KOI NEWS For the Producer and the Trade
To subscribe for free, or unsubscribe, please checkout the end of this email for instructions.

30 August 2002 : Vol 1 : No 4         

 

CONTENTS
- KHV trial in UK

- Save That Sperm!

- Import Risk Analysis

- Aquatic Animal Disease Guide

- Chemicals in the Hatchery

- SVC in the USA

 

Back to Archive

THE "KHV TRIAL" MAY HAVE SERIOUS IMPLICATIONS FOR TRADE

The recent court case in which a UK Koi hobbyist is suing a supplier for damages to the tune of £80,000 is sure to have serious implications for how Koi business are to be conducted in the future in the UK. And if it can happen there, it can happen anywhere else in the world.

The claim against a well known UK dealer is for Koi supplied and consequential damages that the claimant suffered due to an outbreak of KHV (Koi herpesvirus). 

The bottom line in this case is that the Trade, for the first time, under British Law at least, will know where the responsibility of the Producer and the Dealer of Koi ends, and that of the Hobbyist starts. Also, what can be construed as "negligence" on the part of the Seller. The outcome can have serious implications for the Trade in terms of how business is conducted and how the Trade should interpret their risk.

The following quoted from www.koiherpesvirus.co.uk that is maintained by the claimant:

CRAVEN v TMI - HIGH COURT LEEDS
JULY 29th - AUGUST 2nd

The trial of the above duly took place. The judge is expected to announce. his decision within the next two weeks and transcripts will, eventually, be placed on this site, whatever his decision might be.

Prior to this, we will be producing all the documentary evidence that went into court for this trial, including all witness statements.

The reason for bringing this action is well known to most people. It was to show that behaviour of the kind indulged in by TMI was both unacceptable and illegal. My case was that TMI supplied diseased fish which began to die within days and contaminated my own fish causing a complete wipe out. It was also to show that in the full knowledge that they had a health problem - in my opinion they knew it was a virus - they continued to sell fish knowing - if only through my experience (they were experiencing a similar one) and that the likelihood was that these fish would die and for the unlucky purchaser, would destroy their own stocks. It emerged in the proceedings that they were aware as early as January 17th 2001 of their 'problem'. It was also revealed that over 150 cases have been established of KHV, the majority traceable back directly to TMI. From those that contacted me directly after I placed my story on the Internet last July, l calculate well over £1 millions worth of fish had been lost. All those cases were traceable back to TMI, some via Shirley Aquatics.

Substantial reference was made to the propaganda produced by the TMI in-house magazine (Nishkigoi International) and articles in Koi Carp in particular. It emerged that much of this - which would have Mr Geobbels blush -was untrue, in fact blatant lies. It was obvious that this propaganda was produced with the intention of making people believe that TMI were the biggest and best in the world and for soliciting clients and business. Mr. Symonds denied knowledge of much of this and blamed it on his publisher, Mr. Caddock, the owner of Nishkigoi International.

Not only that, but it appears that TMI are not at all what they pretend to be. In fact they are structured in such a way as to be able to claim they are not responsible for anything. In other words. they can cheat with impunity. We shall see.

All this will be revealed in the transcript and will damn those parties who have conspired to cheat the koi hobbyist and honest dealers. 'Those parties' are the vested interest - only interested in the advertising revenue and the money to be made by duping the ordinary koi keeper. These people should be ousted from the industry and it is for everyone to help clean up this cesspit.

We were advised that the judge's verdict would be promulgated within 2 weeks of the end of the above trial. We are now further advised that, because of the holiday period, this will not now be made until September. Furthermore, the judgement itself is expected to be a substantial one running to many pages and dealing with all the aspects covered at the trial. We confirm that as soon as this is available, it will be promoted on the internet as promised. In the meantime, the balance of the evidence placed into court will be published within the next few days.'

On 23 August 2002 Ron Craven wrote on the NI bulletin board: "Finally let me make it clear why I brought this action. The value of the fish I lost was in the region of £80,000. You will be able to read shortly the documents and events leading up to the process of litigation. The additional cost of bringing this action was approaching £200,000. I went ahead even though Martin Symonds made it clear almost 12 months ago that if I won the case he would fold his company and pay me nothing. Commercial logic would say I should have walked away, but in all conscience, hearing the stories from hobbyists of what had happened to them, I could not do so. It is one thing for me to lose fish, but what about the hobbyists who save up for 12 months to buy 1 fish and then find it dies within days and, if unlucky, is totally wiped out? I have many such examples. This man is responsible for the loss of millions of pounds worth of fish and the only result I expect to get from my action is that he is exposed for what he is."

