No More BS About BS!

Status
Not open for further replies.
There is a great deal of more current and better research than that posted above. You will discover that neither bbs or adult bs without enrichment are the best of foods. You will see that the adults can be enriched more rapidly. However, you can not feed live adult brine to most fry, they need BBS.

If you would like to see some very good and more recent information on feeding live, have a read at the links below. The two articles are written for reef keepers- but the information on bbs and bs adults applies to either sw or fw. The are written by a Ph,D. and they include all sorts of references if you want to study more.

The most interesting info is there are 4 grades of BS eggs, only the lowest finds its way into the aquarium hobby. This is important because, apparently, the nutritional value of BBS are relative to the grade of egg from which they are hatched.

Aquarium Invertebrates: Nutritional Value Of Live Foods For The Coral Reef Aquarium, Part 1 By Rob Toonen, Ph.D.
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2003/12/inverts

Aquarium Invertebrates: Nutritional Value Of Live Foods For The Coral Reef Aquarium, Part 2
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2004/1/inverts

Here is a taste:
In this case, what you're really trying to accomplish is to get the baby brine shrimp to eat the stuff, so that they are basically swimming grocery bags full of those nutrients when you feed them to your reef tank. The problem is that baby brine shrimp are very inefficient feeders, and it takes a long time for them to ingest enough of the HUFA supplement that they become "enriched" (e.g., Evjemo et al. 1997; Han et al. 2000; Han et al. 2001). For newly hatched brine at the second instar, it takes at least 12 hours to get decent enrichment - in fact, its much better to enrich your Artemia nauplii for two 12 hour periods (with a water change between them to limit the growth of bacteria in the culture water). To clean the nauplii, simply pour the culture through a "brine shrimp net" (one of the fine, white mesh nets available at any pet shop) and rinse them a couple of times before setting them up in clean water and adding new HUFA. After the two 12-hour feedings of the HUFA supplement, the nutritional value of the nauplii is typically much greater than when they are newly hatched (reviewed by Coutteau and Mourente 1997; Rainuzzo et al. 1997; Sorgeloos et al. 2001).

The same is true of adult brine: they are largely devoid of nutritional value when you purchase them at the local petshop, and it is important to enrich them before feeding brine shrimp to your fish. For live adult brine shrimp, it is relatively simple to enrich them with a HUFA supplement (such as Selcon or Zoecon), and that greatly enhances the nutritional value of these animals as a food for your aquarium pets. Brine shrimp become more efficient feeders as they grow, and as a result, larger Artemia can be enriched in shorter times due to that increased efficiency of filter-feeding.
Click to expand...
 
Where can I buy that test kit to test the quality of the BS or ABS? Nothing like over confusing the issue for the home aquarist. Some folks just like having an aquarium and the fish/inverts they keep. Good facts are always welcome, even if they serve no real day to day need for the masses. Let alone them conducting experiments to see if any thing holds true for them and their tanks since they are not in a controlled environment for study purposes. Wonder if Tetra or others will now come out with a blood test so you know if what you are feeding is or is not providing what some say you need.
 
It seems that from 1986 to 1997 there has been quite a bit of new testing done to refute old and faulty data that wasn't all that inclusive of the variables the later testing seems to support. Whether fact or fiction for the sake of publication will always cause some to question either the results or the testing standards. With the speed at which this hobby seems to update it's sciences, I for one would be more inclined to accept a later testing process than an earlier one. As one paragraph pointed out, short of being a hatchery, the likelihood of the average hobbyist getting anything greater than marginal quality is unlikely. To that end, I think there is no surprise. For that matter, 6 months down the road all this can change again.......................
 
The statement that something which consists of over 50% protein is "devoid of nutritional value" is bs. As long as the organism ingesting the artemia can utilize the chitin in the exoskeleton, no artemia are ever "devoid of nutrition".
 
