Brine Shrimp Eggs

[RD.]

Could it have something to do with the way the parents themselves were raised?

No

Could be any number of things, from the quality of the food, particle size of the food, overall palatability of the food, etc-etc. As I mentioned previously, some species simply do better when started out on live food.

If they won't eat, they won't live, and that's where live food can make a huge difference when dealing with fry.

[Melody]

What's wrong with having the best of both worlds? Feeding the live AND prepared?

That's exactly what I do, with other stuff thrown in too. If commercial producers can come up with what they think a fish needs and throw it into pill form, I too can provide those same things using a different means to an end. Its all based on the very same principle - complete nutrition as we know it. I just use several roads to get to the same place, maybe even further.

One man studied, experimented and reached conclusions. He based a line of food on that. That one man came up with NLS. Mike Reed did the same thing, came up with something else. Numerous others have done the same. There's no reason on God's green earth (or in his waters) that other people can't do the same thing. The accomplishments of these people are admirable, but they were once sitting right where you and I are today, wondering about the nutritional requirements of fish and how to improve upon that. Ten years from now they may look back and laugh about something that they thought was true right now, and chances are d*mn good that I will too. That's progress for ya .

So in the meantime we do the best we can with what we know, and hope to learn more. I am perfectly capable of studying and learning as much as the next person - chances are so are most of the people here. I happen to find it interesting so I dig further.

One thing that I laughed at when doing my own research (which never ends, making it that much more fun...lol), was my brilliant plan to try herbs, etc to help improve immunity. I studied the information out there about natural remedies (someone who did that tried Tea Tree Oil on fish - now its called 'Melafix'). I narrowed down the possibilities and started experimenting with it. Eureka! The fish appeared more healthy, far less illness, brood sizes went up! I had discovered something!

A year later I find out that they've known that for several years and its already in dog & cat food . There is much to learn and nobody knows it all - that's exactly why I love this hobby.

[Melody]

So, when choosing a commercial brand, make sure the ingredients are from all natural sources. And buy in a way that does not require a long shelf life and store your commercials in an airtight container.

Good point! Freezing it does wonders too. I keep all of my fish food in the freezer, and just refill smaller containers which I keep in the fridge - usually around a week's worth. I was shocked when I first learned how fast food loses its nutrient value. Minerals are more stable, but it starts to lose vitamins at an alarming rate once that seal is broken. There are also bacteria and mold concerns.

[Cheese]

Ten years from now they may look back and laugh about something that they thought was true right now,

I was thinking about that earlier too. The developments over the last decade show us how much less we knew then...and tell us we'll probably look back ten years from now and think the same thing about what we consider good right now.

I try to learn as much as I can about all the different species I have and how to make them healthier, which is why I look to forums...you can draw on the experiences of other people who've been doing it far longer than I. I recomend forums a lot to people.

I also (please don't hate me now... :cry: ) work at a petstore and try to learn as much as I can on subjects I don't have much experience on & to build on the experience I already have, so that I can help steer people onto the right track. I've saved many fishy lives by working where I do.

[Melody]

I also (please don't hate me now... :cry: ) work at a petstore and try to learn as much as I can on subjects I don't have much experience on & to build on the experience I already have, so that I can help steer people onto the right track. I've saved many fishy lives by working where I do.

I can think of nothing that could improve a fish's chances more than having someone like you in the store that sells them. I can't imagine what could be wrong with working in a fish store. Not all commercial ventures are money-grubbing scam artists. Many fish stores are started because the owner loves fish. The owner/manager of the store you work at obviously looks for the kind of qualities that many others should be looking for. I hope they pay you enough . In fact, they should promote you and put you in charge of hiring!

[RD.]

Wow where do I start? :ph43r:

For the most part the only significant developments in fish nutrition over this last decade has been some serious improvements in the quality of some of the foods being made. It's not like this data didn't exist 10 years ago, almost all of it did.

Generally speaking commercial dry foods do not lose vitamins at an alarming rate once the seal is broken. Did they in the past, to a degree yes, but that certainly isn't the case today.

The reality is that if a manufacturer designs their product with shelf life in mind, and this food is stored properly by the consumer, a high quality dry food can last for years without losing any significant amount of nutrients. As an example, for the past 15+ years or so most fish food has been made using a much more stable form of vitamin C (L-ascorbyl-2-polyphosphate), and what once degraded in days, can now last many months, and yes, even years if stored under optimum conditions. The key is using a manufacturer that keeps all of this in mind during the manufacturing process, and is prepared for the potential nutrient loss and possible spoilage.

