No More BS About BS!

[TwoTankAmin]

Well Sub did offer one good idea and I have acted on it. I have emailed Dr. Toonen. It is pointless for me to argue or explain on his behalf, I do not have his qualifications nor experience and I did not write the statement. He is the marine biologist, he wrote it so let him explain or defend it. While I may believe it, that is not enough to settle things for the purposes of this thread.

Sub- I included all your quotes explaining why his statement is wrong, why he misstated things and that he should change them. I asked him if he could expand on what he said so we can understand it and why it is valid, or not. This is exactly what I asked him to tell us:

"So my question is what this person is saying correct, or does he not have any clue? I would very much like to be able to provide the reason your statement is correct or else to concede his points are correct and your statement should be revised? If you are curious about this thread, you can find it here http://www.aquariacentral.com/forums/showthread.php?272717-No-More-BS-About-BS

I also realize you have a busy schedule and will understand if you tell me you cannot provide an answer. But if you can, I would be most grateful."

Despite all the rantings and insults I have been subjected to by Sub, I am willing to admit his side of things if he should prove to have been correct. Time will tell, hopefully. However, I would not hold my breath waiting for the reply as this is a man who is often at sea for weeks on end doing research. If I get an answer I will post the emails here unless he specifically states I should not do so.

 

[SubRosa]

Well Sub did offer one good idea and I have acted on it. I have emailed Dr. Toonen. It is pointless for me to argue or explain on his behalf, I do not have his qualifications nor experience and I did not write the statement. He is the marine biologist, he wrote it so let him explain or defend it. While I may believe it, that is not enough to settle things for the purposes of this thread.

Sub- I included all your quotes explaining why his statement is wrong, why he misstated things and that he should change them. I asked him if he could expand on what he said so we can understand it and why it is valid, or not. This is exactly what I asked him to tell us:

"So my question is what this person is saying correct, or does he not have any clue? I would very much like to be able to provide the reason your statement is correct or else to concede his points are correct and your statement should be revised? If you are curious about this thread, you can find it here http://www.aquariacentral.com/forums/showthread.php?272717-No-More-BS-About-BS

I also realize you have a busy schedule and will understand if you tell me you cannot provide an answer. But if you can, I would be most grateful."

Despite all the rantings and insults I have been subjected to by Sub, I am willing to admit his side of things if he should prove to have been correct. Time will tell, hopefully. However, I would not hold my breath waiting for the reply as this is a man who is often at sea for weeks on end doing research. If I get an answer I will post the emails here unless he specifically states I should not do so.

Well done! But you know, since you said you were done posting on the topic, a lack of integrity between your words and actions can now be added to the list of your shortcomings. But since you've already crossed that threshold and have nothing further to lose by posting yet again, please do let us know Dr Toonen's response. Btw you were the first to start the insults with your condescending "Professor Sub" comment. Just in case you'd forgotten. As an analogy, if you go around hitting people, you will get varying responses from them. Some will cry. Some will call for help. Some will hit back. And in that last group, some of those will hit you back harder than you hit them. I assure you the analogy holds for insults as well. A wise person who was bothered by the insults he received in reply to his own would realize he insulted the wrong person. Once again, I'm looking forward to hearing Dr Toonen's reply.

 

[Khemul]

Ha ha, SubRosa got tattled on.

 

[SubRosa]

Ha ha, SubRosa got tattled on.

Not for the first time, and probably not for the last either!

 

[TwoTankAmin]

But you know, since you said you were done posting on the topic, a lack of integrity between your words and actions can now be added to the list of your shortcomings.

No, I never said I was done posting , these are your words not mine. My words were I was done with the discussion on artemia, that is a far cry from saying I will take your insults. Apparently, you need to study those things you decided I know nothing about- English and semantics. I hate to burst your bubble, but my first years in college were as an English major. However, my degree was in Psychology.

As for who started insults, go back and look. Here is what you said regarding the information I initially posted/linked to:

"The statement that something which consists of over 50% protein is "devoid of nutritional value" is bs." Now it seems to me calling something BS is an insult. Yes you were insulting him, but by way of my posting the info as relevant and valid, you were also saying that what I posted was BS. And so you got back what you gave as far as I am concerned. And it was such a degrading insult- I called you Professor Sub. Take a look at your responses. Take a look at how many and how pointedly nasty they are. They say a lot about your character.

However, by way of another analogy, if you go around posting information that is scientifically unsound or plain incorrect, you bet I will be there to call you on it.

None of these comments have anything to do with a discussion of the nutritional value of artemia, especially those sold in pet stores, etc. When I said I was done with that discussion with you, I meant it.

What is more interesting to me, and much more revealing about your character, is your response to my saying I contacted Dr Toonen for clarification. This was what I also said "Despite all the rantings and insults I have been subjected to by Sub, I am willing to admit his side of things if he should prove to have been correct." On the other hand your response was not to say something to the effect: "If he provides the evidence to backup/prove what he said and I am wrong, I will be happy to concede that." What you said was more nasty insults. I do believe that says more about the egos here than anything else.

