>> However...as mentioned it is inconsistent (among fish >farmers), and
>supplementing the fish meal adds costs.
>it sounds to me that you are speculating somewhat. I've read elsewhere that
>farmed salmon often has more Om-3 than wild species.  however i'm no expert
>on salmon or fish; but there's little merit in saying farmed salmon is low
>in Om-3 without providing scientific references [not clown nutritonists like
>mercola] to back this. and it must change from brand to brand also. no point
>generalising when what we need is specifics.
>
>andrew

I don't know what the situation in OZ is, but here in North America there
are many, many fish farms, for trout, salmon, catfish, and other species.
The most common food is a kibble made by companies that manufacture cattle
feed, dog food, poultry food, that typically contains the throwaway grains
corn and soy.

I was told by one supplement manufacturer that the farmed fish from which
they derive their Omega 3 supplement is heavily biased in the Omega 6
direction, and that instead of "squeezing" a fish for a natural oil, the
Omega 3 is chemically extracted from the junk oil and reconstituted into an
approximation of the natural ratios.

Needless to say, this is no longer a product I would use.

It is also common knowledge that the farmed fish lack the color which
active muscular fish possess, and so red food coloring is added back into
their feed to enhance their marketability.

When "farming" means hewing as closely as possible to the natural diet and
environment of food animals, the whole notion of how to make a profit doing
so will have changed. It likely won't happen here, where agribusiness is in
bed with politics.

ginny, caveat emptor

All stunts performed without a net!