What is worrying in this matter is the continued rhetoric and verbal attack that is being launched on the internet by the claimant and his supporters despite the matter being sub judice. While every breeder and supplier will have empathy with both parties in the case, the abusive attacks and unsubstantiated accusations cannot be condoned.

The above is not reprinted here with the intention to provide any credibility to any of the statements, but to illustrate the devastating and negative effect problems of this kind can have on the hobby of Koi keeping. Surely, to treasure and expand the hobby of Koi keeping must be the mission of each and every Koi producer and trader.

 

SAVE THAT SPERM!  

Many a Japanese Koi breeder will have a tale to tell about the effect the loss of a single male in a breeding group had on the quality of the offspring it produced. There are even smaller breeders that disappeared into obscurity because of loss of one member of a breeding group. 

This is especially true in the case of the highly refined varieties like the Sanke and Showa. A good breeding group can set you apart from the rest. For that reason the preservation of sperm should be the natural way of protecting the life expectancy of a good breeding group. Like an insurance policy. Sadly it is not done and breeders of show champions turn into producers of the everyday, garden type Koi almost overnight.

From an article COST ANALYSIS FOR INTEGRATING CRYOPRESERVATION INTO AN EXISTING FISH HATCHERY by R.H. Caffey and T.R. Tiersch in Journal of the World Aquaculture Society, 31 (1): 51-58, 2000 it is evident that the preservation of sperm of valuable males should be considered an option :

Abstract:

Fish sperm cryopreservation is documented by a large body of technical research. However, there are no reports of the economic requirements for using this technology in aquatic species. This study establishes a generic analysis of the investment and operating costs required to integrate sperm cryopreservation into existing fish hatcheries and can serve as a template for implementation of cryopreservation programs. Equipment and supplies were identified in a species-independent description of sperm cryopreservation, and capital and operating costs were documented for private and public hatcheries at three production capacities (3,000, 6,000 and 9,000 0.5-ml straws). Compared to public hatcheries, investment costs were found to be 70% higher, and operating costs 20% higher for private hatcheries due primarily to interest on borrowed capital. Equipment costs were dependent on the scope of work. Investment in required equipment incurred costs of $5,460 to $ 10,458 (public) or $9,497 to $18,190 (private), depending on production level. Purchase of optional research equipment increased initial investment by 300% without increasing output. Per unit costs decreased at higher production levels for all scenarios, but greater economies of scale were associated with private research hatcheries. Production costs ranged between $6.13 and $1.86 per straw (private), to $1.59 to $1.18 per straw (public).

Increased commercialization is expected to occur as research protocols for fish sperm cryopreservation are applied in the private sector and markets for cryopreserved sperm are established.

IMPORT RISK ANALYSIS

The website of NACA, the Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific, reports on a recent IRA workshop. Just further proof that producer countries are increasingly concerned about importing aquatic diseases and that the awareness of the economic consequences thereof is growing.

NACA convened an APEC-sponsored training course and workshop on “Capacity and awareness building on Import Risk Analysis (IRA) for Aquatic Animals” hosted by Thailand at the Secretariat headquarters in Bangkok from 1-6 April. 

Sixty-one participated in the workshop from all NACA member governments as well as from a number of other APEC economies including Canada, Japan, Mexico, Singapore, the United States, Spain and the Pacific. The objectives of the project are to:

1. Bring together regulatory authorities responsible for trade in live aquatic animals and aquatic animal health specialists to share experience and raise awareness;

2. Develop a manual on IRA for aquatic animals that will support economy IRAs and standardization and harmonization of  procedures and processes including health certification requirements for trade; 

3. Establish a network of people involved in conducting IRAs for aquatic animals in APEC economies to facilitate exchange of  information on epidemiological and surveillance data on aquatic animal diseases relevant to trade; and to

4. Facilitate further exchanges of experience and expertise on IRAs for aquatic animals between countries with greater and  lesser experience in conducting IRAs.