I will say that your behavior here has had one beneficial side effect for me, I now know more about brine shrimp, their care feeding and use than I can possibly use. I even spent time on a Belgian site reading old papers by Leger and Sorgeloos for a few hours. This included the 1986 one you vaguely referenced in your initial post.

Sub- you clearly indicated that a Ph.D. after somebody's name doesn't mean they know anything. Are you aware that the people you sort of quoteded in your initial post are all Ph.D.s? I am curious why your PH.D.s are acceptable but mine are not? Leger has a Ph.D. in pharmacology, Sorgeloos a Ph.D. in marine biology (I believe), Patrick Lavens has a Ph.D. in Applied Biological Sciences. I didn't bother with the 4th guy- 3 Ph.D.s was enough. All three of these gents are still alive and well and have available email addresses. Would it help any if I contacted one of them, show them exactly what Dr. Toonen said (not identifying the author) and ask them to either confirm or deny the veracity of that statement? I think this matter should be resolved by the people involved and not you or I.

I have been told by several members here that you will never ever let anybody have the last word on anything, so I await your next insult. They always amuse me since, if nothing else, in that respect you are eloquent. And to avoid any semantic issue:

Definition of ELOQUENT1: marked by forceful and fluent expression <an eloquent preacher>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eloquent

Just an FYI to other members. If for some reason the Mods decide this thread should be locked and I subsequently hear from Dr. Toonen, I will make a new thread to post that reply.

 

[Glabe]

Just an FYI to other members. If for some reason the Mods decide this thread should be locked and I subsequently hear from Dr. Toonen, I will make a new thread to post that reply.

this thread better not become locked! I nearly cut off my own fingers to refrain from posting about 5 hilarities and/or memes for the sole reason of keeping this thread open to educate (and entertain.)

 

[TwoTankAmin]

I am amazed, I heard back from Dr. Toonen, so as promised, and with his permission I am posting his reply:

Hey Chris,
Thanks for your message - you happened to catch me in town for a week, so it is good timing. It would take a while to compose a properly detailed response, but my immediate response is that my statement is not BS for several reasons.

1) It really depends on how you measure things what the protein content of your food is, and it is easy to lie with statistics. For example, if you are reporting 50% protein content, then that is most likely an ash-free dry weight measure - I would have to check the study to know, but by comparison, the guaranteed analysis I have on the package of brine shrimp here is:
Crude Protein-Min 5.0%
Crude Fat-Min 0.8%
Crude Fiber-Max 0.3%
Moisture-Max 92.0%
Regardless, let's just say that the number is accurate for a live Artemia swimming in a nutrient-enriched culture pond. Although it was undefined to say "largely devoid of nutritional value" because I did not explain what I meant by that, it is not, in fact, inaccurate - the animals are low in HUFA to start with, and are not fed during collection, shipping or storage in most pet shops to minimize water fouling in the tanks. As a result, the animals are starving for days to weeks before it would be possible to purchase live brine shrimp in any petshop. Starvation results in the animals metabolizing their muscle tissue in a desperate attempt to preserve critical energy reserves and maintain physiological function. This results in further rapid depletion (exponential decline) of the nutrient value of the animals as a food source, and this loss is faster the higher the temperature. One such study in nauplii (tested from 5 to 26C) showed 50-90% loss of lipids per day, and protein loss of up to 28% per day for starved Artemia (Evjemo et al. 2001, Aquaculture 193:65-80). So even if they were to start with 50% protein when collected, at room temperature, they are losing about 25% of that per day - how long do you have to go from collection to your tank before it is not great for feeding?
Further, the argument that the exoskeleton is made of chitin is confusing to me. In fact, if the "organism ingesting the artemia can utilize the chitin in the exoskeleton, no artemia are ever devoid of nutrition" is absolutely true. Unfortunately, that assumes that the organisms ingesting the Artemia CAN utilize chitin, which I have not seen evidence of for fishes. Chitin is a long-chain polymer of N-acetylglucosamine, which is functionally equivalent of cellulose or keratin - it's job is to be a highly refractory compound that is not easily broken down and is essentially undigestable. Most animals that feed on such food sources require bacteria to break them down first, and then the animals ingest the semi-decomposed refractory compound and digest the bacteria as opposed to the refractory compound itself. Thus, chitin is generally considered a good source of dietary fiber but not much else... For example, when we extract DNA from tissue samples in our lab, we use a purified digestive enzyme called proteinase-K which turns the samples into dissolved mush within at most a few hours of addition - except for chitin which looks exactly the same after a day or two in the solution as it did when it was first added. The same is true on the passage through the gut of any vertebrate for which I have seen any data, and a quick search on Google Scholar for the nutritional value of chitin in vertebrates turned up only a study which shows that supplementing fish diets with chitin DECREASES their growth (Shiau& Yu 1999, Aquaculture 179:439-446). So I am not sure what exactly is the evidence that fish can digest chitin and that it provides a useful source of protein for them?
I stand by my original statement in that article that buying live Artemia in the petshop may be a nice treat for your fish, but is is essentially devoid of real nutritional value unless you enrich the animals prior to feeding...
Aloha,
Rob

I am satisfied that Sub clearly has no clue on this issue. I do not need to concede a thing. But to be sure, Sub, I am willing to contact Dr. Sorgeloos or even Dr. Leger as stated above if you like assuming I can locate his email addy. I can not guarantee they will respond.