The largest loss of vitamin C takes place within 60 seconds of the food landing in your tank (flake food), not in storage. Another reason why I prefer to feed pellet food. (and yes, NLS makes flake food)

This is common knowledge in the aquaculture circles, and is the exact reason why there isn't a single commercial fish operation in North America (if not the world?) that feeds flake food. Flake food by design is very thin, absorbs water very quickly, and while doing so leaches out much of the water soluble vitamins in the food. According to aquatic animal nutritionist Dr. Juli-Anne Royes Russo "at least 65% of the vitamin C is leached into the water after 90 seconds". (Aquarium Fish Magazine - Sept 2005)

Her credentials can be found here: http://www.hswri.org/research/scientistDisplay.cfm?sciID=66

I've kept pellet food in the freezer for 2 years, raised fry on it, they grew like weeds, & by all appearences & behaviour they were just as healthy, and just as colorful as the previous fry from the same parents.

If your food is high in lipids (fat) and/or high in moisture, or is stored or handled improperly, then yes, bacteria & mold should be a concern. Otherwise, by & large this is not somethng to be overly concerned about, certainly not if one is using a high quality product.

Yes, many people have designed fish food formulas over the years, but the difference between NLS (seeing as it keeps being referred to) is quite simple. Pablo Tepoot is the only manufacturer that I know of that has put his money where his mouth is.

He's also the only manufacturer that I know of that has successfully raised fish on a commercial basis for 30+ years. You name it, he's raised it, and that applies to both freshwater as well as marine. He's developed over 25 new strains of fish, won multiple breeder awards at events such as the FTFFA, and has had 4 aquaria books published over the years, covering planted aquariums, marine fish, and two books on cichlids. If he hasn't raised it, or bred it, it probably doesn't exist. I seriously doubt that you'll find any other fish food manufacturer that has the 'hands on' experience with raising & breeding fish as Pablo Tepoot.

IMO that alone gives him a rather large edge in this market. When you're feeding & raising fish in a 4 million gallon system, there's not a whole lot of room for mistakes, and when they do take place, they usually cost you big time, and you never make that mistake again.

At the same time, he lives & breathes fish 24/7, and is every bit a hobbyist as you or I.

Pablo is also very unique in that he offers an online forum where he will personally address any nutritional or feeding issues regarding his line of foods. This is certainly not the case with most of today's CEO's, not only will Pablo answer questions and assist the average hobbyist, he's willing to do it on a public forum.

http://www.newlife.ipbhost.com/forums/index.php

At nearly 70 years of age now, this isn't about the money, this is his way of giving back to an industry that has served him extremely well over the past 30 years. NLS prices have held firm for the past 8+ years, not a single price increase from the manufacturer, even though his costs have risen significantly over the past decade. Is it so far fetched to believe that one man who has spent a lifetime in this industry is willing to put his money where his mouth is, even if that costs him some points in his profit margin?

If all Pablo wanted to do was cash in, he could have sold his company a long time ago & spent the rest of his days sipping Pina Colada's on the beach.

IMO the problem with most commercial food manufacturers is they tend to all go as cheap as possible when designing their formula (more money in their pockets!), and the vast majority of them rely on outdated data from studies performed 20-30 years ago, or studies that prove very little, if anything. There's much to be learned from the various books & papers published on the subject of fish nutrition, but you need to be able to read between the lines, and think outside of the box, or one commercial food simply blends into another.

Here's a prime example of some seriously flawed testing, and the kind of thing that should never end up in a publication about fish nutrition. (yet it has)

http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/128/10/1745

"The minimum dietary AA concentration tested in this study, 25 mg AA/kg diet, was sufficient to prevent growth reduction and AA deficiency signs in oscars."

They used juvie Oscars weighing approx 30 grams for this test.

What happens when those same Oscars are sexually mature, or under any type of environmental (such as less than ideal water conditions) or physiological (such as tank mate aggression, breeding, etc) stress?