Thank you professor Sub. Perhaps, before you decide what somebody says is BS, you actually investigate their qualifications to say it. Did you bother to read more than my short quote, i.e. the two articles with all the details and then did you bother to check the references provided? Did you bother to Google "Rob Toonen, Ph.D.". So, please post your credentials and if they come close to his, maybe folks will think what you say is worth considering compared to what he says.

Oh yes, to make your "bs" criticism you had to misquote. Toonen said "they are largely devoid of nutritional value when you purchase them at the local petshop" but you decided to chop out all but the words "devoid of nutritional value" to make your argument. Sorry, this doesn't wash with me.

Oh yes, Leger et al did not vanish after their 1986 paper. He and associates continued to research. Read their 1992 paper and you see the foundation for what Dr. Toonen's articles are saying http://www.vliz.be/imisdocs/publications/135429.pdf The et als- Patrick Sorgeloos was still researching and writing on the topic as recently as 2011 and Patrick Lavens was active until at least 2008.

Rb- I am sorry if science confuses you. But please don't assume that the rest of the membership shares your difficulty understanding the science behind a lot of what is involved with aquariums or that they do not care. Those who do will investigate, those who don't can ignore it. I have no clue how you choose what to feed your fish given that you apparently believe the science of nutrition has no place in the discussion of what to feed fish. Do you believe that all brands of foods are identical and fish keepers can just select at random?

I believe most members here are able to deal with information that is more sophisticated than what might be written for a grade schooler. What I don't think many of them realize is they can actually find the science involved with virtually every aspect of the hobby. It is possible to find and read the research papers if one so desires. Knowledge is not static. One central principle of the scientific method is that there is always the possibility, even the probability, that future research will cause previously held beliefs to be revised, discarded or refined. But until such new research comes along to supplant the old, we use what is available at the time. The information I provided certainly supplants that in the study quoted in the first post which is some 27 years old. In fact subsequent work by the very same researchers was behind a lot of the revisions.
 
This is an interesting and useful discussion. I'd prefer to keep this thread open so I'd like to remind everyone involved to please keep things civil and avoid being negatively argumentative and/or insulting on the personal level. Carry on.
 
TwoTankAmin said:
Thank you professor Sub. Perhaps, before you decide what somebody says is BS, you actually investigate their qualifications to say it. Did you bother to read more than my short quote, i.e. the two articles with all the details and then did you bother to check the references provided? Did you bother to Google "Rob Toonen, Ph.D.". So, please post your credentials and if they come close to his, maybe folks will think what you say is worth considering compared to what he says.

Oh yes, to make your "bs" criticism you had to misquote. Toonen said "they are largely devoid of nutritional value when you purchase them at the local petshop" but you decided to chop out all but the words "devoid of nutritional value" to make your argument. Sorry, this doesn't wash with me.

Oh yes, Leger et al did not vanish after their 1986 paper. He and associates continued to research. Read their 1992 paper and you see the foundation for what Dr. Toonen's articles are saying http://www.vliz.be/imisdocs/publications/135429.pdf The et als- Patrick Sorgeloos was still researching and writing on the topic as recently as 2011 and Patrick Lavens was active until at least 2008.

Rb- I am sorry if science confuses you. But please don't assume that the rest of the membership shares your difficulty understanding the science behind a lot of what is involved with aquariums or that they do not care. Those who do will investigate, those who don't can ignore it. I have no clue how you choose what to feed your fish given that you apparently believe the science of nutrition has no place in the discussion of what to feed fish. Do you believe that all brands of foods are identical and fish keepers can just select at random?

I believe most members here are able to deal with information that is more sophisticated than what might be written for a grade schooler. What I don't think many of them realize is they can actually find the science involved with virtually every aspect of the hobby. It is possible to find and read the research papers if one so desires. Knowledge is not static. One central principle of the scientific method is that there is always the possibility, even the probability, that future research will cause previously held beliefs to be revised, discarded or refined. But until such new research comes along to supplant the old, we use what is available at the time. The information I provided certainly supplants that in the study quoted in the first post which is some 27 years old. In fact subsequent work by the very same researchers was behind a lot of the revisions.
Click to expand...


