Cyanide testing challenge to all!

[Bill2]

The mantra of this forum is money will determine how things operate. If we don't buy x fish the lfs won't buy it .. the wholesaler won't import it etc etc etc. Instead of waiting for MAC to get the cdt testing set up why not just get some fish tested on your own. It would be a simple process, just send in a couple DOA's and get them tested. If you are a wholesaler get a couple from each exporter you buy from .. if you are a lfs get a couple tested from each wholesaler you buy from. If they come out positive then discuss that with your wholesaler/importer if they come out negitive then you have some idea they are clean.

A lot fo the time being pro-active is much better than being reactive!


Here's a lab in Louisiana.
http://aculab.home.att.net/scope.htm

Bill

 

[dizzy]

Bill,
This actually similar to what I suggested in a thread sometime ago. The problem is it assumes that Horge is wrong about the fish being able to "piss away" the cyanide. How much would it cost per fish? Could you expect to be able to recover the costs of the test, and the cost of the fish from the company that sold them to you? If so it might work.

 

[JennM]

Well, I'd be willing to do it, if I had DOAs I rarely have any DOA/DAA anymore, and I'm comfortable that the test would be negative -- however I'd be willing to do it, just to prove a point

Bill can you offer the name/address of a LAB where we could have such a pathology done? And how much would it cost? What type of test would it be? Because it's been discussed that after about 48 hours, the fish excretes the "evidence" (although I am fairly certain I read somewhere about the evidence of cyanide being present in tissues indefinitely--- there's conflicting info there)....

I'm game.

Jenn

 

[PeterIMA]

There are a number of issues being raised here concerning stateside testing of marine fish for cyanide. The first is Horge's incorrect claim that cyanide (ion) is lost in less than 48 hours. I have repeatedly stated that cyanide ion (CN ion) was detectable 2-3 weeks after the fish were collected. Generaly, it takes that long for the fish to reach Manila-based exporters. It would be more correct to state that within 2-3 weeks the CN ion level drops below 0.2 mg/kg (ppm). Hence, most fish tested by the BFAR/IMA laboratories from Manila-based exporters were below the level being used by the Philippine government to support prosecution of collectors or exporters. Horge is right that setting an artificial level (0.2 ppm and above) for prosecutions was a get-home free card for exporters. Another criterion was needed if exporters were to be targeted for prosecution. The test being used by BFAR (and formerly by IMA) was to measure CN ion using the methods published by the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) and also by the American Public Health Association (APHA). It could be applied in the USA but might not detect CN ion because by then most of the CN ion has probably been converted to thiocyante (SCN) ion.

In my recent paper (published in Marine Ornamental Species Colletion, Culture, and Conservation by Iowa State Press), I discussed the fact that a new test is being evaluated by Iowa State University to measure thiocyanate (SCN) in the blood of marine fish. The reserch will also determine the uptake and clearance rates for CN ion and SCN ion. We are optimistic that the SCN test will be more useful for detecting a cyanide product (SCN). Again, as with the original test there needs to be controls to deal with interfering substances. For now, I am not aware of published protocols that a US-based laboratory could follow to measure SCN ion. That is what we expect to get from the research being done at Ohio State University.

Both CN and SCN ions can only be measured once the ions are in solution. Protocols for digesting fish tissues to release SCN into solution are needed. So, even if the US-based laboratory you recommend has a published method for measuring these ions in solution, they also need the protocols for digesting the tissues and dealing with interferring substances. Measuring cyanide is not as easy as it might at first appear.

Several scientists have recently contacted me about measuring organically bound forms of cyanide in situ. This is not easy to do and would require very sophisticated (read expensive) techniques. I do not see the need to get into a discussion on this approach.

Yes, you can send your fish for testing at a US-based laboratory. But, I do not anticipate that the fish will be tested correctly. If done with the APHA/ASTM method, the probability is the fish will not have cyanide ion present (certainly not above 0.2 ppm level defined as Positive).