25 mg/kg will be used up before you finish your first cup of coffee in the morning, yet there are manufacturers who have used results such as this & based their vitamin c content in their food on this type of flawed testing. And I'm not talking little start up companies either, companies that are MASSIVE, and spend hundreds of thousands of $$$ each year just on marketing, sales, and advertising. Yet these same companies can't be bothered to use more than 75 mg/kg of vitamin c in their food, even though they are fully aware of the fact that the vast majority of species require far more than that when placed under any type of stress. Of course these types of manufacturers are the same ones who pad their foods with low cost grain fillers, even though they know exactly what the end result will be ...... which is poor overall digestibilty.

BTW - New Life spends a teeny tiny minsicule of a fraction marketing this food, compared to most of the other companies. Pablo has a 1/3 page advertisement in one magazine (TFH) ...... and that's it!

I believe that he has done one trade show ths past year, maybe two?

He has no marketing reps, and no sales reps. IOW - he too cuts costs where he can, but never on the food itself.

The amazing part is, this food has pretty much sold itself since day 1, and even with nothing more than a 1/3 page advertisement in TFH, and perhaps a trade show or two a year, the sales of NLS have grown by leaps & bounds over the past few years on word of mouth alone. NLS is not only sold throughout the USA and Canada, it's also sold in Germany, Japan, Australia, Finland, Sweden, Turkey, Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Chile, Venezuela, Mexico, Philippines, Taiwan, Israel, and the UK.

Anyone with some cash flow can develop a fish food, but not many are willing to sacrifice profit, for quality.

Lots of very ho-hum mediocre food out there, just good enough to satsify most consumers, and very little that I would personally consider high quality.

I didn't mean to turn this into an infomercial, LOL, but IMO there is simply no other commercial fish food manufacturer that holds a candle to Pablo.

Edited August 13, 2006 by RD.

[Ichthyosporidium]

Just a curiosity question. Why is vitamin C so important? You do know that only Humans and Cavies (Guinnea pigs) are the only animals unable to produce their own vitamin C. Vitamins C and A are primarily used as a preservative for processed foods anyway.

[Cheese]

I hope they pay you enough .

Not at all!

I'm definately going to recommend this forum to others. It'll be nice to be able to send people to a site that is locally based too. I only found it myself this summer, recommended by another member.

I do enjoy hearing what different foods/techniques people use for their fish...that way I can know different alternatives to try if I run into problems with anything.

I am going to try the NLS this week coming as well. I've been using the Omega One for a while...but I've seen a lot of raving about the NLS.

[RD.]

Ich - I believe that only 2 or 3 species of fish can produce their own vitamin C, it must be included in the diet.

Vitamins C and A are primarily used as a preservative for processed foods anyway.

Sorry, but that is oh so incorrect. Both vitamins play a major role in the health of fish.

I can post scores of studies on both vitamins with regards to fish nutrition, and the clinical results from those studies, from as far back as the 1960's, right up to the 1990's. (but please don't ask me to, I need to get away from this computer!) LOL

I only used vitamin c as an example, as it really doesn't cost a whole lot as a feed additive.

If a company goes cheap in in the lower cost areas, then IMO it's not a huge leap of faith to assume that they've gone cheap everywhere else.

[Ichthyosporidium]

You should read up on tocopherols and then tell me it is not used as a preservative.

[RD.]

I didn't say that they can't be used as a preservative, but you stated that they are primarily used as a preservative (in fish food), which in most cases they are not. Ethoxyquin is the main preservative used in most fish foods.

[Ichthyosporidium]

DOES NLS use Ethoxyquin as a preservative?

[RD.]

Every fish food that uses marine proteins such as krill, fish, shrimp, etc, have ethoxyquin in them.

NLS does not 'add' ethoxyquin to any of their formulas, but there is ethoxyquin used in the herring meal that they use.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with using ethoxyquin as a preservative. The fact is that this single preservative has probably saved countless lives of pets from suffering from serious health issues caused by bacteria and mould. The FDA has approved the use of ethoxyquin as a preservative for both humans and pets, with the maximum amount allowed in pet food being 150 ppm. While the maximum allowed in most human grade food is much lower than that, chilli and paprika powder have a maximum limit of 100 ppm.

The total amount of ethoxyquin found in any NLS formula is 20 ppm.

Edited August 13, 2006 by RD.

[Ichthyosporidium]

I know FDA has approved it, but we are in Canada first of all and second I have some annecdotal evidence you might want to look at:

Dr. David A. Dzanis

Veterinary Nutritionist

Div. of Animal Feeds; FDA HFV-222

7500 Standish Place

RockvilIe, MD 20855

Dear Dr. Dzanis;

I am writing to you about the dangers of Ethoxyquin used as a preservative in many pet foods and human foods. Since you are responsible for pet food issues within the FDA and will be meeting with two concerned dog breeders next month concerning the safety of this chemical, I wish to present my own experiences and knowledge of Ethoxyquin's toxic affects, first hand.