The training course covered the four major components of the IRA process, i.e.. hazard identification, risk assessment, risk management and risk communication with a focus on qualitative risk assessment methodology; understanding and familiarizing with international obligations and developing economy IRAs that can form the basis for meaningful negotiations on market access issues. It will also assist economies in making legislative and policy decisions on the import / export of aquatic animals and their products based on a science-based process and broad ranging consultation with relevant stakeholders. 

The project is one of the major recommendations of two recently concluded APEC Fisheries Working Group projects – namely the “Mexico Ad-Hoc Export Consultation on Transboundary Aquatic Animal Pathogen Transfer and the Development of Harmonized Standards on Aquaculture Health Management”, and “Development of a Regional Research Programme on Grouper Virus Transmission and Vaccine Development”. For further information contact melba.reantaso@enaca.org. 

 

ASIAN AQUATIC ANIMAL DISEASE GUIDE LAUNCHED

Also from the NACA site:

The Asia Diagnostic Guide to Aquatic Animal Diseases is the most comprehensive aquatic animal disease guide ever published in the region.  The guide covers economically significant diseases of molluscs, fish and crustaceans and is rich in photographs.  It covers laboratory and diagnostic techniques, causative agents and distribution, host range, clinical aspects, screening methods, diagnostic procedures, modes of transmission and control measures.  The guide also includes contact details for technical support services throughout the region and national health coordinators.  It is published in an updateable spiral-bound format and is printed on waterproof paper.  Visit our publications page for details on how to order. 

 

CHEMICALS IN THE HATCHERY  

While the following appeared in Fish Farmer International in March/April 1997 and may lean more towards trout production, it is still valid and offers some sobering thoughts on the use of chemicals in aquaculture.

What can you use? What can't you use? Dr David Alderman of the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS) Weymouth Laboratory, clears up some of the confusions arising from EU statutory requirements. Pressures, whether due to consumer concerns or to increased regulation arising from European market harmonisation, have led to a steady change in the way chemicals are used in aquaculture over recent years. In particular, the UK Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) non-statutory residue monitoring programme's reports on residues of malachite green and ivermectin in farmed fish, and the resultant problems, caused the aquaculture industry to examine the position regarding the use of treatments very carefully. 

Council Directive 96123/EC provides for the addition of fish meat to EU Member States' statutory residue monitoring programmes - this will apply from 1998 in the UK. The outcome is that fish farmers see their traditional chemical remedies increasingly curtailed and it is, of course, in the hatchery and fry production stages that the majority of such remedies have been used. Whilst the use of antibiotics has been closely controlled for many years by the Medicines Act and related legislation, little or no restraint has been applied to other "traditional" chemicals, despite the fact that in many cases their use could undoubtedly have been regarded as a veterinary medicinal use. Such traditionals are effectively "grey" products, not the property of any single manufacturer or supplier. This makes it uneconomic for any company to develop and generate the data needed to "legitimise" them as licensed mainstream medicines.

Malachite green
Controls existed on the discharge of such chemicals from fish farms, but, in general, the limits on discharge consents did not present a practical problem. The most obvious example was malachite green. The most critical need for malachite green has always been in the hatchery to control overgrowth. Of fungus on incubating eggs. Recent results from the VMD surveillance of trout suggest that hatchery use of malachite green, despite the time, plus the enormous growth dilution factor from egg to table fish, could result in residue problems in table fish. 

As a result of this, the British Trout Association has advised members that the use of malachite green is restricted to eggs only and that any fry resulting from treated eggs must be positively released - in other words, they must be checked and found to be free of residues of malachite green before being sold on. Malachite green can give residue problems because the physical layout of many farms with the hatchery at the top of the farm and the growth-out stock in the outlet channels means that anything used in the hatchery and therefore in its discharge water will affect ready-for-market fish. Of course this "down farm" contamination is a potential problem with any treatments used in a hatchery on such a farm. Although a major study of malachite green has now been started by the Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) in the USA, results from this study will not be available in less than five years. Even assuming the results are favourable, its persistence in fish tissues makes it unlikely that malachite green will ever be used again in the extensive way that it was, given the recent BTA advice.

Not Annex IV

The presence of malachite green residues in market-ready fish is clearly unacceptable because no Maximum Residue Limit (MRL) has been set but malachite green has NOT been placed in Annex IV (or indeed any other Annex to regulation 2377/90/EEC) so that its use remains in the grey "unauthorised" area, as with most traditional remedies. Annex IV of that Regulation is a list of substances which specifically must not be used in food animal species. Formalin and hydrogen peroxide are the only current useable alternatives to malachite green in the hatchery which do not create residue problems even if discharged into the rest of the farm. They do however present the greater user hazards of potential respiratory toxicity and inflammability respectively, whilst being less effective in use. A number of other organic substances have sometimes been used as malachite green alternatives, perhaps more with ornamental fish than food fish. 

