# North fin food and preservative



## Iamwho (Nov 24, 2016)

Northfin food claim "NorthFin Premium Fish Foods does not use any preservatives or harmful chemicals to preserve its product line." http://www.canadian-aquatic-feed.com/

Oscarfish.com gave it a highest 6 stars rating because they do not use preservative or ethoxyquin (harmful chemical). Here is an interesting lengthy discussions. http://www.oscarfish.com/forum/fish-foo ... ?start=130

In today's market, people tend to demand natural food. If they can manufacture with no preservative, How come the other well established & well known companies still use preservative? Can food go rancid too quickly? Isn't Rancid food worse than using preservative acceptable level set by FDA.? 
What is your opinion?


----------



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

I freeze my food and buy only a six month supply. Northfin also has very high quality ingredients...where as the quality of the ingredients in some more well-established foods (like my favorite NLS) has declined in recent years. Still good, but Northfin seems better.


----------



## Iamwho (Nov 24, 2016)

Can you elaborate why it is better? "Better" is a subjective term. Could you please give me reasons? point by point, so that I can understand your reasoning?


----------



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

For example, with NLS Whole Wheat Flour is the 3rd ingredient. For Northfin it is Whole Sardine Meal, then kelp, then spirulina before we get into any binder ingredients like flour.

In the past NLS had an impressive list of fruits and vegetables in their ingredient list and those are gone.

My post was subjective, and I said Northfin seems better...to me. I am not a scientist. Do your own research and compare and see what you think. As you stated the Oscar forum has the results of their compare posted.


----------



## Iamwho (Nov 24, 2016)

I did my research. The 6 stars rating is base on NF does not use ethoxyquin.

Here is the link. http://www.oscarfish.com/4-star-foods/2 ... lysis.html

" Very little, if anything, seperates Northfin and NLS. NLS may even be a better product due to the healthful benefits of Chlorella Algae and Ulva Seaweed. The reason Northfin has recieved a 6 star rating and NLS remains in the 5 star category (5.5 stars) is that I have been able to recieve an "Ethoyxquin Free" statement from Northfin, to include absence of Ethoxyquin in pre-manufacture meals. I have not been able to recieve an Ethoxyquin free statement from NLS. Site rules in ingredient ratings is that to achieve a "6 star" rating, the manufacture must identify an Ethoxyquin free food ".

Should good or bad base on one item?Namely ethoxyquin? Major companies like Omega, Tetras... uses ethoxyquin. Certainly, they know the trent of " natural " will be more attractive alternative. Is it because ethoxyquin free ingredients is hard to come by?


----------



## Iamwho (Nov 24, 2016)

Another observation is, the most expensive Krill pro listed Ingredients: 85% Whole Antarctic Krill Meal, Wheat Flour (binding agent), Kelp, Spirulina, Garlic, Calcium Montmorillonite Clay, Astaxanthin (Haematococcus Algae), Vitamin A Acetate, L-Ascorby-2-Polyphospate (Source of Vitamin C), D-Activated Animal-Sterol (D3), DL Alphatocopherol (E), Vitamin B12 Supplement, Riboflavin Supplement, Niacin, Pantothenic Acid, Thiamine, Calcium Pantothenate, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride, Folic Acid, Biotin, Choline Chloride, Cobalt Sulfate, Ferrous Sulfate, Manganese Sulfate, Selenium, Zinc.

Wheat four is listed on the second ingredient, does it means it is a less quality product? I don't think so. Many companies are using same marketing strategy and tactic listed many varieties of leftover fish parts that made into fish meal and then listed the names of the fish such as Salmon, Tuna, Cod fish, Halibut, herring, sardine, grouper...etc then follow by wheat four. All at a sudden, wheat flour become the 7th ingredient. Most hobbyist get suck into thinking this is a better food because wheat flour is on the 7th ingredient. Wow! there must be a lots of fish and almost no wheat flour. It is further from the truth. All the different type of fish are total sum of what the fish meal is made of.


----------



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

Major companies do not necessarily produce the highest quality food. I found the Oscar evaluation helpful. I reviewed the Omega and Tetra ingredients before making the NLS decision, and at that time I liked the NLS list better. Now NLS has less of the things I felt gave it merit. I'll let you know how I like the Northfin next year.

Fish meal is made of ground fish. That's why saying "whole fish meal" indicates they don't just use leftover fish parts.


