I don't want to market anything here, nor even encourage the use of a lake dye in fishing ponds (as I feel it is usually counterproductive for fish production). However, to emphasize my earlier point, lets compare TruBlue to "XYZ" brand (used by many lake management companies).
TruBlue is a "proprietary blend of acid blue 9 and acid yellow 23".
TruBlue Label However, this "proprietary blend" has an unknown ratio of acid-blue to acid-yellow (with yellow being the more expensive of the two pigments). Also, TruBlue water-soluble packet has a net contents of 5.25 oz. of product.
"XYZ Lake Dye", which is also a blend of acid-blue and acid-yellow - and I can assure you it has a comparatively high level of acid-yellow - which is packaged in 8.28 oz. water-soluble packets, which our dealers "retail" for approximately $14 per packet (or less) - 4 packets per box, 4 boxes per case.
XYZ's 8.28 oz. packet has 57% more net contents than TruBlue's 5.25 oz. packet, yet XYZ's price is only 7.5% higher. So, it would seem rational to view XYZ as a better deal - which, in this particular case, I feel is correct. BUT, in reality, comparing packet-weights to price could also be misleading - since it is the pure dye content "per packet", relative to its cost, that really counts.
I get a little wordy sometimes - sorry 'bout that. But, I just want to emphasize that in the "smoke and mirrors" lake dye market, judging a product's cost by the price-per-gallon or price-per-packet is not a wise option. Slick marketers know that laymen will often follow that guideline. So, they dilute their product's concentration to reduce their input costs, but only cut their selling price just enough below the quality brands to lure in the gullible.
