Garlic the truth
- Thread starter deanemarine
- Start date
- Status
Hi Shaun,
I'm not sure that I understand your question?
MIke - with all due respect that thread on UR was shot down by one, to which many followed, which is quite a bit different from how you put it. It's not like I didn't expect that type of knee jerk reaction from the masses when their in house "expert" was challenged. That was a given from the get go.
Overall I think that Deane was just attempting to find out what all the big stink over garlic was about (pardon the pun), and was looking for a second opinion. Now he has one.
In a previous post I asked:
"So I'm curious, if/when one of your fish become ill, what type of natural cures does everyone on this forum use to treat those issues? Surely you don't use chemical substances where the long term effects of these drugs on marine fish has never been fully studied."
So far no one has responded.
Yet we are somehow to believe comments such as this one:
Interestingly enough, I couldn't help notice that the same person who provided this so called evidence, and I use the term very loosely, appears to support a new UK based fish food manufacturer, that most certainly has not yet held up to the test of time. So I couldn't help but think, how many long term feed trials have been performed on that particular brand, in the lab, or in the field? Hmmmmmm.
My only issue with the "science" in these garlic tests is one that I have stated repeatedly, it is scientifically impossible to compare the results of a feed trial, to any particular brand of commercial food, unless that brand of food itself was being used in said trial, be it the terrestrial lipid content, the allicin content, or whatever. Without known values found in the commercial feeds, ultimately you have nothing to compare to. Without proper testing one would not even be able to tell if in fact any allicin is even present once the food has been fully processed.
I doubt that you will find a scientist on the planet that will argue that point (well, maybe one?), and this is precisely why I have argued this point from the get go. It's impossible to study an apple, by testing an orange.
A scientist could prove to you on paper that the nitrogen (protein) content of any given food is quite favourable, yet at the same time that nitrogen could be comprised of a low quality, poorly digestible substance such as feather meal. An old leather boot will provide nitrogen, but the amino acid content certainly isn't going to provide optimum nutrition to your fish.
Manufacturers such as Hikari, Tetra, Omega One, Ocean Nutrition, New Life Spectrum, etc have all been around long enough to stand up to the test of time, and have proven themselves within this industry time & time again. They don't rely on junk science, and they most certainly don't look for ways to spend money on raw ingredients that they feel add no value to their products. To think otherwise is quite frankly very naive.
I'm not sure that I understand your question?
MIke - with all due respect that thread on UR was shot down by one, to which many followed, which is quite a bit different from how you put it. It's not like I didn't expect that type of knee jerk reaction from the masses when their in house "expert" was challenged. That was a given from the get go.
Overall I think that Deane was just attempting to find out what all the big stink over garlic was about (pardon the pun), and was looking for a second opinion. Now he has one.
In a previous post I asked:
"So I'm curious, if/when one of your fish become ill, what type of natural cures does everyone on this forum use to treat those issues? Surely you don't use chemical substances where the long term effects of these drugs on marine fish has never been fully studied."
So far no one has responded.
Yet we are somehow to believe comments such as this one:
Interestingly enough, I couldn't help notice that the same person who provided this so called evidence, and I use the term very loosely, appears to support a new UK based fish food manufacturer, that most certainly has not yet held up to the test of time. So I couldn't help but think, how many long term feed trials have been performed on that particular brand, in the lab, or in the field? Hmmmmmm.
My only issue with the "science" in these garlic tests is one that I have stated repeatedly, it is scientifically impossible to compare the results of a feed trial, to any particular brand of commercial food, unless that brand of food itself was being used in said trial, be it the terrestrial lipid content, the allicin content, or whatever. Without known values found in the commercial feeds, ultimately you have nothing to compare to. Without proper testing one would not even be able to tell if in fact any allicin is even present once the food has been fully processed.
I doubt that you will find a scientist on the planet that will argue that point (well, maybe one?), and this is precisely why I have argued this point from the get go. It's impossible to study an apple, by testing an orange.
A scientist could prove to you on paper that the nitrogen (protein) content of any given food is quite favourable, yet at the same time that nitrogen could be comprised of a low quality, poorly digestible substance such as feather meal. An old leather boot will provide nitrogen, but the amino acid content certainly isn't going to provide optimum nutrition to your fish.
