Don't look now Seamaiden, but here it comes....Macro algae..

[Anonymous]

...and for anyone who wonders about the benefits feeding lettuce vs nori sheets.
Nothing better for your fish than macro or microalgae - nothing.
This is one of myriad links I could have posted.

http://www.oceanvegetables.com/

When compared to plants that grow on land, sea vegetables are 10 to 20 times higher in vitamins, minerals and amino acids. Seaweed nutrition is found to be higher than land vegetables.

If you're wondering if this information is skewed due to the fact that it's a retail supplement, (as someone surely will) then feel free to just type in Nori, nutrient dense, and see what comes up. For that matter type in Romaine lettuce, nutrient dense and see what comes up by comparison.

Bottom line, those nori sheets at your LFS or local grocery store are not a waste of money. Use the lettuce here and there, but not as a staple if you want the best for your herbivorous fish. Given the stresses that they are subject to going from the ocean to our glass boxes, anything in their favor helps.

 

[Anonymous]

Then there's Spirulina, a microalgae which truth me told is even better - just available in flakes and not large sheets to my knowledge.

 

[Anonymous]

Something worth noting--while seaweeds are higher in many nutrients and vitamins than many terrestrial veggies, they are also much higher in certain things we may not want to be giving to our fishes. Phosphate and fat levels are about 5-10 times higher in seaweed than in lettuce. It's safe to say most captive herbivores are probably getting much higher levels of fat and phosphate than they would in the wild already, so it's worth keeping in mind when planning the diet for your fish. I would not suggest a strict diet of macroalgae and forsake all other foods (not that Jim is suggesting that ); rather make macroalgae a large part of a well balanced diet.

 

[Anonymous]

When compared to plants that grow on land, sea vegetables are 10 to 20 times higher in vitamins, minerals and amino acids. Seaweed nutrition is found to be higher than land vegetables.

If you're wondering if this information is skewed due to the fact that it's a retail supplement, (as someone surely will)...[/quote]

Well, they market it as a human food and conveniently omit that seaweed is also around 10 times higher in potassium and 100 times higher in sodium than lettuce and cabbage, so I do think it's worth considering the source is a commercial one.

 

[Anonymous]

whew... I thought Jim was going to say I need to eat seaweed... icky pooh! Also like Matt says with sodium, I can taste it, and it's not pleasing at all to me.

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the input Matt, especially regarding the phosphates.
And yeah, part of a well balanced diet! Along with Trix or Corn Pops.

It would be interesting to get the breakdown on a wide variety of macros.

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the input Matt, especially regarding the phosphates.
And yeah, part of a well balanced diet! Along with Trix or Corn Pops.

It would be interesting to get the breakdown on a wide variety of macros.

Definitely. I was a little vague here because the data I'm looking at is. It simply lists the seaweeds as "Agar", "Irishmoss", "Kelp", and "Dulse", which is not very specific of course. They are all uniformly high in the things I listed though.

FWIW, if you compare the nutritional profiles of Thalassia (seagrass, a true vascular plant) vs. terrestrial vegetables and Thalassia vs. seaweeds, it's far closer to things like bell peppers and cucumber than it is to seaweed.

 

[Anonymous]

Hmmm....
Maybe a good basis for a short Matt article here...AAOM needs you. I thought about it, but finding specific breakdowns turned out to be a PITA. Everyone agrees that it's like nothing else (keeping in mind the caveats you kindly mentioned) but I need numbers and like you, most of what I've found is vague.

I came home from Half Moon Bay one time with 3 kinds of macro that I was going to grind up, put in a binder and make cubes from to see if my fish would eat it.

My plans were thwarted however when it blew out of the back of my pickup on the way back.

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the input Matt, especially regarding the phosphates.
And yeah, part of a well balanced diet! Along with Trix or Corn Pops.

It would be interesting to get the breakdown on a wide variety of macros.