----------



## Iamwho (Nov 24, 2016)

When I talk about large varieties of fish made into fish meal and disguise them as if they have very large amount of fish included. I wasn't referring to Northfin. But many companies do just that. This is just to show you how label listing can be manipulate by dishonest manufacturer. The unfortunate thing is that people fall for it.
Although I would like to point out ingredients listing alone should not be the determining factor to judge the quality of a fish food. Ultimately, it should be judge on the basis promoting good health, less disease prone, longevity...etc It should not base on feeling but hard facts.


----------



## Narwhal72 (Sep 26, 2006)

Technically it is not legal to identify the different species of fish used in fish meal in an ingredients statement. Adjective descriptors are not allowed per AAFCO standards. You can use Whole Fish Meal since Whole is different from regular Fish Meal (which is made from the pieces left over after filleting). But using Herring meal, Sardine meal, Salmon, etc... in the ingredient statement is not legal in the U.S.

Personally, I would be very concerned about any food without any preservatives. With a 9% moisture content and those fat contents I would be very concerned about the food turning rancid before you could feed it.


----------



## Iamwho (Nov 24, 2016)

This is the email response from NLS regarding suggestion of declining quality on their food. below is the direct quote:

"How could anybody suggests that NLS is not as good as it use to be? When we made so much effort in improving our formulas.

First, we replaced the terrestrial plant matters with over 6 varieties of much costlier seaweeds. Second, we reduced the wheat flour in favor of seaweed as binding agent. Third,we increased the amount of krill inclusion in all our formulas.

Most people might not even know (except for the floating food) that the 125 g NLS food is about 150 g.,and the 2,000 g. actual weigh is about 2270g.
We do not exaggerate to sell our products. Statements above show that we have a tendency to under stated our products.

Our business philosophy has always been honesty, integrity and "do unto other as you would have them do unto you".

Innovation is the key to our success while mediocrity will contribute to our demise.The day our food becomes mediocre is the day we cease to exist! Providing consumers with quality products is the best insurance for our survival and prosperity."[/b]

Can some one weigh their new unopened jar or bucket of NLS to find out whether the company is blowing hot air or telling the truth? Weight calculation should be weight of the food without the weight of the container.
As I got older, I am more cynical. Company tends to exaggerate and make false claims. If the under reporting weight is true, then it will be very refreshing to know that there are still a few company that give more to consumers than just watching out for their own bottom line $$$$$$.


----------



## Narwhal72 (Sep 26, 2006)

I don't think underweight foods are a problem with anyone.

1. These are checked randomly by the states as under weight packages are actually illegal. There is no penalty for being overweight.

2. Food labels have to have measurements in mass. However the bottles, jars, and pouches that foods are sold in are sized by volume. Most manufacturers put more than the minimum weight in in order to make the packages look full.


----------



## Iamwho (Nov 24, 2016)

What they are claiming is unbelievable over 20%+ more than what is listed on the labels. That's why I am questioning the accuracy of the statement. Do you think most companies will give away that much free food without listing it to their advantage? I don't think so. Yes, the net weight can not be under the weight listed. Not even by 1 gram. To be safe, most companies will over packed by 1 to 5% more, But 20%+????


----------



## Narwhal72 (Sep 26, 2006)

I know first hand that that is quite often the case. The food itself is often lower cost than the jar it comes in.

If the customer opens the jar and it doesn't look full or they see only a partially full jar on the shelf (if it is a clear jar) they won't buy it again. It's important to keep the jar full to make the product marketable. This often means overfilling the labeled weight by 10% or more.

Also, because fish food is so light weight and packaged in small packages the margin of error for the filling machines is quite a high percentage. Generally higher than 5%. And that's assuming it's an automated filling machine being used and not done by hand.


----------



## Iamwho (Nov 24, 2016)

"The food itself is often lower cost than the jar it comes in."

I just bought a 250g. gram KRILL PRO for $30.00 plus shipping. How much do you think the bag cost? maybe $1.00 -$2.00.With your calculation the food will cost less than $2.00. So the total cost of the food is $4.00. and markup to the end consumer is 800 %. I think I am in the wrong business!

Anyway, This might ( very doubtful ) apply to the super El Cheapo food, but not food that uses premium costly ingredients. I think KRILL PRO will cost about $10.00 to manufactured.


