What does it prove then? The only difference between the groups was that one group was treated to make them more resistant to sea lice, and the other wasn't. All other factors - size, age, condition, time of release, was the same. What do you suggest is responsible for the 16% increased survival in treated fish?joyster wrote:hi bradan, the fact that 16% more treated thsn untreated adults returned in no way proves that the 16% mortality is attributable to sea lice.
i have emailed 4 times , made 3 written requests and 1 phone call, and not only will they not supply any figures but also fail to respond to any communications.
As I asked, PM me with details of requests - not something for public consumption. I may be able to help.