FishProfiles.com Message Forums

Hey everyone, just wondering if there's such thing as a flake food without phosphates. If not, will daily brine shrimp mess up the digestive tract from chittin/overload protein in most apisto's? Google seems to be failing me, and I'm away from my fish keeping books

There's no such thing as ANY food without phosphates. Phosphates have various functions in the cell and is extremely important for life. Basically, anything organic or derived from organics (which all food is) will have phosphate in it, and that includes brine shrimp. The real question would be if there are some foods with less phosphates than others, which I don't know the answer to.

Can you rotate with bloodworms or Daphnia instead/also? Daphnia and midge larvae are part of the natural diet of a vast majority of smaller fish, including many of those found in the aquarium. A greater variety will provide different nutrients as well and will generally result in healthier fish.

I'm assuming you're having algae problems? It might be beneficial to test your tap water for phosphates if you're having a phosphate problem, which could be an issue.

--------------------------------------------
The aquarist is one who must learn the ways of the biologist, the chemist, and the veterinarian.

sorry, meant no phosphates used for binding vitamin C, not zero phosphate. The food would definitely be changed out with other things both live and frozen, just looking for a safe staple diet.

Algae is a problem. Phosphates are something I need to get a test kit for, but from past experience I know that water changes with RO water aren't going to cut it alone unless I go with 75% or more RO. If I do go with that, then it may dilute the KH so far that there's no possibility of droping the ph via HCL without going below 4kh... though that test is still in the works (see the post in water the chemistry forum)

Eco complete is being used for the substrate, and I'm guessing it's adding phosphates, but the plants fairly much require it. The tank is moderate to heavy planted and getting about 3wpg (20 gal with 65w coralife compact fluorescant) with 8-10 hours light per day.

The only other thing I can think of is paying out another $100 for a co2 system in the tank so that the existing plants suck up more nutrients (i refuse to use DIY co2 because of ph instability with fish). Maybe a timer as well to keep the light at a consistent 8 hours.

Is there any practical way of removing phosphate from the water?

Hmmm, I have no idea about the use of phosphates for binding Vitamin C. That's something I've simply not heard of before.

As a staple diet, I think freshwater inverts would be more appropriate than a saltwater one, hence my suggestion. I tend to prefer to use processed foods as staples for ease, but I've never been concerned about phosphates.

CO2 might indeed be a good option if carbon is the limiting nutrient, which it often is. I use a timer, they're not too expensive, but going up to 10 hours a day shouldn't be a problem. I have 10 hrs a day and while my tank isn't algae free, it's not a huge problem either.

There are certain phosphate removal products available on the market. I haven't managed phosphate before so I'm not sure about what they all are, but PhosBan is a name I've heard before. PolyFilter, used for picking up random nasties, may or may not work for this. I'm just throwing out ideas here, I don't really know...

--------------------------------------------
The aquarist is one who must learn the ways of the biologist, the chemist, and the veterinarian.

All 3 kinds of fish food in the house have phosphates of some kind used as a binding agent for vitamin C and apparently it's pretty common.

What's wrong with using brine shrimp regularly? do they actually add a significant amount of sodium to the water, or will my fish have high blood pressure ?

Thanks for the advice, I'll start reading up on PhosBan

The convenience of being able to hatch brine shrimp from dry eggs is certainly a benefit, and they are also a good food to feed. On the other hand, cladocerans (ie. Daphnia) and chironomid larvae (ie. bloodworms) are both quite common in the natural habitats of many fish. I have read several scientific papers that reference a number of different species incorporating cladocerans and chironomid larvae in their diet. Although they are not likely the same species as cultured and frozen for us, as far as fish foods go, these are two of the best representatives of wild fish diet. On the other hand, anostracans (ie. brine shrimp) tend to be specialized species that live in ephemeral bodies of water where fish do not normally colonize. Of course, arguments of "natural-ness" lose meaning since we're keeping fish in glass boxes, but arguably freshwater fish are better adapted to utilizing Daphnia and bloodworms than they are brine shrimp (I say that without scientific data to back me up, though). I don't even feed my saltwater fish brine shrimp, because it's not like most saltwater fish come in contact with anostracans either; they almost definitely feed on animals such as mysids more often, which are extremely common in saltwater habitats.