----------



## Narwhal72 (Sep 26, 2006)

I can't speak for what Northfins cost and pricing are as I do not work for them.

I can tell you that I have first hand knowledge of what fish food costs are as I work in R&D for one of the largest aquarium products companies in the U.S. And while I can can't comment on what our costs are specifically I can tell you that roughly every $1 of cost to the manufacturer = $10 to the consumer.

Also, Krill meal is not legal in fish foods in the U.S.A. Nothing wrong with it, other than the FDA and AAFCO do not consider it an approved ingredient and it's technically not legal.


----------



## Iamwho (Nov 24, 2016)

This is precisely why most very large manufacture uses cheap ingredients to reduced cost. Many fish foods on the market are substandard. They need an ungodly profit to maintain the bloated overhead. This remind me of the pharmaceutical industry that are ripping off the consumers.


----------



## Narwhal72 (Sep 26, 2006)

Sorry, but that's just not true. Most fish foods contain pretty much the same ingredients. And you would be hard pressed to find any scientific data that provides supporting evidence that a premium fish food is any better than a mass market brand. Saying something is "substandard" is disingenuous since there really is no defined standard.

Most of it is just marketing hype. It's interesting that the ornamental fish industry is actually going in the opposite direction as the commercial aquaculture industry. Foods containing more marine proteins (fish meal, krill meal, etc...) are viewed as high quality, yet they are the most environmentally unfriendly and unsustainable ingredients to put in an ornamental fish food. Whereas with commercial aquaculture, the push is to reduce marine proteins in favor of plant proteins which are more environmentally friendly and sustainable. Something that is quite difficult to do because of the improper ratios of Omega 3 and 6 fatty acids between plants and marine proteins and lack of certain amino acids.

As far as pricing no one is getting ripped off. Northfin's cost/pricing is probably about the same ratio. That's the reality of business for most things. The manufacturer has a cost to produce the product, they then put a margin on it that covers their overhead and provides a profit and sell it. It goes to a distributor who puts their own margin on it and then sells it to a retailer who puts their margin on it. It's called two step distribution and is very common in everything you buy.

Now granted that Northfin is a very small player and probably is doing one step distribution (selling directly to a dealer). This can affect pricing one of two ways. 
1. They built in a 2 step model into their pricing structure and are just taking the extra margin that would have gone to the distributor themselves when they sell direct to the dealer. Advantage is that if they grow and start picking up distributors their volume goes up but the retail price remains about the same. Disadvantage is that the pricing is not much different from their competitors which eliminates a powerful competitive tool.
2. They don't have a distributor model built in and are selling at a lower retail price than it would be in 2 step. If they do get picked up by a distributor, retail prices would increase dramatically because of the extra step. This gives them an advantage early by being able to sell for lower prices than vendors currently in 2 step distribution. But it hurts their long term growth unless they build up a very strong brand loyalty with the consumer. Once the retails go up, consumers will switch brands without a strong brand loyalty.


----------



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

I find Northfin to be more expensive than any other food I have used.


----------



## Narwhal72 (Sep 26, 2006)

There are many factors that affect price that consumers do not have visibility to.

1. Do they cook and process the food themselves or do they get it from a feed mill?
2. What size batches are they making? Do they benefit or are they hurt by economies of scale?
3. What is their overhead and costs?
4. What are their margins?

As consumers we do not have visibility to any of this (and it applies to all products, not just aquarium ones) so any speculation on price gouging is just that. Guessing.


----------



## Iamwho (Nov 24, 2016)

"They (Northfin) don't have a distributor model built in and are selling at a lower retail price than it would be 2 step model"

$30.00 for 250 grams is cheap? If they use the 2 step model from distributor to retail store, then the pricing might be $60.00 for 250 grams? Wow!

"Most fish foods contain pretty much the same ingredients"?

According to you, a product that is made from cheaper ingredients such blood meal, feather meal, soy, cereal and lower grade fish meal&#8230;etc are the same as a higher quality ingredients such as marine protein&#8230;etc? Based on this logic, why not buy a commercial trout chow, catfish feed or aquaculture feed for food fish? You can buy those type of food for as little as $50.00 for 50 pounds.

