Aquaponics Digest - Thu 03/11/99
Message 1: Re: three pound lettuce bags
from Adriana Gutierrez
Message 2: Re: Aquaponics in Tree Culture/Restoration.
from Adriana Gutierrez
Message 3: Re: Vacuum packing lettuce
from sbonney@iquest.net
Message 4: RE: three pound lettuce bags
from Alejandro Gallardo Valencia
Message 5: RE: three pound lettuce bags
from Alejandro Gallardo Valencia
Message 6: RV: Big Fish
from Alejandro Gallardo Valencia
Message 7: RV: Aquaponics in Tree Culture/Restoration.
from Alejandro Gallardo Valencia
Message 8: Re: Aquaponics in Tree Culture/Restoration.
from djhanson@calweb.com
Message 9: Re: Grapes
from KLOTTTRUE
Message 10: Re: Specs
from doelle
Message 11: Re: Big Fish
from doelle
Message 12: Re: News item
from doelle
Message 13: Re: News item
from uweb@megalink.net.mx
Message 14: Feed additives
from Adriana Gutierrez
Message 15: Re: Feed additives
from doelle
Message 16: PH question
from "Joe Insana"
Message 17: Re: Specs
from "Ted Ground"
Message 18: Re: Feed additives
from sbonney@iquest.net
Message 19: Other mail lists
from Brian Gracia
Message 20: Re: Specs
from doelle
Message 21: Re: three pound lettuce bags
from MUDDTOO
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 1 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: three pound lettuce bags
From: Adriana Gutierrez
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 07:29:08 -0500
That's more like what we could use Dale, thanks.
Adriana
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 2 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: Aquaponics in Tree Culture/Restoration.
From: Adriana Gutierrez
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 07:30:41 -0500
Susanne, Inslee Fish Farm in Oklahoma(?) is reported to deal
exclusively in chives.
Adriana
> Does anyone have any experience groing either onions or escallion,
> hydroponically??
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 3 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: Vacuum packing lettuce
From: sbonney@iquest.net
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 10:18:00 -0500
Adrianna,
An exhibitor at the Upper Midwest Organic Farming Conference displayed some
vacuum pack equipment. Check out their website at www.kitchenkrafts.com or
phone 800-776-0575.
Steve
Steve Bonney, President
Sustainable Earth
a 501(c)3 not-for-profit dedicated to economic development through
sustainable agriculture
100 Georgton Ct., W. Lafayette IN 47906
tel (765)463-9366; fax (765)497-0164; email sbonney@iquest.net
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 4 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: RE: three pound lettuce bags
From: Alejandro Gallardo Valencia
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 10:53:50 -0600
Dale:
Lettuce and veggies have to breath and be kept in cool storage, thats =
why sealed packed vegetables have a short shelf life once opened. I'd =
go with the breathable bags.
Best Regards.=20
Alejandro.
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 5 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: RE: three pound lettuce bags
From: Alejandro Gallardo Valencia
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 10:53:59 -0600
Always remember though, to use recycled paper. We must try to preserve =
what little forests we have left.
Best regards.
Alejandro
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 6 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: RV: Big Fish
From: Alejandro Gallardo Valencia
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 10:54:12 -0600
Dave, Dave, Dave...
Respect for all living things and apreciation of their perfection and =
place in our world is obviously a main issue in the balance of =
sustainable development, conservation and so on. Slaughter or sacrifice =
of animals that ARE DESTINED TO BE HUMAN FOOD, however, is necesary. =
With all due respect to vegetarians, of course, I=B4m refering to meat =
consumers (I don=B4t really feel like getting into a veggie - carnivore =
eternal discussion). Regarding the sacrifice of possible =
reencarnations, my beliefs lean more towards animist-ying-yang-native =
american-sense of respect and balance. I don't think that killing an =
animal for your consumption or to feed people is wrong, allthough it has =
to be done as swiftly as possible (wich is not always the case or not =
always possible, I admit). Commercial aquaculture, cuniculture, =
etc. is (not denying a business) also a service, sort of an =
industrialized pack of hunters that provide for the tribe if you may. =
Let's please not confuse respect for life with the Bugs Bunny Sindrome.