Peter Rubec

 

[Bill2]

Dizzy,
I guess we will never know if a fish can Piss away cyanide. Maybe someone can do a test. This hobby/indusry if full of anecdotal evicence. I honestly doubt they can piss it away in under a week but i'm not a fish biologist. Maybe I'll ask Scott when this subject comes up in the MACO class.

The cost is irrelevent in my opinion. If it's $300 per fish (don't know) and you built a biz on the mantra of clean fish, there is no price for peace of mind.

Jenn,
I posted a link to a lab in Louisiana. They have a phone number and a email address on there.

Maybe we should juice a fish for the good of the hobby and let it live for a couple days and then send it.

 

[dizzy]

Bill,
I don't know if you had a chance to read Peter's post before making yours, but I think he knows what he is talking about. (It probably wouldn't be accurate) Sending in fish to prove your running a clean operation would be very convenient for some of the wholesalers and retailers who like to mix fish. Send in a mandarin and firefish and then claim you had your fish tested and they were all negative. A great marketing ploy, but maybe we don't need to give these guys any ideas. Your idea could actually do more harm than good.

 

[Kalkbreath]

I know lets send each others fish......Just how confidant are you that your fish are clean? Ill test your fish and you test mine :wink:

 

[horge]

To forstall any more misrepresentation of my view on this matter:

I quote myself from:
http://reefs.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=30284&start=0
bottom post of the page:

------------------------------------
"The Importance, and Failure of CDT's
It is absolutely correct that three weeks on and possibly more, you can still ID a cyanide-captured fish.

Nevertheles, I am --I tell you-- absolutely correct that within 24++ hours, with skill on the part of the cyanide-squirter and the wholesaler, one can cheat colorimetic and ISE tests under the current SOP.

What's wrong with this picture?
That .2ppm and over being the "POSITIVE" range.
Still there but less than .2ppm is usually trace (else zero).

Nothing wrong with that, except society outside of BFAR places a lot more emphasis on the word POSITIVE. Anything less means reasonable doubt....
"
-----------------------------

If the CONTEXT involved when I stated that a cyanide capture could metabolize evidence completely in 48 was unclear, the above should have eliminated both erroneous assumptions or wilfull ignorance thereupon.

Evidence is what can be perceived, and above all, used.
If the equipment, protocols and enforcement agencies are unable to make use of what some insist is 'evidence', then 'evidence' it isn't.

I restate: "all evidence is pissed away" in 48.

Evidence.
I might occasionally slip in and out of such a strict definition
for lack of relieving synonyms, but I trust this post makes clear my stand.


Malinaw na ba? O baka naman mas masaya ang kalabuan?
:twisted:






.

 

[PeterIMA]

Horge, I agree with you that the definition of "Positive" should be changed as it pertains to prosecutions related to cyanide testing in the Philippine court system. I am less clear whether this terminology has any legal standing. You may be right that the word "Positive" colors peoples' perceptions. I hope that you will make your concerns known to officials within the Philippine government.

As far as my recent publication concerning the CDT database, I did not use the terms Positive or Negative. I used the actual measurments of cyanide concentrations to score the data Present (cyanide detected) and Absent (cyanide not detected).

Peter Rubec

 

[Kalkbreath]

Peter, If a Net fisherman accidentally collects a fish that was exposed to cyanide by another collector.....be it food fishermen or second hand exposer.............would he have been prosecuted? If so what are the chances of this happening.......and could a few stray fish completely undermind a reform...........?

 

[PeterIMA]

Kalk, In some of my previous posts I mentioned that the fishermen were only prosecuted if they were caught in the possession of cyanide and the fish in their possession were found to be "Positive". As you can see this is quite conservative.

I am not aware how this is presently being handled by the Philippine court system. There appears to be a growing resolve to crack down on cyanide fishing by Philippine government agencies. As far as I know, BFAR does not have law enforcement staff. So, prosecutions generally come from personnel in other government agencies.

Peter Rubec

 

[Kalkbreath]

Thanks.......