One thing to bear in mind, commercial aquaculture food aim is to grow the fish as fast as possible and longevity does not come into picture. Many fish we kept do not digest terrestrial plant matters or land animal protein efficiently. This is one of the reason why so too many fish died of unknown causes. 
I can go on and on with a long winded dissertation. The argument you are making is like saying eating lots of carbohydrate, trans fat, sugar&#8230;etc is the same as eating a healthier food such as fish, fruit and vegetable. It makes no different.

"I can tell you that roughly every $1 of cost to the manufacturer = $10 to the consumer".

If the fish food companies are marking up 1,000 %, then, yes, they are price gouging. specially if they are using the low grade ingredients. I hope you are not going to tell me all ingredients are basically within the same price range.


----------



## Narwhal72 (Sep 26, 2006)

Oh boy. Where to start.



> $30.00 for 250 grams is cheap? If they use the 2 step model from distributor to retail store, then the pricing might be $60.00 for 250 grams? Wow!


Not quite. You are taking the price increase off of retail. Not what the item costs to the retailer. Even at retail that's a 50% margin which is much higher than what most markups are.

I didn't say that it was cheap. We don't know anything about their costs. Their retail pricing is based on markups that start from their cost of production which we also don't know. I don't think you understand what I was saying. If we use $30 retail and work backward for one step distribution and just use a 33% margin as a margin (a very conservative assumption) then the cost to the retailer is $20. If we assume that Northfin is also taking a 33% margin then Northfin's true cost would be $13.33. Again this is just an assumption. Either seller could (and likely does) have a very different margin.

If we assume that Northfin has already built in distributor pricing then the cost to the distributor would be $13.33. Work backward one more step and assuming Northfin is taking a 33% margin then Northfin's true cost would be $8.89.



> According to you, a product that is made from cheaper ingredients such blood meal, feather meal, soy, cereal and lower grade fish meal&#8230;etc are the same as a higher quality ingredients such as marine protein&#8230;etc? Based on this logic, why not buy a commercial trout chow, catfish feed or aquaculture feed for food fish? You can buy those type of food for as little as $50.00 for 50 pounds.


I think you are focusing on the ingredients and not the end result. If the end result of the food formula (no matter what ingredients are used) is a complete balance of protein, fat, fiber, vitamins and minerals then it will make absolutely no difference on the health, color and longevity of the fish. The problem is that it is quite difficult to get the proper ratio of Omega 3 to Omega 6 fatty acids from non-marine ingredients like poultry. But adding ingredients like fish oil or krill oil can compensate for this. Also with the exception of salmon diets, there aren't many color enhancers added to commercial foods. I also know quite a few ornamental fish farms that feed their fish trout and catfish chows. So there are differences between commercial foods and ornamental foods but it is mainly due to marketing requirements and not anything to do with the health or longevity of the fish.



> If the fish food companies are marking up 1,000 %, then, yes, they are price gouging. specially if they are using the low grade ingredients. I hope you are not going to tell me all ingredients are basically within the same price range.


I already explained how distribution and margins affect cost. And yes the ingredients are all within the same price range. Fish meal is fish meal, Wheat flour is wheat flour, they aren't going to change that much from one supplier to another. Only the volume that you buy them at is really going to affect the price. Of course your formula can include a lot of really expensive ingredients like Krill meal or Squid meal which is going to change the cost. But if my formula has 10% krill meal and your formula has 20% krill meal and we both are buying the same amount of krill meal the krill meal is going to cost the same.


----------



## Iamwho (Nov 24, 2016)

This discussion started with your comment about 20% more food is a common practice. implying the food is sooo cheap!
Narwhal72 quote " I know first hand that that is quite often the case. The food itself is often lower cost than the jar it comes in."

Another quote " I can tell you that roughly every $1 of cost to the manufacturer = $10 to the consumer".

Your $1.00=$10.00 equation simply does not add up. Consumer will be paying $5.60. So, $10.00 will be excessive. In my book it is consider price gouging. Maybe that is what some of the large corporations doing, Using super cheap ingredients such as soy and all kinds of plant protein, shall I say,"El Cheapo" ingredients. They then charge a premium price on their less than optimal food. No wonder the food cost less than the the jar. See below illustration.