Definitely. I was a little vague here because the data I'm looking at is. It simply lists the seaweeds as "Agar", "Irishmoss", "Kelp", and "Dulse", which is not very specific of course. They are all uniformly high in the things I listed though.

FWIW, if you compare the nutritional profiles of Thalassia (seagrass, a true vascular plant) vs. terrestrial vegetables and Thalassia vs. seaweeds, it's far closer to things like bell peppers and cucumber than it is to seaweed.

Wait, isn't Irishmoss Dulse? Agar is a seweed, I thought it was a derivitive (sp?) of seaweed? There's sea Bell peppers? Ah, it's just early, never mind

 

[Anonymous]

Ok Jim, I'll bite, and let you in on a few "secrets".

First, compilation of nutritional information isn't the only issue at play, ad/absorption rates and ratios have a lot to do with a given organism's ability to utilize the nutrients in a given foodstuff. Then, there's the issue of "formation" (think chelated copper versus non-chelated copper). Then, there's the issue of how those nutrients are handled on a chemical and cellular level by any given organism. By your logic we should feed our fish Flintstone vitamins because they're more nutritious.

And while we're at it, I'd like to ask you not to denigrate (even by implication) excellent public aquariums like LBAOP. You made some blanket statements in the naso tang thread that showed no understanding of how a P.A. like LBAOP operates. Your response regarding, specifically, use of romaine lettuce demonstrated absolutely no knowledge or understanding of how and why they do things the way they do, nor did it account for the trouble and expense they go to in provision of all other foodstuffs for the animals in their care.

So, you've appointed yourself a nutritional expert, and that is dangerous territory, especially when you're only working with Google.
I have a friend who's a research assistant and she'll tell you that there is a vast amount of information that is not readily available via the WWW. Then there's my own mother, a registered dietitian and food scientist who will tell you that unless you can prove that you're a dietitian, researcher or food scientist you will absolutely not be allowed access to the information available through the sites she runs. (She uses an exhaustive screening process, the same type of process the research assistant friend has to undergo when doing her thing.)
That sort of information, the type that actual scientists and professionals use, comes at a cost. That's most likely the reason why you can't find the specific breakdown type of information you're seeking.

 

[Anonymous]

...and the gauntlet is laid down for all future generations of RDO peeps.

Peace,

Chip

 

[Anonymous]

I have a friend who's a research assistant and she'll tell you that there is a vast amount of information that is not readily available via the WWW. Then there's my own mother, a registered dietitian and food scientist who will tell you that unless you can prove that you're a dietitian, researcher or food scientist you will absolutely not be allowed access to the information available through the sites she runs. (She uses an exhaustive screening process, the same type of process the research assistant friend has to undergo when doing her thing.)

So, you have access to valuable information that can help us provide better nutrition for our pets? I am really getting into breeding MO, and I really need help with nutrition. I really think the majority of issues we deal with are related to nutrition (I know, DUH). Can you get us in?

 

[Anonymous]

None of this has anything to do with Google...and I think you know this despite your attempt to use that as a dig. I don't do that. When I do look there, I say do. I don't look elsewhere on the net then present information as if it's my own. My assertions on this subject come from other places, through 23 years of doing this, from actually taking the time to learn about nutrition myself over the years, and from living with someone who IS a nutrition expert.

I don't care what any public aquarium does, good for them. If they get decent results with lettuce, great. I did too for many years. That isn't to say that there aren't more nutritious options out there, although they may be less convenient and more costly. Things that you know...actually resemble their normal diet.

Yeah, I know a fair amount about what you're talking about there Marina, but I simply don't know enough about how much a given mineral a Yellow tang is capable of utilizing within a given period, nobody does. Might this make some elevated levels of certain nutrients moot? Of course. You seem, I'm not expert on Acanthurid metabolism.

At the end of the day, macro grows in their environment, and it's more nutrient dense - period. And with Phosphates!