 

[SubRosa]

No, I never said I was done posting , these are your words not mine. My words were I was done with the discussion on artemia, that is a far cry from saying I will take your insults. Apparently, you need to study those things you decided I know nothing about- English and semantics. I hate to burst your bubble, but my first years in college were as an English major. However, my degree was in Psychology.

As for who started insults, go back and look. Here is what you said regarding the information I initially posted/linked to:

"The statement that something which consists of over 50% protein is "devoid of nutritional value" is bs." Now it seems to me calling something BS is an insult. Yes you were insulting him, but by way of my posting the info as relevant and valid, you were also saying that what I posted was BS. And so you got back what you gave as far as I am concerned. And it was such a degrading insult- I called you Professor Sub. Take a look at your responses. Take a look at how many and how pointedly nasty they are. They say a lot about your character.

However, by way of another analogy, if you go around posting information that is scientifically unsound or plain incorrect, you bet I will be there to call you on it.

None of these comments have anything to do with a discussion of the nutritional value of artemia, especially those sold in pet stores, etc. When I said I was done with that discussion with you, I meant it.

What is more interesting to me, and much more revealing about your character, is your response to my saying I contacted Dr Toonen for clarification. This was what I also said "Despite all the rantings and insults I have been subjected to by Sub, I am willing to admit his side of things if he should prove to have been correct." On the other hand your response was not to say something to the effect: "If he provides the evidence to backup/prove what he said and I am wrong, I will be happy to concede that." What you said was more nasty insults. I do believe that says more about the egos here than anything else.

I will say that your behavior here has had one beneficial side effect for me, I now know more about brine shrimp, their care feeding and use than I can possibly use. I even spent time on a Belgian site reading old papers by Leger and Sorgeloos for a few hours. This included the 1986 one you vaguely referenced in your initial post.

Sub- you clearly indicated that a Ph.D. after somebody's name doesn't mean they know anything. Are you aware that the people you sort of quoteded in your initial post are all Ph.D.s? I am curious why your PH.D.s are acceptable but mine are not? Leger has a Ph.D. in pharmacology, Sorgeloos a Ph.D. in marine biology (I believe), Patrick Lavens has a Ph.D. in Applied Biological Sciences. I didn't bother with the 4th guy- 3 Ph.D.s was enough. All three of these gents are still alive and well and have available email addresses. Would it help any if I contacted one of them, show them exactly what Dr. Toonen said (not identifying the author) and ask them to either confirm or deny the veracity of that statement? I think this matter should be resolved by the people involved and not you or I.

I have been told by several members here that you will never ever let anybody have the last word on anything, so I await your next insult. They always amuse me since, if nothing else, in that respect you are eloquent. And to avoid any semantic issue:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eloquent

Just an FYI to other members. If for some reason the Mods decide this thread should be locked and I subsequently hear from Dr. Toonen, I will make a new thread to post that reply.

I would suggest you contact Dr Toonen again, and ask him if he has access to JSTOR. If so, I would suggest that you suggest he read the article on the effects of chitin in the fin development of salmonids. I no longer have access to it, but he certainly should. Reading that article will provide him with the proof he requires that fish are capable of using chitin. Since I, unlike you and Dr Toonen HAVE read that paper, I know something neither of you apparently do."And for me that is the end of this discussion. We will just have to agree to disagree" Are the words underlined in italics yours or not? You know what can now be added to your list of shortcomings without my having to use the word. I have no problem with letting someone get the last word, if their words are true. You seem to have quite a talent for justifying your shortcomings, and your own bad behavior.

 

[SubRosa]

Here's some more readily found reading material that Dr Toonen might wish to peruse:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0044848610001547 and this:http://m.biotecharticles.com/Agriculture-Article/Probiotics-in-Sustainable-Aquaculture-754.html And here's a little something for you to read TTA. It's not exactly scientific, but you should consider the source:http://msjinkzd.com/news/repashy-superfoods-product-spotlight-community-plus/. Pass the links along to Dr Toonen and see what he has to say about fish digesting chitin after reading the articles.

 

[SubRosa]

Btw TTA, did I fail to mention that I worked for 4 years in the food chemistry lab of an independent testing lab, and for over 10 years after that in the hazardous waste end of the industry? My mistake!