- Creation
-
Creator (Definite): Medicus (Our Dogs contributor)
- Current Holder(s)
-
- No links match your filters. Clear Filters
-
-
Cited byJ. Beharrell (President, Association of Fish Meal and Fish Oil Manufcaturers) to Our Dogs, 102 (6th March 1936), p. 740.
Description:‘Sir, - I was very sorry to read the article in your issue dated February 21 by “Medicus” on the question of Fish Meal for Dogs, and with the greatest possible respect for medical knowledge, I must in all fairness to the important industry which I represent, point out that he is not correct in what he says.
Perhaps I should first explain that under the Fertiliser and Feeding Stuffs Act – passed to protect all users of this product - there are two grades – white-fish meal and fish meal. The former is manufactured from fresh edible fish, and is the most nutritive feeding-stuff on the market to-day. Its freshness is guaranteed by the fact that it is produced, packed, and usually delivered to the customer within 24 hours of the fish being landed at the port.
Every manufacturer of white-fish meal must give a full analysis in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and the salt content – never more than 3 per cent – has never been known to cause any ill-effect, particularly when one remembers the proportion of white-fish meal is merely 10 per cent of the total ration used.
The term white-fish meal does not refer to the colour of the product (which should be neither white nor brown, but a shade all of its own – sea-grey), but to the fact that only the better class of fish – that is, white fish, such as cod, haddock, hake, etc. – are used in its manufacture, and purity of every bag is guaranteed by the manufacturers.
“Medicus” admits the value of iodine in white-fish meal, but if he examine the mineral content he will find many other constituents essential to health. To name just a few: Phosphorous, calcium, chlorine, sulphur, magnesium, copper, fluorine; in fact every mineral found in the sea in minute quanitites.
.. [detailed break-down of chemical content of ‘white-fish meal’]…
All this refers to white-fish meal only, and not to fish-meal, which is usually imported, and is not recommended for animal or stock-feeding; and if “Medicus” would read Bulletin No. 63, issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, he would see the wide difference between the two products.
Breeders can be assured that white-fish meal is, without a single doubt, the finest protein food for dogs or cats, silver foxes, poultry, pigs, and every animal in the home or on the farm.
The consumption of white fish-meal in this country is increasing at the rate of 5,000 tons each year, and this would indicate that breeders and feeders are more than satisfied with the results; and in conclusion I would quote a well-known authority, who writes:-
“It is clear, therefore, that white-fish meal compares favourably with other feeding stuffs as an economical source of proteins and minerals. In this connection it is interesting to note that many of the shrewdest and most successful breeders continue in all circumstances to employ white-fish meal in the rations of their animals.”
If any of your readers would care to have a copy of Bulletin No. 63, this will be supplied free on application to The Publicity Bureau, Association of Fish Meal Manufacturers, 148, Fleet Street, London, E.C. 4, who will also be glad to give any information regarding the qualities and use of this important product to anyone who may be interested.’ (pg.)
Relevant passages from "Medicus" article:
'In the first place it is important to know what is meant by "fish meal." I have used it at odd times for many years past for the feeding of young poultry - always taking care to stop it in good time before they begin to lay or before they are intended to be used for the table. Its value in that direction is very variable. Sometimes it will tend to hasten growth or to speed up laying; at other times it does more harm than good by overheating the system. It rarely happens that one can get two samples exactly alike. The reason for this is that this "fish meal" is refuse dried and powdered; by "refuse" I mean not necessarily bad fish unfit for human consumption, but offal of various kinds and surplus fish for which there is no market at the time and which cannot for various reasons be put into cold storage.
...
... before using, and still more before recommending it, I should want a complete analysis. The worst feature it generally contains is a high percentage of salt. Salt is not good for dogs. It produces vomiting, and that is an obvious sign of stomach irritation...
... my first first demand in purchasing fish meal for dogs would be to have a sample guaranteed from salt. That, I fear, would be a very disturbing demand to make of the average producer of fish meal, because it is notorious that all sorts of surplus dried and salted fish are ground up and sold in this way. I can well believe that fish meal with all its salt will make excellent cattle food - though whether or not it wold cause an unpleasant flavour to the milk I cannot say. Probably some of the farmers who read Our Dogs can tell us that.
Fish meal is usually offered in two forms - the white and the brown. The latter is what is mostly sold, as it covers up all sorts of waste material, whereas the white has to be prepared from white fish and is less less likely to have been salted. In regard to that (which is the only fish meal I myself would entertain for a moment as suitable for dog food) the question arises: What, if any, are its advantages over meat meal or (for that amtter) raw meat - the natural food of the dog for which Nature has equipped him with special sets of teeth for tearing and crunching bones and for picking them clean of meat before they are crunched?
There is one valuable content only in fish - as a food for dogs - and that is the iodine which it contains. This iodine, however, is mostly to be found in the liver. Cod-liveroil and its much-advertised substitute, halibut-liver oil, are rich in iodine content, and for that reason are very valuable adjuncts to the food of growing puppies... But as regards iodine in fish meal I should be very dubious about that... If one of my dogs has skin complaint or any trouble that in my view would benefit by iodine treatment, I should much prefer to make sure that he gets what he really wants by giving him twice a day the appropriate quantity of French tincture of iodine mixed carefully with a little creamy milk than to trust to an imaginary iodine content in any meal that had not actually been prepared within a few hours beforehand so that its iodine could not possibly have disappeared.' (pg.)