Manufacturers such as Hikari, Tetra, Omega One, Ocean Nutrition, New Life Spectrum, etc have all been around long enough to stand up to the test of time, and have proven themselves within this industry time & time again. They don't rely on junk science, and they most certainly don't look for ways to spend money on raw ingredients that they feel add no value to their products. To think otherwise is quite frankly very naive.
Last edited:
Mike
Retired Moderator
RD, you talk of junk science, can you very simply prove the virtue of garlic in marine fish food, you clearly have a motive, give us the facts - you must have them, as a corporate enterprise, you must have done tests to find out, otherwise you would indeed have wasted money on research, and i'm sure you wouldn't have added it otherwise, because that would have been naive.
Also, the house "expert" is in fact an expert, you may try to rubbish him, but by doing so you make yourself look foolish and petty.
And how about a cards on the table honest approach - who are you working for?
Also, the house "expert" is in fact an expert, you may try to rubbish him, but by doing so you make yourself look foolish and petty.
And how about a cards on the table honest approach - who are you working for?
Heat must be involved as all fish food has an ash content.
Hi Shaun,
Yes, as Warr7207 just stated there is indeed heat involved. Floating pellets are typically manufactured by extrusion. The raw ingredients are milled and heated into a paste which is then forced through a set of holes which determine the pellet diameter. As this warm paste is forced through the holes under extreme pressure they expand and take on air, creating tiny microscopic voids within the pellet which in turn makes the pellets light enough to float. A series of blades then cut this expanded strand of paste into pellets. Floating sticks are made in the exact same fashion, the cuts are simply less frequently, producing a long stick rather than a pellet.
Sinking pellets are manufactured in a similar way, but in this process the pellet is prevented from expanding and taking on air during the extrusion process. The end result is a denser pellet that sinks. While the extrusion process is more costly than most other processing methods, the end result is feed conversion efficiencies are improved, and you get less waste material produced by the fish.
There are other methods that utilize steam, but that process is less expensive than the extrusion process, and the end result is typically a final product that uses more starch (for an increase in binding agents), is less stable in water, and overall has lower digestible protein efficiency. Flakes are also made with heat, but with flake food a large drum is utilized, with the end result being broken up as it leaves the drum.
I hope that helped answer your question.
Mike - I never suggested that he's not an "expert", nor was I attempting to "rubbish" him, but quite frankly I don't see his name being attached to his posts, or where he works, or what his position is, so to be honest he could be just about anyone. I wasn't just born yesterday, and I don't consider my position to be foolish, or petty, and a few comments from user ID's on an online chat forum isn't about to change that.
But let's be fair & assume that this person is more than qualified to speak on this subject (and I do believe that he is, if that makes you feel better) ----> but there is a MAJOR flaw in his "science", when he takes the results from a study involving purified allicin, and a single species of marine fish, and then extrapolates those results to ALL commercial fish food that contains some form of garlic. To estimate the value of a variable outside a known range from values within that range, is making a HUGE assumption. I have already proved how that assumption was false regarding the terrestrial lipid content from garlic, found in a commercial food where garlic powder was used at an inclusion rate of 5%. Please go back & re-read my first post in this thread, the total lipid content from garlic powder at the inclusion rate I mentioned wouldn't even show up on the radar. Even at twice that value it would be a non issue.
I guess everyone missed that little factoid?
Secondly, I know of no commercial fish food manufacturer that is using purified allacin in their food, which is what the expert claims was used in his test. Again, it's impossible to study an apple, by testing an orange.
Once again ..............
My only issue with the "science" in these garlic tests is one that I have stated repeatedly, it is scientifically impossible to compare the results of a feed trial, to any particular brand of commercial food, unless that brand of food itself was being used in said trial, be it testing for the terrestrial lipid content, the allicin content, or whatever. Without known values found in the commercial feeds, ultimately you have nothing to compare to. Without proper testing one would not even be able to tell if in fact any allicin is even present once the food has been fully processed.
Am I not being clear enough?
I could have a lab set up controlled tests using something as simple as vitamin A, or a trace element such as copper, and also prove that these substances can be lethal to marine fish. What does that prove?
What is being proposed by the expert from the data available, is indeed rubbish, and you don't need to be a research scientist in the aquaculture industry to see that. I am not saying that his particular tests & the results aren't valid, I am simply saying that you can't compare those tests, and the results, with what is being used in most commercial foods.