It is the mission of scientists, specialists, activists and concerned =
citizens to help regulate animal treatment, never losing of sight that =
we are animals too and on top of the food chain (most of the times, =
anyway). If I come back as a fish or a broccoli, I'd rather serve my =
purpose on the food chain that be utilized as a simbol for human ego. =
As a still alive and kicking human being I'm working to regulate human =
activities towards sustainable development, this is utilization of our =
resources with respect and concience to mantain the ecosistem, the =
species and other resources to obtain a balance that we managed to screw =
up trough our history.
Just an opinion. Best regards.
Alejandro.
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 7 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: RV: Aquaponics in Tree Culture/Restoration.
From: Alejandro Gallardo Valencia
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 15:03:12 -0600
Carefull with your targets for erosion control and your concept of =
helping the environment, Adriana. The Sahara, the Negev and the Outback =
are very specific and important ecosistems that shouldn=B4t be tempered =
with more than what is needed to satisfy basic human needs (the native =
people needs, not huge cities). You can change the enviroment around =
human centers, that is inevitable, but don't ever think that converting =
a desert into an oasis is, by any means, helping the enviroment (unless =
of course that desert is man made) Helping the environment is =
respecting, keeping and in any case restoring the existing systems, and =
in case they are needed to satisfy human requirements, used with a =
sustainable development based criteria.
Restoring sand dunes is usually necesary because the dune bar is =
destroyed by human activities as simple as building beach houses, or =
riding sand buggies or four wheel bikes. In restoring those systems we =
are merely fixing what we destroyed in the first place, so it is a very =
good example of what I'm saying. Sorry if I'm a little agressive with =
some posts, but the real meaning of conservation of the environment is a =
very important issue for me (not the extremes that we usually get). =
Continuing with erosion control plants, it depends on the dune system =
you want to restore, if the native flora is grass (most commonly in =
coastal lagoons) they grow in fresh to brackish water, but coastal dunes =
usually have other sorts of plants that thrive on the water that they =
get from ocean mist and rain (this are very much like desert plants but =
huey crawl on the ground hence protecting the dune. Dunes are very =
dynamic sistems that move around, creating new dunes all the time =
(that's why beach houses are such a drag, they prevent sand from moving =
and balancing the system.
Best regards.
"The growchy oceanographer" Alejandro
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 8 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: Aquaponics in Tree Culture/Restoration.
From: djhanson@calweb.com
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 13:33:26 -0800
> To second ted's notion of expanding the range of aquaponics: I think
> perhaps one of the least explored areas of use of aquaponical techniques is
> the breeding and raising of tropical fish (especially rarities) for sale as
> pets.
This list is mainly for my fiance, Darren, but since he saw something
that is right up my fish tank, so to speak, he suggested I pipe in.
The main problem with breeding & raising tropical fish of the rarities
is there isn't much market for them. Yes, some people are always on the
look out for fish rarely available, but if you were to get them and
actually manage to reproduce them, you won't get back the money you have
put into them.
--dj "Well, some people do very well, but they sell direct-to-consumer.
We've
heard several speak on the three basic models of commercial breeding:
1) Direct-to-consumer: High dollar/small spawn type fish
2) Direct-to-retail: Generally medium on both counts
3) Direct-to-wholesale: Generally cheap/large spawn fish
One would need to determine the size of the system they want to set up
first.
That will determine the number of fish they're talking about. (If it's
just a
55 gallon tank supporting a couple square feet of herbs for a single
family, doing some of the rare tropheus might make sense. But if they're
planning on a 1,000 gallon tank supporting commercial production of
vegetables for the local farmer's market, they'll need to pick more
bread-and-butter species.)"
Ok...who am I? I have been maintaining, breeding and raising tropical
fish for almost 24 years. Darren is always talking about eventually
switching our filtration methods to an aquaculture system. Very
plausable indeed.
--dj "And in our case, I'll be sizing the hydroponic portion to the fish
we're
already producing. "
> Many tropical fish are finicky, requiring very specific water
> conditions to live and espcially to breed.
This is actually not true. Yes, there are fish that require very hard
water or very soft water in order to reproduce. But, these are the
'rareities'. Most tropical fish work well in just tap water and even
some that are supposed to be in very hard/very soft water don't know
they are supposed to and spawn when they feel like it anyway. We have
some Julidochromis species that are African's that should be kept in
very hard water. Mine are not. They are in regular tap water and our
water parameters are 7.2 pH and about 180 ppm General Hardness. We also
have
Angelfish and Corydoras, from South America with soft water, that spawn
on a continuous basis with the above parameters.
