[Sorry for the delayed response. I have been dealing with a family emergency.]
On numerous occasions you have used the phrase, "This is not a nutrition issue. . ." after I posted a reference to the article on Fish Nutrition.
Where do you get the concept that I
ever suggested to the OP that the "issue" was a nutritional one? You seem to have some kind of delusional perspective that I can't fathom.
I do not suggest in my posts that the fish issue is based on nutrition.
READ my post please and don't translate it.
------------------
With regards to "my article" I was guided to make it an article. It is too long for a post. I would have preferred it as an attachment, but. . .
-----------------
Many people have referenced the
2022 Quarantine Procedure because it is a fundamental recommendation that hobbyists should be made aware. It is the same perspective that I have in referencing the article.
If more hobbyists use the Quarantine Protocol, fewer fish will be needed by hobbyists (I know of one hobbyist who wanted a Queen Angel for the DT. The hobbyist 'went through'
50+ fish and still didn't get one to live in the DT.) As hobbyists we should be moving toward reducing the demand on wild-caught ornamental marine fishes.
It is in this same vein that I recommend OPs read the Fish Nutrition article. There is good information there for the hobbyist to extend the life of their pets. If fish husbandry in the hobby is improved, fish will live longer and rather that survive, thrive. In this way, there is also a reduction of the demand on wild-caught ornamental marine fish.
So, despite your bullying me, I will continue to encourage hobbyists and OPs to read the article.