This isn't exactly rocket science, so I'm at a loss as to why anyone would not be able to understand this.
As far as being honest, I stated up front what my position was, I am a wholesale distributor who does indeed have a commercial interest in the fish food industry, nothing more, nothing less. In other words, I have my own company, and I work for myself. Also, I could have joined this & other forums, chatted a bit here & there for a spell, and later posted in the garlic threads, with a different ID, and produced myself as someone who works in the R&D dept of a major aquaculture research center ............ and no one would have ever been the wiser.
So for my honesty, what did I get in return? A bunch of nonsensical comments slung at me from those who would now expect me to reveal confidential proprietary information? Yeah, right, like that's going to happen anytime soon.
You state that I clearly have a motive - well what do you suggest that motive might be, Mike? I live in Canada, and quite frankly don't give a rat's behind what you or anyone else in SA feeds their fish.
After Deane had contacted New Life about this subject, and I read a comment from the expert that was in Deane's email, I did a google search on deanemarine which took me here.
I came here of my own free will, to add a second opinion on this subject. If you prefer not to hear my side of the story, or place any merit in it, that is entirely your prerogative. Hopefully others will be more open minded. Personally I'll take a 12 year ongoing feed trial, with species that are known for being next to impossible to keep in captivity, over a test in some lab, any day of the week. I don't need someone in a white coat telling me that what I see with my own two eyes, isn't actually what I'm seeing.
cheers
Yes, as Warr7207 just stated there is indeed heat involved. Floating pellets are typically manufactured by extrusion. The raw ingredients are milled and heated into a paste which is then forced through a set of holes which determine the pellet diameter. As this warm paste is forced through the holes under extreme pressure they expand and take on air, creating tiny microscopic voids within the pellet which in turn makes the pellets light enough to float. A series of blades then cut this expanded strand of paste into pellets. Floating sticks are made in the exact same fashion, the cuts are simply less frequently, producing a long stick rather than a pellet.
Sinking pellets are manufactured in a similar way, but in this process the pellet is prevented from expanding and taking on air during the extrusion process. The end result is a denser pellet that sinks. While the extrusion process is more costly than most other processing methods, the end result is feed conversion efficiencies are improved, and you get less waste material produced by the fish.
There are other methods that utilize steam, but that process is less expensive than the extrusion process, and the end result is typically a final product that uses more starch (for an increase in binding agents), is less stable in water, and overall has lower digestible protein efficiency. Flakes are also made with heat, but with flake food a large drum is utilized, with the end result being broken up as it leaves the drum.
I hope that helped answer your question.
Mike - I never suggested that he's not an "expert", nor was I attempting to "rubbish" him, but quite frankly I don't see his name being attached to his posts, or where he works, or what his position is, so to be honest he could be just about anyone. I wasn't just born yesterday, and I don't consider my position to be foolish, or petty, and a few comments from user ID's on an online chat forum isn't about to change that.
But let's be fair & assume that this person is more than qualified to speak on this subject (and I do believe that he is, if that makes you feel better) ----> but there is a MAJOR flaw in his "science", when he takes the results from a study involving purified allicin, and a single species of marine fish, and then extrapolates those results to ALL commercial fish food that contains some form of garlic. To estimate the value of a variable outside a known range from values within that range, is making a HUGE assumption. I have already proved how that assumption was false regarding the terrestrial lipid content from garlic, found in a commercial food where garlic powder was used at an inclusion rate of 5%. Please go back & re-read my first post in this thread, the total lipid content from garlic powder at the inclusion rate I mentioned wouldn't even show up on the radar. Even at twice that value it would be a non issue.
I guess everyone missed that little factoid?
Secondly, I know of no commercial fish food manufacturer that is using purified allacin in their food, which is what the expert claims was used in his test. Again, it's impossible to study an apple, by testing an orange.
Once again ..............
My only issue with the "science" in these garlic tests is one that I have stated repeatedly, it is scientifically impossible to compare the results of a feed trial, to any particular brand of commercial food, unless that brand of food itself was being used in said trial, be it testing for the terrestrial lipid content, the allicin content, or whatever. Without known values found in the commercial feeds, ultimately you have nothing to compare to. Without proper testing one would not even be able to tell if in fact any allicin is even present once the food has been fully processed.
Am I not being clear enough?
I could have a lab set up controlled tests using something as simple as vitamin A, or a trace element such as copper, and also prove that these substances can be lethal to marine fish. What does that prove?