If the food cost $1.00 to the manufactured 
manufacturer sell to distributor for $2.00 with 100% markup
distributor sell to retail store for $2.80 with a 40% markup
store sell it to the end consumer for $5.60 a 100% markup

A typical lower grade food with lower quality ingredients look like this
600 pound of soybean meal cost per pound 0.75cents,+600 pound of wheat flour .60 cents per pound,+ 300 pound generic fish meal (leftover fish parts) 1.00 per pound, +200 pound of shrimp meal (leftover leftover head and shells) $1.00 per pound,+300 pound of misc. plant protein such as corn gluten, pea protein,cotton meal seed...$0.75
Total cost per ton is $1,535.00= 0.76 per pound

A higher grade food with higher quality ingredients look like this.
500 pound of Krill meal $3.00 per pound, +500 pound of whole herring meal $1.75,+500 pound of Wheat flour $0.60 per pound, +100 pound of spirulina $4.00 per pound, +400 pound misc. Garlic. kelp. astaxantin, marigold, &#8230;.3.00 per pound
Total cost per ton is $4,250= $2.10 per pound

you also claimed " Most fish foods contain pretty much the same ingredients". And " the end result of the food formula (no matter what ingredients are used) is a complete balance of protein, fat, fiber, vitamins and minerals then it will make absolutely no difference on the health, color and longevity of the fish".

And "I also know quite a few ornamental fish farms that feed their fish trout and catfish chows. So there are differences between commercial foods and ornamental foods but it is mainly due to marketing requirements and not anything to do with the health or longevity of the fish
".
"you would be hard pressed to find any scientific data that provides supporting evidence that a premium fish food is any better than a mass market brand". 

Tropical Fish grow in Florida outdoor ponds has plenty of natural food to eat. But in home aquarium, There are no natural food to eat. Therefore the food we feed has to be higher quality food and less polution. Dr. Francis Ruth Floyd conducted a study and found that many Florida raised African cichlids has fatty liver disease due to the commercial they feed their fish.

"Food labels have to have measurements in mass. However the bottles, jars, and pouches that foods are sold in are sized by volume. Most manufacturers put more than the minimum weight in in order to make the packages look full".

I don't know of any fish food company sell their food on a volume weight. The volume weight only apply to shipping. Fish food always use net weight measure by grams or ounces. Net weight is actual weight of the food without the weight of the container. This is a standard measurement by law!


----------



## Narwhal72 (Sep 26, 2006)

OK.

First. Prices are determined by margin not percent markup. If the product has a cost of $1.00 and is sold at $2.00 the seller made $1 in profit from the $2 sale. 50% of the sale was their profit margin.

It's really kind of pointless to argue this as neither of us know for sure what distributor and retail margins are. I can tell you that a distributor would not sell food at a 28.6% margin. It's too low. Items like food and filter cartridges typically have 33%-50% margins if not higher. Consumables are what drives the business and makes selling the filter and other aquarium accessories worthwhile.



> Tropical Fish grow in Florida outdoor ponds has plenty of natural food to eat. But in home aquarium, There are no natural food to eat. Therefore the food we feed has to be higher quality food and less polution. Dr. Francis Ruth Floyd conducted a study and found that many Florida raised African cichlids has fatty liver disease due to the commercial they feed their fish.


Do you realize that your first and second sentences directly contradict each other? I do find your claim intriguing though. Can you link to the paper she wrote on the subject? I looked up her publications through PubMed and did not see anything on the subject of fatty liver disease or fish nutrition specifically. Her paper on Tropical fish husbandry is a basic care guide and has no information you wouldn't find in a normal fish book other than ways to clinically analyze a sick fish.



> I don't know of any fish food company sell their food on a volume weight. The volume weight only apply to shipping. Fish food always use net weight measure by grams or ounces. Net weight is actual weight of the food without the weight of the container. This is a standard measurement by law!


Let me make this more clear. The food is sold by weight. The package itself is sold by volume. If I am a fish food manufacturer and I need a jar to put my food in, I go to the blow molder and I ask for a jar that holds 8 fl. oz or 236.5ml. The molder sells their jars by volume not by weight. You can't ask a molder to make a jar that is for xx grams of food. They would have no idea how big the jar has to be.

One last thing. I am not sure where you got your pricing for feed ingredients. But if you use your high end cost at $2.10 per lb. Then the 250G Northfin you bought for $30 has a true cost of feed at $0.55. Even adding in a $1.00 for packaging that would still be $1.55 true cost. That means that every $1 of cost = $19.35 to the consumer. Far worse than what I had estimated. Of course we don't know what any of those costs truely are and what burden they are adding so that should all be taken with a grain of salt.