Why TTA, please don't honor yourself at all thinking my comment had anything to do with you. Quite the contrary, it had nothing to do with you at all. While the fact is out there on what has nutritional value or not, it doesn't mean all folks will draw the same conclusion from the data presented. None of us have to agree with what is presented by another, regardless how deeply a sole member may. As Slappy mentioned, no need to resort to personal attacks..it doesn't reaffirm or condemn the data presented in the links you posted.
 
TwoTankAmin said:
Thank you professor Sub. Perhaps, before you decide what somebody says is BS, you actually investigate their qualifications to say it. Did you bother to read more than my short quote, i.e. the two articles with all the details and then did you bother to check the references provided? Did you bother to Google "Rob Toonen, Ph.D.". So, please post your credentials and if they come close to his, maybe folks will think what you say is worth considering compared to what he says.

Oh yes, to make your "bs" criticism you had to misquote. Toonen said "they are largely devoid of nutritional value when you purchase them at the local petshop" but you decided to chop out all but the words "devoid of nutritional value" to make your argument. Sorry, this doesn't wash with me.

Oh yes, Leger et al did not vanish after their 1986 paper. He and associates continued to research. Read their 1992 paper and you see the foundation for what Dr. Toonen's articles are saying http://www.vliz.be/imisdocs/publications/135429.pdf The et als- Patrick Sorgeloos was still researching and writing on the topic as recently as 2011 and Patrick Lavens was active until at least 2008.

Rb- I am sorry if science confuses you. But please don't assume that the rest of the membership shares your difficulty understanding the science behind a lot of what is involved with aquariums or that they do not care. Those who do will investigate, those who don't can ignore it. I have no clue how you choose what to feed your fish given that you apparently believe the science of nutrition has no place in the discussion of what to feed fish. Do you believe that all brands of foods are identical and fish keepers can just select at random?

I believe most members here are able to deal with information that is more sophisticated than what might be written for a grade schooler. What I don't think many of them realize is they can actually find the science involved with virtually every aspect of the hobby. It is possible to find and read the research papers if one so desires. Knowledge is not static. One central principle of the scientific method is that there is always the possibility, even the probability, that future research will cause previously held beliefs to be revised, discarded or refined. But until such new research comes along to supplant the old, we use what is available at the time. The information I provided certainly supplants that in the study quoted in the first post which is some 27 years old. In fact subsequent work by the very same researchers was behind a lot of the revisions.
Click to expand...
I suppose it depends upon one's definitions of the words involved. I prefer Webster's definitions to yours and Dr Toonen's. I take it neither of you were English majors I repeat. No food source containing over 50% protein is devoid of nutrition, largely or in any other way to a creature which can digest it. Perhaps if you stopped confusing your feelings about certain people with real things such as facts and numbers, you wouldn't seem so pompous.
 
Regardless of the science used, anything less than 27 years is bound to be more accurate. Testing methods and analytics change often as science progresses. There are constant updates in methodology and anything beyond 5-10 years is often outdated. For that matter, somewhere along the way, it is very possible that by the time something is published it is already outdated. Science is not static. It becomes a case of keep up or get left behind. Those that can't or won't keep up are information dinosaurs.
 
excuzzzeme said:
Regardless of the science used, anything less than 27 years is bound to be more accurate. Testing methods and analytics change often as science progresses. There are constant updates in methodology and anything beyond 5-10 years is often outdated. For that matter, somewhere along the way, it is very possible that by the time something is published it is already outdated. Science is not static. It becomes a case of keep up or get left behind. Those that can't or won't keep up are information dinosaurs.
Click to expand...
Well Jeff, the protein content of artemia, and the methods used to determine it haven't changed since 1986. Since the protein content is the basis for my assertion that adult artemia are not devoid of nutrition, it appears you too need to stop worrying so much about who says something. The dinosaurs in this matter are those who continue to believe that adult artemia are nutritionally void.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
AquariaCentral.com
Top Bottom