Which of the common fish parasites would you NOT pick to join your school debating team?
Argulus (argue-less).
All about Fish Vetting – Dr Richmond Loh
Which of the common fish parasites would you NOT pick to join your school debating team?
Argulus (argue-less).
Some of you may be aware of the diseases and deaths of aquatic life in Gladstone Harbour. If not, follow this link to previous posts – https://thefishvet.com/?s=Gladstone&submit=Search
The final report can be downloaded here:
http://www.gladstoneobserver.com.au/news/report-accuses-dredges/1706828/ (or for a smaller file version, download the report using this link – FFVS Gladstone FINAL trustee version – sml).
There is also a 25 minute interview where aspects of the report are discussed at this site.
—
Yours sincerely,
Dr Richmond Loh
BSc BVMS MPhil MANZCVS (Aq & Pathol)
The Fish Vet, Perth, Western Australia.
Veterinary Medicine for fish.
http://www.thefishvet.com.au
Ph: +61 (0)421 822 383
When you don’t know anything about the new animal you’re growing, you need to get to know them better. In terms of establishing their dietary needs, you’d need to study the habits and observe what they eat in nature. You can also dissect some of the species and see what exactly are in their stomach contents to provide you with a clue on what they eat. Back at the lab, you can send bits and pieces for testing to see what amino acid and fatty acid profiles they have and this can help you better refine the diet.
For octopi, it seems like sending their guts for testing will give you a good fatty acid profile of their dietary requirements.
| Aquaculture Research | |||||||||||||||||
| Volume 44, Number 1 (December 2012) | |||||||||||||||||
| |
Efficient utilization of dietary lipids in Octopus vulgaris(Cuvier 1797) fed fresh and agglutinated moist diets based on aquaculture by-products and low price trash species | ||||||||||||||||
| Authors: | Juan Estefanell, Javier Roo, Rafael Guirao, Juan Manuel Afonso, Hipólito Fernández-Palacios, Marisol Izquierdo, Juan Socorro | ||||||||||||||||
| Author Affiliations: |
|
||||||||||||||||
| Source: | Aquaculture Research, Volume 44, Number 1 (December 2012) | ||||||||||||||||
| Page Numbers: | 93 – 105 | ||||||||||||||||
| Available Full Text: |
|
||||||||||||||||
| Abstract: | The aim of this study was to evaluate growth, biochemical composition and dietary nutrients utilization in Octopus vulgarisfed on four diets based on bogue Boops boops, from different origin and in two presentations: fresh discarded bogue (aquaculture by-product) (DB-f), fresh wild bogue (low price trash species) (WB-f), discarded bogue agglutinated moist diet (DB-m) and wild bogue agglutinated moist diet (WB-m). Diets based on DB showed higher lipid content (19–26% dw) than those based on WB(5–6% dw). Octopuses fed on DB-based diets showed higher growth (1.5–1.9% day-1) and higher protein efficiency ratio (0.64–0.69) than those fed on WB-based diet (1.1–1.5% day-1and 0.36–0.37 respectively), which suggests good utilization of dietary lipids and also a possible protein sparing effect by lipids in O. vulgaris. Octopuses fed on diets presented fresh showed a higher growth (1.9–1.5% day-1) and a higher feed efficiency (62–65%) than those fed on agglutinated diets (1.1–1.5% and 52–60% day-1respectively). Regarding fatty acids, the digestive gland clearly reflected dietary lipid and fatty acid profile, while muscle showed a more stable composition. Low dietary ARA content reflected in octopus tissues, especially in specimens fed on DB-based diets, which did not seem to affect growth during the experimental period. | ||||||||||||||||
| Citation: | Juan Estefanell, Javier Roo, Rafael Guirao, Juan Manuel Afonso, Hipólito Fernández-Palacios, Marisol Izquierdo, Juan Socorro . Efficient utilization of dietary lipids in Octopus vulgaris(Cuvier 1797) fed fresh and agglutinated moist diets based on aquaculture by-products and low price trash species. Aquaculture Research, Volume 44, Number 1 (December 2012), pp. 93-105, <http://ejournals.ebsco.com/direct.asp?ArticleID=41F09E7AF2CCE8D3A292> | ||||||||||||||||
| URL: | http://ejournals.ebsco.com/direct.asp?ArticleID=41F09E7AF2CCE8D3A292 | ||||||||||||||||
Read more about the events from this fact sheet –
Research shows that there is demonstrable disease resistance in fish fed ginseng (for those who doubt herbal medicines, check out this link to my previous post to see how it works).
