Esshup,
I think Optimal is very good feed. I base that your satisfaction along with the satisfaction of many other members. I don't see the quality of Optimal feed being in question. I get it, it's good feed.
A picture paints a thousand words. But the picture posted, if posted to suggest the gains one would achieve with equal consumption of differing feeds, tells a very negative story about Sportsman Choice and Purina AM500. When I look at the picture and the comments made, I see a very tangible legal risk to you. It just doesn't make sense that either Purina AM500 or Sportsman's Choice would perform so poorly on equal quantities of feed relative to Optimal. This risk you run is that Purina or Tractor Supply or both them might hire experts to replicate your results. If they differ significantly, you would be in a very tough position. Now keep in mind, that neither would have to establish that your results were obtained intentionally or with malice. Only that a misrepresentation damaged their brand and resulted in material loss of sales. I think the fish size and pellet size is the most likely cause of most the difference but if independent experts find significant differences you would have to defend your results. Even if you can explain the result, for example by feed exiting the cage due to their inability to consume the larger pellets, the opposition might try to make a case that you had knowledge of the effect of prior to or during the experiment. They may try to establish malice or intentional defamation of their brand. Your collaborative work with Optimal would strengthen such an argument of pre-knowledge not to mention your level of experience which they could argue is one of an expert. I am just saying, if you aren't cock sure that Optimal is that much better than AM500 and Sportman's Choice ... where the results of independent researchers would agree with your findings ... you should give very serious consideration as to whether there is anything to gain that adequately compensates the risk of keeping those images in print.
I hear what you are saying, but I am not "politically correct", so I will let the pictures speak for themselves. If the test was flawed and if they want to do more testing, I will let them and they can come here and post the results. Others are doing feed tests, lets see what their results are. Optimal isn't paying me anything for advertising, nor am I a paid spokesperson for Optimal. All I can do is show what MY test showed. It would be no different than someone posting a picture of a body part or a part of a rodent in a food item that was purchased. What does that do to sales? Optimal didn't pay me to do the test, nor did they furnish the food for the test. Neither did the other brands. All were purchased as anyone would, from the supplier or the store. I have no allegiance to any particular company, if a better feed comes along I will jump on their bandwagon quicker than you can blink.
There were feed rings in the cages so the feed didn't float out - I had thought about that.
It's no different than Consumer Reports doing a product test, is it?
If you would like to do a test like I did, please do so and post the results. It's not all about what is read in a book, it's about real world tests. That's why they have 2 cars going down the track side by side during a drag race. One car could be faster on paper, but what happens in real life could be completely different.
I firmly believe that this country has become sue happy, and that the flip side of the coin is just as slippery of a slope. Anybody can sue anybody for anything, and turn about is fair play, all that needs to happen to win a suit is to find the correct "venue" to have the suit held, and make sure that judge leans in your direction.