These produce similar problems to malachite green, and, indeed, available information indicates that they should never be considered even for hatchery use. Copper sulphate is also to be found in lists of traditional hatchery remedies. It is of doubtful efficacy and in the quantities which would be needed to produce any therapeutic effect, would certainly breach any discharge consent. There has been some confusion on the regulatory status of other traditionally used compounds such as Chloramine T. It can be clearly stated that Chloramine T is NOT in Annex IV of regulation 2377/90/EEC and indeed the manufacturer of that product is currently actively discussing with the EU regulators the possibility of applying for Chloramine T to be placed in Annex II for fish use. This would be required before it could be given a Marketing Authorisation for its use in aquaculture. 

Whilst we are in the process of losing many of the traditional chemical remedies, the increasing cost of introducing new veterinary drugs for aquaculture means that companies are decreasingly likely to fund the necessary development. The newly started MAFF LINK project to develop a malachite green substitute, in which pharmaceutical companies, the fish farming industry and government are working together, plus the recent news about Chloramine T are among the few current examples of positive developments in this field. The fry production stage is, if anything, more vulnerable than egg production to the lack of available medicines. Fish eggs are relatively tough and can withstand the use of aggressive products such as iodophores, formalin or hydrogen peroxide. With older fish, vaccines are available to control the effects of most bacterial diseases, and viral vaccines are beginning to appear, but fry are not fully immunocompetent. 

Also, the most effective vaccines are injectable and not a practical proposition for many diseases in very young fish. The control of diseases such as RTFS (Rainbow Trout Fry Syndrome) awaits the development of effective bath or oral vaccines. Land farmers have a wide range of disinfectants available to them and approval systems exist for disease control and hygiene - in the dairy, for instance. Again, for the most part, aquaculture gets the "leavings" and uses other people's disinfectants, the only specialised product in this area being aquaculture-specific buffered iodophores. For the most part the available "second-hand" disinfectants are quite effective for hatchery hygiene, disinfection of equipment and so on. 

However, tougher bacterial pathogens such as Flavobacterium psychrophilum, the cause of RTFS, are not easily killed by most disinfectants. In the case of RTFS, pathogenic strains of the organism possess a thick protective coat which is not penetrated by the disinfectant, plus an ability to survive beneath the inevitable scaling and encrustations which build up on fish tanks and troughs in use. Something "special" is needed for disinfection in hatchery sites infected with this type of pathogen, but although the market is small, a few potential products have so far shown major promise in the continuing studies conducted in the MAFF-BTA project on RTFS at CEFAS Weymouth and the Institute of Aquaculture in Stirling. Although legislative controls may further restrict what chemicals can be used in aquaculture, new products are being developed, which if successful will increase the range of approved treatments. 

SVC in the USA  

The following from Ken Brian, Biologist at Blue Ridge Fish Hatchery: They will prefer to reserve comment while "the investigation is ongoing. Unfortunately, the information provided by OIE on July 19 is still relevant as there has been little progress made by the authorities. We will be forthcoming with more information as it becomes available."

www.oie.int/eng/info/hebdo/AIS_62.HTM#Sec0

 

So. Until next time.

Totsiens 

Servaas de Kock   

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

OUR MISSION: This free Newsletter is intended to share information of interest to the Breeders, Exporters, Importers and Dealers of Koi internationally. It is not intended for the average hobbyist. Your feedback or criticism of whatever kind will be valued. If you want to update me on whatever is happening in your part of the world, I will be delighted. The idea is to serve the Koi industry and keep commercial content out. If I make mistakes, well, correct me if you can substantiate your claim. Please forward this to anyone you think might be interested in our subject matter.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Want to receive your free KOI NEWS on a regular basis?

Yes? Send a blank email to Koi News with SUBSCRIBE in the subject line.

Want to never receive this piece of junk mail again?

Simply forward this email to No Koi News with UNSUBSCIBE in the subject line.

Koi News name, logo and editorial content © 2002 Servaas de Kock. All rights reserved.