If it’s good enough for fish, I should probably try some on myself!
| Journal of Applied Aquaculture | |||||||||||||||||
| Volume 24, Number 4 (December 2012) | |||||||||||||||||
| |
The Use of American Ginseng (Panax quinquefolium) in Practical Diets for Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus): Growth Performance and Challenge with Aeromonas hydrophila. | ||||||||||||||||
| Authors: | Mohsen Abdel-Tawwab 1 | ||||||||||||||||
| Author Affiliations: |
|
||||||||||||||||
| Source: | Journal of Applied Aquaculture, Volume 24, Number 4 (December 2012) | ||||||||||||||||
| Page Numbers: | 366 – 376 | ||||||||||||||||
| Available Full Text: |
|
||||||||||||||||
| Abstract: | This study was carried out to evaluate the effect of American ginseng (AG), Panax quinquefolium,on growth and resistance to Aeromonas hydrophila in Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus. Ginseng was included in practical test diets at rates of 0.0 (control), 0.50, 1.0, 2.0, or 5.0 g/kg diet. Fish (9.1 ± 0.3 g) were distributed into quadricated 100-L aquaria at a density of 20 fish per aquarium. Fish in all treatments were fed up to satiation twice daily for 8 weeks. After the feeding trial, fish of each treatment were intraperitoneally injected with pathogenic A. hydrophila and kept under observation for 10 days. Highest growth was obtained at 1.0 – 5.0 g AG/kg diet. The survival of fish challenged by A. hydrophila increased with increasing AG levels in fish diets. Cost-benefit analysis indicated that ginseng supplementation could reduce per kg costs by 15% with an optimum inclusion level of 2.0 g/kg. | ||||||||||||||||
| Citation: | Mohsen Abdel-Tawwab . The Use of American Ginseng (Panax quinquefolium) in Practical Diets for Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus): Growth Performance and Challenge with Aeromonas hydrophila. Journal of Applied Aquaculture, Volume 24, Number 4 (December 2012), pp. 366-376, <http://ejournals.ebsco.com/direct.asp?ArticleID=4342A67658F746952D4F> | ||||||||||||||||
| URL: | http://ejournals.ebsco.com/direct.asp?ArticleID=4342A67658F746952D4F | ||||||||||||||||
Toxic algal blooms can kill fish, crabs and birds but they seem to be able to avoid algae mats. Anabaena spp. produces neurotoxins and deaths result from paralysis of skeletal and respiratory muscles. Fish are often safe until a pond or dam dries or is drained down, bringing them in contact with floating algae. Fish may also die due to depletion of oxygen during algal blooms.
Check out Dr Loh’s video on toxic algae – http://youtu.be/5maKhOJAFTY
Ready to eat: the first GM fish for the dinner table [see information below the news story, on submitting comments to FDA]
The US decision after 17-year battle over fast-growing salmon could pave way for same step in Britain and other countries. A GM salmon which grows twice as fast as ordinary fish could become the first genetically-modified animal in the world to be declared officially safe to eat, after America’s powerful food-safety watchdog ruled it posed no major health or environmental risks.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said it could not find any valid scientific reasons to ban the production of GM Atlantic salmon engineered with extra genes from two other fish species – a decision that could soon lead to its commercial production. The verdict clears one of the last remaining hurdles for GM salmon to be lawfully sold and eaten in the US and will put pressure on salmon producers in Britain and Europe to follow suit. Successive chief scientists to the UK Government, as well as science institutions such as the Royal Society, have endorsed the concept of GM technology as a tool for increasing food production in the 21st Century, but consumer opposition has so far blocked the approval of GM food for the dinner table.
Several government bodies including the advisory committees on the release of GM organisms and on novel foods and processes would have to review the technology before it was approved in the UK. Supporters of the technology believe the GM salmon will make it not only easier and cheaper to produce farmed salmon, but that it could also be better for the environment because they can be grown on land-based fish farms. Sir John Beddington, the current chief scientist, warned two years ago of a “perfect storm” of growing human numbers, climate change and food shortages, where it would be “very hard to see how it would be remotely sensible to justify not using new technologies such as GM”.