> I think the use of aquaponics and
> similar techniques will make it simpler to recreate a specific biotope that a
> specific fish from that biotope would need to thrive. The plants grown
> hydroponically should be from the same region as the fish, tying the whole
> system together, and creating a second commodity in ornamental plants.
This part I do not think is neccessary but Darren is of the belief that
it can't hurt either. The only time that the biotope plants would be
needed is in a show tank. The fish really don't care what is in their
tanks.
> Additionally, as many tropical fish are rather small creatures, a
> comfortable environment can be created for them in limited spaces. This offers
> a real 'desktop' aquaponic potential for city or even apartment dwellers, as
> well as people who don't eat fish. I would also imagine that the profit might
> be attractive...
Again, the profit would depend on the species kept. Rare fish will not
bring in the money.
--dj "They can, but then you get into direct-to-consumer sales which
raises
the overhead costs in time and money."
If you are planning on selling these fish to a
retail fish store, the best thing to do would be to go to a local pet
store and ask them what they sell the most of. That is where your money
would lie.
As large as an aquaponics system can be, the more logical
outlet would be the wholesalers who will take hundreds of one species at
a time instead of like the retailers who will only take about 12-25 per
species a month.
--dj "At which point you'd have a large enough mass of fish to support
the
same type of hydroponic system that you would for a large tank of
tilapia."
I interjected some comments from Darren in with mine. I hope no one
minds...
Kaycy
http://www.calweb.com/users/d/djhanson/index.htm
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 9 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: Grapes
From: KLOTTTRUE
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 16:39:55 EST
Has anyone ever tried raising grapes,aquaponically? Ken
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 10 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: Specs
From: doelle
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 08:41:56 +1000
Ted,
Have you ever tried algae ? I realise you have rather cold winters, but
the summers should give you a good supply. I do not know the US pelleted
food, but in Asia, overseas companies incorporate into pelleted food
sometimes or more often antibiotics and hormones to give you a good
shrimp or fish and a healthy one. As you know both chemicals are not the
best for human health.
Are there regulations in the US making sure that your pelleted
food has no antibiotic or hormones ?
Best regards
Horst
Horst W.Doelle, D.Sc., D.Sc. [h.c.]
Chairman, IOBB
Director, MIRCEN-Biotechnology
FAX: +617-38783230
Email: doelle@ozemail.com.au
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 11 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: Big Fish
From: doelle
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 09:29:39 +1000
David, I fully agree with your answer. Manufacturers dealing with chicken=
houses etc etc do this mainly out of so-called economics, which means greed=
for more money. This has resulted in an increase in diseases and thus the=
use of antibiotics . Because these animals ought to be nice and fat and=
big, hormones were also added. The latter two are detrimebntal to humans=
and we have seen already the results and some countries, particularly in=
Europe do not import any meat from animals fed with hormones.
Why do we have to do that ? It certainly has nothing to do with improving=
nature. What is the sense ofg producing more if people cannot buy it or=
these big companies are not prepared to ship it to needed areas ?
It is much better to improve techniques so people in needing countries can=
learn from us and produce food themselves,
That is in any case my opinion.
Horst
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 12 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: News item
From: doelle
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 09:44:24 +1000
I sioncerely hope that transgenic fish are not allowed on the market, if
they overproduce hormones. A very detailed research has to be done to
investigate the effect of these hormones on humans.
My question is again, why is that necessary ? because of the hormones or
greed for bigger and better fish ?
I am prepared for a molecular attack.
Horst
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 13 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: News item
From: uweb@megalink.net.mx
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 17:06:32 -600
Hi Horst,
of course you are right... in a way. But I don't believe that "research" (as
the powerful corporations understand it) would help us forward to stop the
direct
attack towards our health, and in favor of some greedy types. Just look at all
the "evidence" that GE is harmless! So I think the best we can do is, listening
to our gut feelings when we hear about the "harmless" hormones in poultry, etc.
In that I agree with you! And of course I would never buy hormone treated meat
of whatever kind, if I can avoid it.