Of course, it's certainly possible I'm missing out on some sort of "super-food" ability that brine shrimp might have, perhaps even being superior to natural foods. At the very least, it might not even be that much worse than natural foods. My reasons for not using brine shrimp are through reasoning from what I know, not because of evidence that it is a worse food. On top of that, I definitely use cucumbers and lettuce to feed my plces, neither of which are natural foods in the Amazon, lol. That probably breaks my argument down for attempting to be natural even further.

Hmmm, it appears I actually do have a bias against brine shrimp...

--------------------------------------------
The aquarist is one who must learn the ways of the biologist, the chemist, and the veterinarian.

I can't say I know anything about specific values of live fish food. I do have to disagree with the theory that because it's a staple, or naturaly occuring in the area, that it is superior. Given human cravings for poisonous things like fugu and the availability of grease laden fast food, I'm surprised vegetables have a chance at all. In fact I'm quite sure that the staple of the north american vegetable diet is iceberg lettuce the way things are going. I think this is one worth researching though, since it seems to be a very large, yet unmeasured variable between wild fish and the ones found in aquaria.

Thanks again for turning me on to PhosBan, so far I haven't read anything negative about it, so it may be worth testing on some tap water.

Likewise, I can't comment on the actual values of fish foods, which is why I base my preference in these fish foods based on personal bias more than anything. My argument for use of natural foods hits the wall since I prefer to use processed foods over anything else as a staple, rather than any live/frozen foods, and of course processed foods aren't found anywhere in the wild. On the other hand, processed foods are supposedly formulated to be best for a wide range of fish species.

BTW, when I meant a staple diet from the natural environment, I most certainly did not mean the artificial diet we enjoy as humans. Arguably, that point supports my argument; if we "went back" to foods we ate more of in the past in our natural environment, we might be healthier, no? Plus, craving is unrelated to actual benefit. Notice how the foods we enjoy most are the types we should eat least of, while we hardly crave foods we would find plentiful in our natural habitat despite being a necessary part of our diet.

It's been found that feeding freshwater fish to marine predators has been found to cause fatty liver disease. Fatty liver disease is basically what happens if you eat a ton of McDonald's; the liver becomes large, distended, and less functional due to high levels of saturated fats. This is due to different levels of various saturated fats between freshwater and saltwater fish. Of course, this is quite unrelated to our discussion, as invertebrates do not have the same fat make-up as fish. Unfortunately I have not read anything comparable about invertebrate live foods. Still, seeing as how relatively close relatives of Daphnia and bloodworms are found in the natural diets of many fish, I think they have the less potential for harm and possibly more potential for benefit than the more distant brine shrimp.

I don't even care if you're not persuaded anymore, I've found the discussion fascinating.

--------------------------------------------
The aquarist is one who must learn the ways of the biologist, the chemist, and the veterinarian.

The food we eat is natural, just modified by us... naturally occurring beings. Opioid receptors and endorphines play a large role in our cravings, as I imagine it would with most animals. Just as humans modify foods to achieve what we desire, animals migrate and eat selectively,. Moreover, if the food causes an animal to be healthier in its prime, but creates plaque on arteries that effects them later, when reproduction is less frequent, then the foods causing a population to explode may not in fact be best for the individual organisms life span. So then, the staple diet is not always the ideal either.

I find the feeding of freshwater fish to marine causing liver disease interesting. Many fresh water fish contain high omega-3 levels, arctic char are a prime reason Inuit rarely have heart disease with a traditional diet. There must be a completely different reaction to this in marine fish.

And I agree, the conversation has been interesting... even if I'm talking from, "between the anal fins" a little

Sure, our food is modified by us, but what sells is not necessarily modification for nutrition, but modifications for size, taste, and hardiness. What we desire is hardly the healthiest for us, and so generally we still often have some nutritional deficiencies. Fats and sugars sure are concentrated high-energy sources, but do not contain the balance of nutrition that is necessary.

Humans modifying food is the exact opposite of animals migrating for a specific type of food. One indicates a flexibility in changing food and the other indicates a stringency in food requirements following a specific diet rather than being open to new diets that may present themselves.

Er, gotta go, but I had to stick that in.

--------------------------------------------
The aquarist is one who must learn the ways of the biologist, the chemist, and the veterinarian.