If the BG ate all their given feed there are serious problems with your results. Based on my analysis there are serious problems with the reported growth in relative terms base equal rates of consumption and equal starting lengths. The results are that the Optimal treatments SGR (specific growth rate) is .0246 (growth from 2" to 4" over 90 days). This reasonable of course. The SGR for the AM 500 treatment is 0.0143 (growth from 2" to 3" over 90 days). The Sportsman's choice is almost too pathetic to mention at 0.00313 (growth from 2" to 2 3/16" over 90 days). These specific growth rates assume standard weights but the result would be exacerbated if the RW of Optimal exceeded AM500 and the RW of AM500 exceeded the Sportsman's choice only making SGR differences more profound and worse than presented above.

It may be reasonable that Optimal has an FCR of 1.5 ... However, if this is the case, the relative results depicted in your photo imply that Purina AM500 has an FCR of 2.58. The photo implies that at equal rates of feeding that Purina AM500 is only 58.1% as efficient as Optimal at conversion. I don't think I am ready to swallow that. It is a significant difference. The picture readily shows that the weight of the Optimal Sample is > 2.4 times as heavy as the AM500 BG. It goes unnoticed by no one even though few know how to or would go to the trouble to calculate it. They just see the difference and buy Optimal.

The Sportsman choice was of course much worse. Only 3/16 of inch gained. Its not clear whether it even gained weight. We don't have its before picture when it was 2" long. Indeed it looks to be starving with gigantic eyes. But assuming standard weight is valid the photo implies the FCR of Sportsman's choice is 11.72. If the RW worsened over the 90 days, then the FCR would be worse. When science is at one's disposal it is rather simple to weed out unreasonable experimental results. The results of the experiment suggests it is was a kind of "crank experiment" that was inadequately controlled yielding no determinations of useful knowledge.

Tractor Supply and Purina both support the Pond Boss Forum. Your photo has been posted multiple times and IMEO adversely and inaccurately depicts the relative performance of their feeds relative to Optimal. I think the harm it causes their brands is unwarranted and undeserved. I'm not interested in repeating your experiment nor am I interested in seeing you sued. I am very much interested in appealing to your sense of fairness and justness and inspire you to pull down the photo's multiple placements here. If that is at all possible.

Last edited by jpsdad; 03/19/22 11:24 PM.
It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so - Will Rogers