I never agreed with you, nor did Dr T. Had I or had he you would have seen me state so clearly. Dr T was being overly generous with you imo. In fact, I see the exact opposite. This is why it was proper for you to post his complete words. To let others who may read decide for them selves as well.
You are still misquoting the adult artemia statement even now. So I will for the fifth time or so state it yet again:
"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."
So please explain to readers here why you are compelled to twist what he said? He never made the statement you keep trying to convince people he did. He never said all adult brine or most adult brine or even some adult brine, he specifically said those you buy in a pet shop, and he explained very clearly and concisely why this is the case in the reply from him I posted.
As far as I am concerned in that respect he was 100% correct and you 100% incorrect. I believe it is why you felt to compelled to switch the discussion to chitin. And that was a specious argument as well. What I saw him trying to tell you, as gently as possible, was that paper, a masters thesis, was only published because it is unique in what it suggested. But now let me again take a page from your book and ask this.
I seem to recall when I posted that aremia napulii lose protein when starved your response was that was not evidence that translates to adults. You stated that there needs to be independent evidence for that. So would it not be fair if somebody were to say that the about the chitin study? Show this isn't a unique situation that is only present in the young fish. Do we even know this might also show up in adults. And would it not be fair to want evidence this isn't a one of type thing but shows up some other species? I believe Dr T. addressed this as well. I am sorry but you don't get to change the rules mid-game- what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
That paper never drew any definite conclusions about what was going on. Need I remind you of the title "Chitinase and apparent digestibility of chitin in the digestive tract of juvenile cobia, Rachycentron canadum". The key word here is apparent. But let's assume for the moment it was a seminal piece of research picked up by the scientific community and run with. After all it does contradict the body of extant knowledge on this topic. That should be big news. Shouldn't one be able to find a few more studies that confirms it or shows it in another species.
One the other hand, he gave you two studies showing chitin can actually have adverse effects. There are a few more I would bet. And most of the literature on this subject since 2009, when the MS thesis was written or 2010 when published, continue to adhere to the opposite opinion that bacteria are needed for chitin digestion. Why doesn't anybody in the world of research see the same light going off that you do? In almost 4 years since it was published, such a contradictory piece of research should have peaked the curiosity of at least a few other researchers? So where are any papers to support it? Could it be that what Dr T said about it is right?
You seem unable to let this alone, apparently you have some sort of compulsion always to be right. But the beauty of it all this is both you and Dr. Toonen have now each had your say. Readers can decide for themselves if you are a well informed authority or if you are a blowhard. They can make the same decisions about Dr. Toonen. I have already made my decision, but that is totally irrelevant to what others chose to think.
Khemel- I have no clue what you are getting at. Dr. Toonen's wrote his two articles for people to be able to show others. Its in an online magazine free to all called The Advanced Aquarist. Don't you think if he felt I had done something wrong his participation in this thread would look much different. I gave proper credit to the source. Unlike Sub who merely wrote some numbers and Leger et al 1986- go find the work if you think that is responsible citing. I never fail to cite in a fashion which allows the reader to go directly to the source I am quoting and read every word for themselves.