I am not sure what your agenda here is. But if you contradict your claims with the facts and arguments you present, then you should probably let it go.


----------



## Iamwho (Nov 24, 2016)

( 1 )O.K. what? you agree that it is not a common practice to give away more than 10% or more free food? or you still insist on your statement that" This often means overfilling the labeled weight by 10% or more"?

( 2 ) Since I don't know what you are talking about, it's pointless to discuss any further. I simply object to your $1.00 to $10.00 formula, because You said "I can tell you that roughly every $1 of cost to the manufacturer = $10 to the consumer".I still think the profit margin is excessive! We will let the reader be the judge and make up their own mind. Case closed.

( 3 )As long as we are clear that fish food is sold by net. wt. not volume weight. In other word, fish food packed in an eight oz jar does not charge by the size of the jar, but by the nt. wt. of the food. If the label says 100g net. wt. it does not matter whether the jar is full or 3/4 full. as long as the weight matches the label. This is the least important point.It does not effect the well being of your fish.

( 4 )250g is $1.463 cents not 0.55 cents
Simple math.
! pound is 354 grams. 
$ 2.10 divided by 354 grams= .00593 cents.
250 grams X .0059322 cents= $1.483

( 5 ) my agenda is to warn people that low grade food, chuck full of carbohydrate could kill your fish slowly in a home aquarium setting. I am objecting your comments about " Most fish foods contain pretty much the same ingredients. And you would be hard pressed to find any scientific data that provides supporting evidence that a premium fish food is any better than a mass market brand"

http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00003586/00001/120x
page 110
"symptoms of Malawi bloat were observed in carnivorous species( H ahli) on a high carbohydrate 54% diet ( Chapter 4 ). Histoanalysis of these fish showed enlarge liver with substantial glycogen granules in the hepatocytes. These results suggested that excess carbohydrate in the diet was not utilized efficiently. It has been thought that Malawi bloat primarily affect herbivorous fish. In my studies, both species were affected (slow growth, loss of appetite and lethargy".

It is important to keep in mind that many cereal ( flour corn, middling&#8230;etc) are carbohydrate. On top of that, many plant protein such soy, potato, rice, pea protein...etc. are also loaded with carbohydrate. So, carbohydrate on top of carbohydrate will be waaay more than 54%.


----------



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

Consider us warned, thanks!


----------



## Narwhal72 (Sep 26, 2006)

1. Yes it is common practice to overfill the weight. It makes the jar look full and hedges against being underweight. The food as a percentage of true cost is very low and it's easy to do. 
2. It's OK if you are ignorant of business pricing matrices. You are welcome to your opinion. 
3. There is no such thing as volume weight. You are trying to confuse the issue by making irrelevant statements. If I am a manufacturer with a 4 fl. oz. jar and I put 250G of food in it and the jar does not look full I can add more food and change may label to match or I can just add more food to make it look full and leave the label as it is. If I change the label and my food is a little short one day on the line because my scale is miscalibrated or some other reason I am in legal violation. But if I don't change the label and I am a little short from normal levels, but over the label weight I am not in violation. The food is low cost to do this and this IS how it is done in practical application.
4. 1 lb = 453.59 grams not 354 grams. Guess we both had our math wrong. $1.159 per package. Add in $1 for packaging and let's add another $1 for overhead and burden and true cost is $3.159. Divide $30 by $3.159 and you get 9.5. So for every $1 of cost = $9.50 retail. Guess I was right after all.
5. Read the whole paper before making conclusions based on snippets of information. I read this paper many years ago. Just forgot it was her doctoral dissertation.

The H. ahli (a carnivorous species) did poorly on the high carb diet. But it also did poorly on the high protein and high fat diet. P. socolofi did much better on the high carb diet and more poorly on the high protein and high fat diet than the H. ahli. Both species did better on a lower protein and lower fat diet. I suggest you go and read Chapter 4 again. So the "cheap fish food" is actually better for mbuna than it is for a hap. But the "premium" fish food is actually worse for an mbuna than a hap.


----------



## Iamwho (Nov 24, 2016)

1 pound is 454 grams. My mistake I shouldn't be posting at 4:00AM. I made my points and raised concern for the hobby.


----------