GM opponents, however, argue that the introduction of the fast-growing salmon creates risks for both human health and the environment. They also argue that the salmon will be the start of concerted efforts to create other GM animals for human consumption, which could raise serious questions about animal welfare. The FDA had already indicated the salmon was fit for human consumption. But in a draft environmental assessment written in May and published on Friday following inquiries by The Independent, it goes further by declaring that the production of the GM fish is unlikely to have any detrimental impact on the wider environment. Opponents of the GM salmon – which some have dubbed the “Frankenfish” – have argued it could escape into the wild, interbreed with wild fish and undermine the genetics of the endangered Atlantic salmon, the “king of fishes” grown on fish farms in the UK.
However, the company behind the GM AquAdvantage salmon emphasised that the genetically engineered fish will be only be grown as sterile females and kept in secure containers on land. In its draft assessment prepared as part of a New Animal Drug Application (NADA), the FDA agrees that the possibility of GM salmon escaping from fish farms is extremely remote and that interbreeding with wild salmon is equally unlikely. The possibility of the GM salmon escaping into rivers and the sea from land-based fish farms is “extremely remote”, the FDA said. “[The] FDA has made the preliminary determination it is reasonable to believe that approval of the AquAdvantage salmon NADA will not have any significant impacts on the quality of the human environment of the United States (including populations of endangered Atlantic salmon) when produced and grown under the conditions of use for the proposed action,” it concludes.
Anti-GM groups last night raised concerns about the report. Peter Riley, of the pressure group GM Freeze, said: “The sterility system does not guarantee that there will be no escapes into the wild and some of them will be fully fertile. It’s also debatable whether anyone wants to buy GM salmon, even in the US, if it is properly labelled.”
The FDA also states the two other US Government agencies responsible for overseeing laws on endangered species – the National Marine Fisheries Service and the US Fish and Wildlife Service – have agreed with the FDA’s assessment that there will be “no effect” on wild Atlantic salmon or its habitat. In its report, the FDA warns that if final approval is not given by the US Government, other countries may still develop GM Atlantic salmon.
The research into the GM salmon goes back to the late 1980s and it has gone through 17 years of bureaucratic wrangling over whether it should be approved for human consumption. The FDA indicated in 2010 that it would declare the GM salmon safe to eat but the issue was then kicked into the Washington long grass, which some have put down to nervousness on the part of the White House in the run-up to this year’s Presidential election … … .
See the source (http://tinyurl.com/coj94cj) for the full story and a chronological history of some GE products.
[Information on FDA’s draft environmental assessment of GE salmon (available at http://tinyurl.com/buass5j), that now paves the way for full approval of AquAdvantage Salmon, is open for public comment (until February 25, 2013). ADS-Mod.]
___________________________
AquaVetMed e-News provides information to veterinary and veterinary-allied subscribers concerning aquatic animal medicine, health, welfare, public health and seafood safety, obtained from a variety of sources (largely AquaVetMed subscribers). While provided by the American Veterinary Medical Association’s, Aquatic Veterinary Medicine Committee and are for public distribution, they do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the AVMA or the veterinary profession. See the AVMA Terms of Use (http://tinyurl.com/29h2rf) for further information.
If e-News information is used elsewhere please acknowledge AquaVetMed as the source. Encourage individuals to subscribe rather than distribute through list serves.
Messages may contain attachments that will have been scanned for known viruses.
Subscription and Contributions: Interested veterinarians and veterinary-allied professionals can subscribe, unsubscribe, or contribute pertinent news or information, by sending a message with “For AquaVetMed -” and the topic in the subject line, to dscarfe@avma.org.
Note: Undelivered e-mails will not be resent; Subscribers will be deleted from the list after repeated undelivered or bounced messages and will have to re-subscribe.
Visit our website: http://www.avma.org
For something light –
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=Z-BbpaNXbxg&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DZ-BbpaNXbxg
Well, the hot weather is not over yet. If history repeats itself, we will still be looking at heat waves in Feb/March this year. It might be worthwhile to invest in a chiller unit, particularly if you keep temperate seahorses, Murray cods and axolotls.
As part of continuing to provide good information and service to his valued clients, Dr Loh has been able to negotiate a great deal for you.
Visit Boronia Aquarium’s online store and receive a 10% discount on purchases with this code: VET2345.
Check out the chiller units at – http://www.boroniaaquarium.com.au/index.php?cPath=5074_5640_5641&osCsid=4316b669b3980dc8c670db27c389d4c4