First of all, let me introduce myself; l am a veterinarian, a graduate from the University of California Veterinary Medical School, Davis, California, class of 1960.1 had a small animal practice in San Ramon, California (a rapidly growing area east of San Francisco) for 31 years and am now retired.

During those many years I saw a change emerging in the disease and illness of animals presented to me. In the early 1960s, our concerns were primarily those of infectious agents causing Canine Distemper, Feline Distemper, Hepatitis, leptospirosis, staph and strep infections, etc.

However during the 197Os and to the present time we are seeing an epidemic of chronic degenerative diseases. True, the widely accepted program of preventative vaccination programs virtually wiped out the viral caused diseases and antibiotics helped stem the bacterial infections, but something else is operative here. We are now seeing both in the animal and human populations, a sharing of chronic degenerative diseases such as generalized allergies, arthritis, dermatitis, congestive heart failure, kidney failure, liver pathologies, diabetes, AIDS, tumors and cancer. Also, lifespans of animals have shortened during this period.

I remember, as a kid growing up in Nevada seeing Basque sheep-herders with working dogs living to be 2l-25 years of age. These dogs were still herding sheep at that age, and the b*tches were delivering litters of healthy puppies at 20 years of age! Today, we are lucky to find dogs living to be 10 years old, and many of these suffering from various forms of chronic degenerative disease. Of course in the 1 940s our air, water and food was clean and virtually free of chemicals. My shepherd friend's dogs worked in clean air, ate fresh lamb stew and vegetables and home-baked bread along with his master. As a dog show veterinarian I have heard many judges say there is a definite difference to the feel of the muscles and skeleton of dogs in Australia than those of America. The Australian dogs' muscles are firm, bones firm and strong cornpared to the "mushy" feel of the American dogs. Why? Because these animals' diets are vastly different. The Australian dogs were being fed (until recently-now there is an emergence of commercial pet food) trimmings from the freshly killed beef and sheep carcasses, vegetables and fresh grains, ours on commercial kibble and canned dog food with every chemical residue and preservative and coloring in the book! And forget all the highly touted advertising and P.R. by the pet food industry -I say put garbage in get garbage out!

In the good old days, the family pet ate from the same "pot,, so to speak, as the owner/family did, and were healthier for it Not only are chronic degenerative diseases of pets on the increase, but breeders complain of increasing frequency and numbers of reproductive problems: irregular estrus cycles, missed conceptions; stillborns, "fading puppy" syndrome, increased neo-natal deaths and malformed puppies with missing limbs, organs, hydrocephalus, cleft palates, etc.

Historically, I was first alerted to Ethoxyquin's (heretofore being referred to as "E") possible health hazard to dogs, when Midge Harmer, a breeder of German Shepherd show and obedience dogs in Newark, Delaware contacted me on February 12, 1988. She related her heartbreaking experience of losing four of her young champions to liver cancer. Since she had changed nothing in her program of rearing these dogs except switching their diet to feeding ANF (Advanced Nutritional Formula), she looked into the ingredients and found "E" as a preservative. She asked me if I had any experience with this preservative and its affect on animal health. Thus started a four-year quest into finding out all we could on this chemical. I hadn't any known knowledge about or its related toxic affects to animal health until I started looking into it. I next met a breeder at the Golden Gate Dog Show in San Francisco that same year. She told me of suddenly developing 82% mortality in her puppies (Mm. Pinchers, and Boston Terriers). Out of 27 puppies born she was lucky to save 5. Many others were stillborn and malformed with cleft palates, and hydrocephalus. These problems were atypical. She had not changed any variables (including breeding stock) except for changing the diet to ANF because of the highly favorable advertising put out by the manufacturers.

I contacted the Dept. of Agriculture for toxicology information on "E." They sent me a copy from their Farm Chemical Hand-book listing "E" as a pesticide, used in fruit scald control. It is also used as a rubber preservative. I have since learned "E" is FDA approved for use as an antioxidant for carotenes vitamin A and E and the prevention of the development of organic peroxides. It is approved at 150 ppm in paprika and chili powder, and because it is used as a preservative in livestock feed, the following residue allowances in human consumed animal products as follows: 5 ppm in or on the uncooked fat of meat from animals except poultry; 3 ppm in or on the uncooked liver and fat of poultry, 0.5 ppm in or on the uncooked muscle meat of animals, 0.5 ppm in poultry eggs, and zero in milk.

