Look at the words he chooses now. " Still, most of the research community seem to agree that fish typically do not possess the suite of enzymes necessary to turn chitin into a nutritionally useful form" and " I can imagine that addition of dietary fiber is largely irrelevant for a species with a lot of cellulose, whereas it would be far more likely to be beneficial for a species that is primarily carnivorous... Even given that, I think the popcorn analogy fits pretty well also." "Most seem to agree" and "I can imagine" are hardly scientific. I didn't expect a man in his position to completely reject the results of a study he obviously put a lot of his time into. Those who work in academia do so with grant money, and saying that all the work you did with the last grant is wrong is hardly conducive to acquiring the next one. Irregardless, I'm not going to allow you to change the premise of the debate. My assertion was that adult artemia are not nutritionally void. I never said it was an ideal or even balanced food. And Dr Toonen grudgingly agrees. How about you Chris?