-
Cited byJuliette de Baïracli-Levi (Kennelmaid) to Our Dogs, 'Fish Meal for Dogs', Our Dogs 102 (13th March 1936), p. 824.
Description:'I, like "Medicus," would never, no matter how good the analysis, feed commercial fish meal, at any rate to the kennel inmates whose health is most vital - i.e. puppies and brood bitches - as suggested in your journal of 6th March. I would always entertain fears, such as tha the manufacturers may not be "fly conscious" as dog breeders are (or ought to be), or that diseased fish, even by mischance, may have been included; this, in my opinion, applies to all dried protein foods.
But I fully realise the value of fish, especially for growing stock, and think that the following way of giving its most important content admirable. Most kennels deal in some way with fish shops, and nearly all fish shops collect a great amount of waste, in the form of back-bones, etc., from filleted fish, which they are usually pleased to be rid of, and will for a few pence deliver two or three times a week to one's kennels. This, when boiled down (until the bone is softened) and then mixed with brown rice which has been cooked in the juice obtained from the boiling of the bones, makes, in my and in several well-known breeders' opinions, who have tested it, a feed unbeatable.
...
I must also, before concluding, say a little in praise of fish itself, when given raw, as "Medicus" advised. Raw herring, of course, is a miraculous food for all dogs; mackrel is also good, and has actually a higher protein content than meat.
... I think fish in summer (and it will soon be here again) is unbeatable, and at 3d. to 4d. a pound it is even less expensive than the large quantities of clogging starchy foods which are given, no matter the time of year, in so many kennels.
...
[Those who wish to feed their dogs on fish meal are reminded that among the numerous varieties of food made by the well-known dog-biscuit companies is, and has been for years, a biscuit for dogs containing a proper proportion of the finest white fish meal. - Ed.]' (824)
Relevant passages from "Medicus" article:
'As regards dogs, the only really satisfactory form in which it I have found it is in that of "fish biscuits" - similar to ordinary "meat" dog cakes, but having fish meal substituted for granulated fish meal. These are quite wholesome and useful as a change from the ordinary biscuit; but they should not be regarded as a complete substitute for meat fibrine cakes.
But fish meal - used as a meal and mixed up with other ingredients for the feeding of hounds, in kennels, for example - is another proposition, and I should myself be very chary of recommending it. Indeed, before using, and still more before recommending it, I should want a complete analysis.
...
There is, of course, this further disadvantage about fish meal as a dog food - that it is not what a dog really needs. Foods that simply fill up the stomach, requiring neither cunching nor the action of the strong digestive juices with which nature has equipped the dog, will all tend to cause indigestion and its many attendant troubles.
No, I am not in favour of fish meal as a general food for dogs except in the hard biscuit form, and then I look upon it merely in the nature of a change from ordinary biscuits. If I think a dog wants fish at all I give him fresh uncooked fish; then I know that he gets all the iodine and whatever other virtues it may contain generally.' (pg.)
-
Quoted byD.J. Parker, 'A Defence of the Use of Fish Meal and its use in the Canine Dietary', Our Dogs 102 (6th March 1936), pp. 743-4.
Description:'After a careful perusal of the article by "Medicus" on "Fish Meal for Dogs," which appeared in Our Dogs of the 21st February, I have come to the conclusion that he does not fully realise the benefits which are to be obtained by the use of modern, high-class white fish meal.
Knowing how widely your contributor's notes are read, and the importance which will be attached to his opinion in view of the excellence of his many previous articles, I feel compelled to bring to the notice of the readers of Our Dogs some facts concerning not only the nature and methods of manufacture of white fish meal, but of my own experience of the feeding of this valuable protein concentrate to both poultry and dogs.
As a justification of my claim to make some small contribution to what has been, and is still being, written on this subject, I may state that I have studied the process of manufacture in the largest white fish meal works in the world, have studied its use in poultry husbandry in collaboration with experts who have devoted many years of research to the breeding and feeding of strains of heavy winter layers, and have embodied it in the dietary of my own dogs.
As "Medicus" says it is important to know what is meant by "fish meal." There is a great deal of difference between "fish meal" and "white fish meal." A meal that contains more than 6 per cent. of oil must be described as "fish meal" only, whereas a meal containing less than 6 per cent. of oil is a "white fish meal" and may be so described by the vendor. In point of fact, however, reputable manufacturers sell under a guaranteed analysis which, among other things, states without any equivocation that the maximum oil content of their product is only 3 per cent.
"Medicus" startles me when he states that "It rarely happens that one can get two samples exactly alike," and later suggests that there might be some difficulty in getting an analysis. I fees sure that if he realised the enormous amount of capital represented by a modern, first-class white fish meal works, and the amount of skilled technical supervision which is exercised throughout the process of manufacture, he would not be troubled on either of these scores.
