed this \u201ccommentator\u201d decided feeding fish a food that is mainly krill will kill your fish. It\u2019s called denigrating your competition and is a widespread practice on social media.<\/p>\n\n\n\nLaetacara curviceps – Dwarf Flag Acara<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\nWhole krill have chitin exoskeletons. Fish such as salmon, which have no pharyngeal teeth, will have some difficulty (not much!) with their intestines getting through the chitin to the inner protein. Thus the slightly lower efficiency. In fish foods such as Northfin Krill Pro the krill is ground up and readily available for digestion. And cichlids have pharyngeal teeth, which grind up the chitin in whole krill quite effectively.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Krill is an arthropod. More than 80% of all the animals in the world are arthropods. All arthropods have chitin exoskeletons. Krill, mysis, shrimp, crickets, mosquito larvae, crabs, flies, bloodworms, ants, insects etc. are all arthropods with hard outer exoskeletons made of chitin. Arthropods form the basis of the fish food chain in virtually all waters. All fish have evolved ways of coping with chitin in an exoskeleton. So claiming krill is bad for fish is simply incorrect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
After this article was written the social media \u201ccommentator\u201d that made the comments about the krill was found to be a fake account from the marketing department of a certain fish food manufacturer. This manufacturer had about eleven such fake accounts putting down any food other than their own and singing the praises of their own brand. We suspect that many of the banned food myths have originated in just such a manner.<\/p>\n\n\n\nMelanochromis joanjohnsonae<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<\/span>\u201cHigh Thiaminase\u201d Food<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\nThiaminase is an enzyme found in bottom feeding and cold water fish. The enzyme can destroy one of the B vitamins. The myth goes something like, \u201cif you feed feeder fish like goldfish which have high levels of thiaminase enzyme your fish will get sick or die.\u201d This myth is repeated over and over by the PETA folks who think that using feeder fish like goldfish is cruel and should be made illegal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There are only a few references to thiaminase in the thirteen books above. The following quote is typical: \u201cDevelopment of Thiamine Deficiencies and Early Mortality Syndrome in Lake Trout by Feeding Experimental and Feral Fish Diets Containing Thiaminase\u201d, Honeyfield et. al. 2011:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n \u201cWe assessed the effects of each diet on egg thiamine concentration and incidence of an embryonic early mortality syndrome (EMS). In experiment 1, incidence of EMS ranged from 0% to 100%. Significant relationships were found between the incidence of EMS and thiamine. The number of females that produced offspring that died from EMS were low but demonstrated the negative potential if feral lake trout foraged on either 35% or 65% alewives. Depleted egg thiamine and the onset of EMS required diets containing thiaminase for a minimum of 2 years in lake trout initially fully thiamine replete. We conclude that EMS can be caused by extensive feeding on 100% alewives and dietary levels of 35% or greater may prove detrimental to sustainable reproduction of salmonids in the Great Lakes. The data are consistent with that observed in feral lake trout, and it is concluded that EMS is the result of a thiamine deficiency.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\nIn other words, after two years of being fed a high thiaminase diet, some of the female fish produced eggs which died early. This is just not something to be worried about. There was no article that indicated any health problems with feeding high thiaminase food like feeder goldfish to juvenile or adult fish.<\/p>\n\n\n\nPterophyllum scalare – Panda Angelfish<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n