We have learned "E" is used as a preservative in such widely marketed dog foods as ANF, NutriMax, Hills Prescription Diet WID (sold in vet hospitals!), Nutro, Purina, IAMS, Royal Canine USA; and in livestock feeds by Willowbrook Mills in Petaluma to preserve Crumbles for laying chickens, and dehydrated forage crops of alfalfa, barley, clovers, corn, oats, wheat, fescue and various grasses. The above information brings up the question why the FDA allows such a small amount of "E" residue (5 to .5 ppm) in human consumed foods yet allows such high amounts (150 ppm) to be used in petfood and livestock feeds? In the case of the dog, pound for pound, a dog weighs 115 to 1/lath (NOTE: this figure or word did not come through) the weight of a human (except for giant breeds of dogs) yet is consuming 300 times more "E" than allowed for people. Also many dog food manufacturers are not listing "E" as an ingredient on the packaging. Only under much investigation will they admit it. Isn't there an FDA regulation about labeling ingredients? Truth in labeling is another issue - ANF, which incidentally is one of the most expensive dog foods, is touted by the manufacturer as an "all natural formula" with no preservatives, yet lists "E" as an antioxidant which they claim to be quite safe.

Correspondence with various people revealed other dog owners breeders having sad experiences with pets eating "E" preserved dog food:

1. A breeder of Rottweilers lost a dog with liver cancer after switching to feeding ANF for 6 months.

2. A German Shepherd breeder lost a stud dog to cancer of the mouth, feeding dog food containing "E."

3. A woman had skin allergies develop in her German Shepherd fed on NutroMax ("E" preserved) and then switched to Solid Gold (no "E") with the dermatitis allergy disappearing.

4. Dr. Pia Peters, Ph.D. claims that when she was studying in Ireland for her degree in agriculture (1983-4) she became interested in a news story relating that farmers in Italy suddenly had calves born with eyes on the backs of their heads, no ears, two or three legs only, or legs developing turned backwards, etc. Dr. Peters claims the culprit was "E" in the animal feed fed to the breeding stock.

5. A breeder first of Poodles, then Collies, had been free of whelping problems; her b*tches came into estrus every 6 months "like clockwork," and all whelped normal healthy litters, then a few years ago she began noticing changes in the dogs' overall appearance. She was now seeing dry, lustreless coats, flaky skin, and nose pigmentation fading. A friend of hers who raises labradors, Newfoundlands, Collies, and Old English Sheep dogs, had similar problems. Then Elaine's Blue Merle stud dog (sire of all her dogs) began drooling and bleeding from the mouth. From a biopsy, her veterinarian diagnosed an immune breakdown triggered by a virus or chemical. Her b*tches who had not previously come into estrus were now delivering litters of malformed puppies; two were born without legs, tails or any sex organs. (the problems in these two kennels were traced to a change in diet fed the dogs, from one free of "E" preservative to a dog food with "E" preservative.)

6. Another German Shepherd breeder in Pennsylvania lost a puppy fed Pro Plan ("E" preserved) to a fast growing cancer in both hips.

Some of the damning information on "E" comes from Monsanto's own cautionary warnings in using and handling this product. They warn that it may cause allergic skin reactions, irritation to the eyes and skin. They advise that workers must wear eye and respiratory protection. The container of "E" has a very prominent skull and crossbones with POISON written in capital letters. "E" is listed and identified as a hazardous chemical under the criteria of the Osha Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910, 1220). Monsanto further states the disclaimer regarding the use of "E," that "Although the information and recommendations set forth herein are presented in good faith. . . Monsanto Company makes no representations as to the completeness or accuracy thereof. Information supplied upon the condition that the persons receiving same will make their own determination as to its suitability for their purposes prior to use. Monsanto will not be responsible for damages of any nature whatsoever resulting from the use of or reliance upon information." If the company who makes it won't stand behin4 it, how can the general public accept its safety as a preservative for their pets' food and directly for themselves and indirectly as residues in human consumptive food products from "E's" use in livestock feed?)

