With regards to your other point, if there's no benefit between 12/12 and 24/0, great! If there is, I would like to know about it and maybe WHY if there is research into it. You make a good point about significance. It may not be a significant difference, which makes it nearly trivial. However, when modern research states it is significant it is with a high degree of certainty (P = 0.05). From there we have to examine the cost for a commercial operation or the convenience for a hobbyist situation (sometimes the cost too). I'm sure if David could grow fish twice as fast by screwing in a 10 Watt CFL bulb and keeping it on at night, he would go for it.

Of course my first point in all of this is that you get optimal growth at 12/12 and that 24/0 hurts growth. Light doesn't make tilapia grow fast, but too much light slows their growth. Your FCR (feed conversion ratio) starts to drop as well meaning you have to feed them more to sustain growth.

So you see, through these exchanges of ideas supported by empirical data we can all learn, and I have learned a lot from most of my exchanges on here. But, you need to learn not to discredit someone else so quickly if you are not willing to support your claims. If you have a formal education in aquaculture, fine, but to my knowledge you do not. I myself have only taken a few courses in aquaculture, but many more in botany, soils, chemistry, biology, etc. The only times I state something as fact without reference is because I learned it out of a TEXTBOOK (not a regular book). The difference is, textbooks reflect our generally accepted principles in science, which means there's hundreds if not thousands of research studies published on it, and usually it represents decades if not centuries of scientific progress.