...
Turning for the moment to the question of the percentage of salt present in white fish meal, it should be noted that the guaranteed analysis gives a maximum of 3 per cent., but in practice it has been found that the manufacturers have been able to reduce this figure fairly considerably. I am only too willing to acknowledge that "Medicus" has here touched upon what I regard as being the one disadvantage of white fish meal as an article of canine diet, but actual test has convinced me that the disadvantage is such a trifling one, and is so heavily outweighed by advantages of which I shall make mention later, that it need cause no concern. The fact that my coal merchant cannot guarantee my house coal free from ash does not deter me from the enjoyment of a roaring blaze on a cold evening.
If it is notorious that "all sorts of of dried and salted fish are ground up and sold in this way" (i.e. as fish meal), it is high time that such unenviable notoriety gave way to true facts. I can state with no fear of contradiction that no such such material is used fin the manufacture of white fish meal nor, in this country, by reputable manufacturers of ordinary fish meal. It is certainly converted into fish guano, which is quite another story.
"Medicus" goes astray again when he deals with the colour of fish meals. The brown colour is not an indication that the meal "covers up all sorts of waste material"; it very likely conveys nothing more than the fact that the meal was processed in old style rotary driers. Indeed, upon analysis such meals are found (provided they are the products of reliable British manufacturers) to be only slightly inferior to the lighter coloured meals which have been cooked under vacuum at a lower temperature.
There is, of course, the possibility that "Medicus" has been sufficiently unfortunate to have had experience of cheap foreign fish meals, for it is to be regretted that small quantities are still being imported. These inferior meals could not, in any case, be termed white fish meal, which, as I have shown, is the finest quality obtainable. Though "Medicus" appears rather hazy about the real grounds for differentiating between white fish meal and fish meal, I am glad to see that he draws a comparison in favour (however slight that favour may be) of the former, as it is certainly the best for canine use; being ready to delivery, in the majority of cases, twelve hours or so after leaving the trawler's fishroom in the shape of raw fish, it certainly has very little chance of being salted en route. Moreover, the fact that it is used by every reputable firm of dog biscuit manufacturers is a strong point in its favour.
Modern methods of production preserve in white fish meal the essential characteristics of products derived from the sea, and the advantage of feeding fish meal have been amply demonstrated in both experimental work and practical feeding. They include greater growth per unit of protein fed, better milk production in cattle, and improved bone structure as a result of the calcium content and vitamin value, for there is every reason for believing that the vitamins A and D are present in white fish meal, and tests are in process to determine the presence or absence of vitamin C.
As a means of promoting health, growth, and "finish" of domestic animals over and above that derived from normal feed, white fish meal stands alone. The truth of this assertion is amply proved by an examination of the literature appertaining to fish meal. The first mention of this commodity in scientific literature dates from 1835, but the appreciation of its advantages over and above those of a normal protein concentrate is of recent date. The appreciation is, however, rapidly increasing, and this is borne out by the fact that the figures for the consumption of white fish meal in the British Isles have increased by 50 per cent. over the last three years and continue to advance rapidly.
... [p. 743-744]...
My reasons for testing white fish meal as a food for dogs arose out of my experience of its use in connection with poultry.
I am a strong believer in raw meat as the staple article of a canine dietary, but I realise that change and a certain amount of biscuit or similar food are both necessary and desirable if one wishes to obtain the utmost value from all food used.' (743-4)
Relevant passages from "Medicus" article:
'In the first place it is important to know what is meant by "fish meal." I have used it at odd times for many years past for the feeding of young poultry - always taking care to stop it in good time before they begin to lay or before they are intended to be used for the table. Its value in that direction is very variable. Sometimes it will tend to hasten growth or to speed up laying; at other times it does more harm than good by overheating the system. It rarely happens that one can get two samples exactly alike. The reason for this is that this "fish meal" is refuse dried and powdered; by "refuse" I mean not necessarily bad fish unfit for human consumption, but offal of various kinds and surplus fish for which there is no market at the time and which cannot for various reasons be put into cold storage.
...
... before using, and still more before recommending it, I should want a complete analysis. The worst feature it generally contains is a high percentage of salt. Salt is not good for dogs. It produces vomiting, and that is an obvious sign of stomach irritation...
... my first first demand in purchasing fish meal for dogs would be to have a sample guaranteed from salt. That, I fear, would be a very disturbing demand to make of the average producer of fish meal, because it is notorious that all sorts of surplus dried and salted fish are ground up and sold in this way. I can well believe that fish meal with all its salt will make excellent cattle food - though whether or not it wold cause an unpleasant flavour to the milk I cannot say...
Fish meal is offered in two forms - the white and the brown. The latter is what is mostly sold, as it covers up all sorts of waste material, whereas the white has to be prepared from white fish and is less less likely to have been salted. In regard to that (which is the only fish meal I myself would entertain for a moment as suitable for dog food) the question arises: What, if any, are its advantages over meat meal or (for that amtter) raw meat - the natural food of the dog for which Nature has equipped him with special sets of teeth for tearing and crunching bones and for picking them clean of meat before they are crunched?' (578)