I further learned from the Chemical Toxicology of Commercial Products (Ref. Gosselin et al., 1984) that "E" has a toxic rating of 3 (on a scale of 1~, with 6 being super toxic requiring less than 7 drops to produce death), slowly developing depression, con-vulsions, coma and death; skin irritation and liver damage.

I wrote a letter to my Board of Examiners in Veterinary Medicine, expressing my concern about the safety of feeding dogs foods with "E" as a preservative. I urged them to look into the matter and suggested that with such information wouldn't it be prudent to recommend to the FDA to ban "E" as a preservative until more definite safety studies be made? The Board responded that I was "overreacting" without scientific proven evidence that the food is the cause of problems cited and that I "refrain from voicing my opinions until there is proven scientific and official evidence that those opinions are true." The Board was complacent with the FDA approval of "E" based on a five-year safety study done on dogs by Monsanto some 30 plus years ago. That study, I found was grossly incompetent.

Let me tell you about what I learned about this so-called scientific" study by Monsanto. The study is fraught with incompetent, slip-shod methods, and erroneous conclusions that by today's standards of testing would be laughed out of the room. For example, there were never any truly controlled studies on these dogs with the only variable being the feeding or not feeding of "E" and then evaluating the health results. Instead, b*tches were kept with males, some dogs were kept indoors, others outdoors, there was no preventative care of vaccination and parasite control so all dogs could start equally - many dogs in the study succumbed to Canine Distemper, Hepatitis and one from Heartworm. Many showed heavy parasite infestations, and fight wounds, etc. E" was fed on a one time a day, 5 days a week basis instead of twice daily 7 days a week which is routinely done in the "real world" by dog owners. Of the 67 puppies who were unfortunate enough to be born during this 5 year study, 32 puppies died. That's a 50% mortality rate!

The "scientists" claimed the deaths were due to "under developed and weak puppies"! Isn't that exactly what we are seeing in litters from breeding stock fed dog food preserved with "E"? To my knowledge nothing was reported in the study of the appearance of coat, pigmentation of the nose, skin health, etc. Changes like these would be an early indicator of liver and immune system pathology. Another discrepancy is the lowered frequency of feedings and relatively short time of the study (5 years vs. 6 or more years of feeding "E" preserved food and seeing cancer developing.) Nothing, to my knowledge, was reported in the study of the nature of the reproductive cycles in the b*tches; numbers of missed or irregular estrus, sterility) as we are seeing clinically. Was any blood work done? Liver and thyroid panels?

I believe not. I believe it is highly unethical for self serving employees to be the scientists in charge of evaluating a product's safety manufactured by the company who pays their salaries! I would like the FDA to foster safety studies on products by independent testers other than the manufacturer of the product. Perhaps such a plan could be funded by a safety study "fee" levied on the manufacturer who is applying for FDA approval of their product. These monies could then be paid directly by the FDA to the independent testers, thus minimizing possible bias in the report findings.

While we're on the subject of product safety studies using live animals I must voice a deeply felt objection to the use of live animals in any research study. It has been proven many times that there are viable alternatives to live animal models, i.e., computer model software, tissue culture and embryo studies. Why not use the tissue cultures of the target organs affected by chemicals? These as you know are the brain, nervous system. endocrine glands (pituitary, adrenal, testes and ovaries, thyroid, thymus, pancreas, etc.) as well as those of the immune system (spleen, liver, lymph nodes, bone marrow, etc.), and are the most acutely sensitive to any toxic substance or radiation. This is where pathology starts immediately. It's months or years later before the whole organism shows signs of illness. I firmly believe all animals were created equal with man by our Creator, and that the Animal Kingdom has given its silent permission to man to provide him with sustenance, creature comfort, transportation, as beasts of burden and in the case of our pet animals, their unconditional love. Is this how we repay them? Dr. Dzanis, both you and I have a covenant with the Animal Kingdom from the day we graduated from Vet School and took the Hippocratic Oath. We solemnly swore to safeguard the health and well being of all animals and to never do anything to harm them. I have kept my promise. as I am sure you are keeping yours, but it would do well for all mankind to take and uphold that oath in today's growing moral bankruptcy, people are too willing to turn a blind eye and squeeze every cent out of a transaction at any costs. Perhaps we should rename it the "Hypocritical Oath??

EDIT: Just so you know, this was taken off the avianweb.com website.

Edited August 13, 2006 by Ichthyosporidium

[Melody]

WOW - now THAT is intriguing. Thanks for sharing it.