Have I learned how to take care of fish over the last few decades? Most definitely. Do I know everything? Of course not. That doesn't change what all things considered is the most prudent course of action with regard to feeding when a modicum of common sense is applied. d
Despite what you seem to be implying, dietary information is not propriety information.
Lots of good books out there - non of the good stuff is on the net.

Lisa knows more about this stuff than any MD I've ever talked to or heard about...she's truly mind bending.

If you want to "get" me, you'll have to do it elsewhere.


Thanks.
Jim

 

[Anonymous]

Milzed.

Awwwww...what'd you say?

...and where's my Mandarin t-shirt?

Peace,

Chip

 

[Anonymous]

SUUHWHEET, Jim! :lol: Irrefutable logic strikes again! So, since humans didn't evolve in the ocean, what's the logic in insisting that we eat macroalgae, eh? :lol: How about using garlic on fishes, eh? And here I thought you were an expert (or as Bob says, ex-spurt!).

Oh! You MILZED IT! Even sweeter! :lol: :lol: Too late, Jim-boy.

I'm not even going to read your post Marina.
What grows in the Ocean?

Nuff said.

I have a friend who's a research assistant and she'll tell you that there is a vast amount of information that is not readily available via the WWW. Then there's my own mother, a registered dietitian and food scientist who will tell you that unless you can prove that you're a dietitian, researcher or food scientist you will absolutely not be allowed access to the information available through the sites she runs. (She uses an exhaustive screening process, the same type of process the research assistant friend has to undergo when doing her thing.)

So, you have access to valuable information that can help us provide better nutrition for our pets? I am really getting into breeding MO, and I really need help with nutrition. I really think the majority of issues we deal with are related to nutrition (I know, DUH). Can you get us in?

No, I didn't say that. I can't even say that I have access for nutrition information that's only for humans (that's what dietitians do, nutrition for humans), as I am not a dietitian. The friend who's a research assistant researches for whomever has hired her, and for whatever term/period she's been hired to research for, including the topic.

That was the point of my post, SW, that very often the reason why certain information is limited is because it is used by professionals in a given field (Failure Analysis Corp., or a scientist studying for publication on something that hasn't been published before, for instance). I wouldn't be surprised if, as a nurse, you might say that there is certain information that's only really available to people in the nursing profession, and that information may even be divided along lines of specialty (OR nurse, ped, geriatric, etc.), often because it absolutely requires a larger knowledge or base of understanding than the average layperson may have.

That doesn't even begin to touch the issues within the spectrum of nutrition, which, as I pointed out earlier is not just a question of nutrient content, but how a given nutrient or foodstuff might be utilized by a particular organism. There are, for instance, people within the dietetics profession who only study proteins (for example, anyone else here know what chirality is with regard to amino acid structure?). Obviously, more people study and more research has gone into human nutrition than that of marine ornamentals, vastly more, so the information you want may not even exist yet.

 

[Anonymous]

I milzed after I changed my mind and read your post darlin.

 

[Anonymous]

Ahh...nevermind.
Just stick with terrestrial plants gown in nutrient depleted soil for your marine fish, that makes sense.

I don't know anything.
:?

 

[Anonymous]

Hey, how did that debate on "ownership" go?

 

[Anonymous]

SUUHWHEET, Jim! :lol: Irrefutable logic strikes again! So, since humans didn't evolve in the ocean, what's the logic in insisting that we eat macroalgae, eh? :lol: How about using garlic on fishes, eh? And here I thought you were an expert (or as Bob says, ex-spurt!).

Uhh...yeah. It's calling moving toward a more nutrient dense food, instead of going the other way, regardless of where it grows.

People have been eating food out of the sea for quite some time hon. :wink:
You have nothing here, no game... tell you what though, I'll give you the last word.

Go....

 

[Anonymous]

Machine-gun postings AWAAAAYYY!!!! :lol: :lol:

Hey, since you say it is so, it MUST be.