What is being proposed by the expert from the data available, is indeed rubbish, and you don't need to be a research scientist in the aquaculture industry to see that. I am not saying that his particular tests & the results aren't valid, I am simply saying that you can't compare those tests, and the results, with what is being used in most commercial foods.
This isn't exactly rocket science, so I'm at a loss as to why anyone would not be able to understand this.
As far as being honest, I stated up front what my position was, I am a wholesale distributor who does indeed have a commercial interest in the fish food industry, nothing more, nothing less. In other words, I have my own company, and I work for myself. Also, I could have joined this & other forums, chatted a bit here & there for a spell, and later posted in the garlic threads, with a different ID, and produced myself as someone who works in the R&D dept of a major aquaculture research center ............ and no one would have ever been the wiser.
So for my honesty, what did I get in return? A bunch of nonsensical comments slung at me from those who would now expect me to reveal confidential proprietary information? Yeah, right, like that's going to happen anytime soon.
You state that I clearly have a motive - well what do you suggest that motive might be, Mike? I live in Canada, and quite frankly don't give a rat's behind what you or anyone else in SA feeds their fish.
After Deane had contacted New Life about this subject, and I read a comment from the expert that was in Deane's email, I did a google search on deanemarine which took me here.
I came here of my own free will, to add a second opinion on this subject. If you prefer not to hear my side of the story, or place any merit in it, that is entirely your prerogative. Hopefully others will be more open minded. Personally I'll take a 12 year ongoing feed trial, with species that are known for being next to impossible to keep in captivity, over a test in some lab, any day of the week. I don't need someone in a white coat telling me that what I see with my own two eyes, isn't actually what I'm seeing.
cheers
Last edited:
RD - Many thanks for your comments on MASA. For many folks - it is much appreciated.
Personally - I think that this debate will continue until the earth's end, as clearly there are multiple thoughts and idea's on this.
I would rather suggest that this thread is closed, as, unfortunately, it is not leading ANYWHERE. Just churning around and around the same set of ideas.
Reiterating what was said many times.
DeaneMarine - if you would not mind, I would rather suggest that this thread is closed, as I am QUITE sure that you have recieved the answer/s you needed/wanted to hear.
Everyone - I just want to thank you all for your input on this topic. I think that this topic have now been exhausted.
As such, I am immediately closing this thread - as I feel that nothing can really be added and said, that was said already.
It is just becoming a personal debate, which I, unfortunately feel, that this is not the place for it.
Once again - many thanks all for your great input.
Personally - I think that this debate will continue until the earth's end, as clearly there are multiple thoughts and idea's on this.
I would rather suggest that this thread is closed, as, unfortunately, it is not leading ANYWHERE. Just churning around and around the same set of ideas.
Reiterating what was said many times.
DeaneMarine - if you would not mind, I would rather suggest that this thread is closed, as I am QUITE sure that you have recieved the answer/s you needed/wanted to hear.
Everyone - I just want to thank you all for your input on this topic. I think that this topic have now been exhausted.
As such, I am immediately closing this thread - as I feel that nothing can really be added and said, that was said already.
It is just becoming a personal debate, which I, unfortunately feel, that this is not the place for it.
Once again - many thanks all for your great input.
BTW: If anyone feels different to what I have posted in my previous thread, please PM me and I will re-open the thread - if there is any information to be shared.
If anyone can indeed deliver more actual scientific proof, OR know someone who is indeed a bio-chemist as well as marine-biologist, who is indeed qualified (with traceable qualifications) - who knows BOTH the science of marine foods, as well as have the PURE scientific proof of ANY type of food-source/type on multiple marine aquatic animals (including ornamental marine aquarium fish) - please PM me - I would LOVE to post this information on this thread then.
BUT this MUST include full factual study material - and not just theoretical 3rd party conveyance of information.
If anyone can indeed deliver more actual scientific proof, OR know someone who is indeed a bio-chemist as well as marine-biologist, who is indeed qualified (with traceable qualifications) - who knows BOTH the science of marine foods, as well as have the PURE scientific proof of ANY type of food-source/type on multiple marine aquatic animals (including ornamental marine aquarium fish) - please PM me - I would LOVE to post this information on this thread then.
BUT this MUST include full factual study material - and not just theoretical 3rd party conveyance of information.
- Status