Uwe
http://www.megalink.net.mx
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 14 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Feed additives
From: Adriana Gutierrez
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 19:15:49 -0500
So I think the best we can do is, listening
> to our gut feelings when we hear about the "harmless" hormones in poultry,
etc.
> In that I agree with you! And of course I would never buy hormone treated meat
> of whatever kind, if I can avoid it.
I'm kind of surpirsed that nobody commented on this news item
from a week ago reporting the presence of antibiotic-resistant
bacteria in chicken feed. I wonder if there is a similar problem
in fish feed. The researcher declined to identify the source of
the feed. No wonder we're spreading super-bugs. This is pretty
scary.
Adriana
>From MSNBC:
"THE IDENTIFICATION of a highly resistant enterococal
strain in feed raises disturbing
questions about the potential
for penetration of VRE strains into
farms and food animal
populations in the USA and subsequent
risk of transfer into
human populations," he said in the
letter.
Animal feed is not expected to be
sterile but
researchers believe it is the first
report of VRE from
commercially prepared chicken feed in
the United States.
Vancomycin is the last line of
resistance to so-called
superbugs that have built up a
resistance to most
conventional drugs. Enterococci, which
causes intestinal
problems, is a common source of
infection in hospitals and
usually treated with antibiotics.
Scientists blame the increase in
superbugs on the
overuse of antibiotics in people and
animals. Medical
experts think animals are the source of
superbugs that are
passed on to humans.
The discovery of the
drug-resistant enterococci in
animal feed means it could be
transferred to animals and to
humans.
The researchers did not say which
company made the
chicken feed or how it become
contaminated, but they said
drug resistant enterococci was
widespread in at least one lot
of feed.
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 15 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: Feed additives
From: doelle
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 11:19:24 +1000
Adriana,
You are correct, it is scary what is done to make money these days. This =
is one of the reasons why we push for labelling the products so we actual=
ly know what is in it.
Prevention costs money, combating makes money. It is the old story.
We cannot name companies out of obvious reasons, but can suggest alternat=
ives and warn people to be alert.
No hormone is harmless - have you ever heard that the kids grow taller th=
ese days than 50 years ago ? They are getting earlier mature ? Why ?
No antibiotic is harmless as they foster resistancy and thus the old dise=
ase outbreaks are occurring again. We just had a Salmonella outbreak from=
'fruit juice' so was claimed. Unfortuinately the people who got sick did=
not remember that they drank this particular fruit juice. One wonders so=
metimes.
It is scary, but not in a way that we should give up. Just encourages us =
to think a bit more as to what we are doing or should be doing.
It is sad, but we cannot trust anybody unless we have the product analyse=
d or a law that it should be clearly labelled.
Horst
Horst W.Doelle, D.Sc., D.Sc. [h.c.]
Chairman, IOBB
Director, MIRCEN-Biotechnology
FAX: +617-38783230
Email: doelle@ozemail.com.au
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 16 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: PH question
From: "Joe Insana"
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 20:22:16 EST
I have a small aquaponics system set up and my PH is at 8.2 which I
understand is not good for the plants but at this point my little
fishies seem to love it. How do I lower the PH (what product) and where
do I buy it from? Thanks
Joe Insana
New London, OH
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 17 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: Specs
From: "Ted Ground"
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 19:47:50 -0600
Horst,
In the US, antibiotic additives are not allowed in fish feed manufacturing.
That is, they are NOT ALLOWED as a prophylatic (disease preventative
agent) in fish feeds for aquacultured animals grown for human consumption.
Only 2 antibiotics are allowed in aquaculture (by the US Food and Drug
Administration) that I know of, and then only for therapeutic purposes
(once disease has already broken out in the aquaculture system and the
treatment is to be short term and limited)- those are Terramyacin
(oxytetracycline) and Romet. The aquaculture operations that I am aware
of- especially fish hatcheries where the fish are not going immediately to
human consumption, but will be stocked into waters as fingerlings- isolate
the diseased animals - usually these are the big, very valuable brood stock
animals in the hatchery, that are in limited numbers compared to the
millions of fish fry or fingerlings- These treated animals are isolated
from the unaffected animals and the antibiotics are introduced either by
injection or by a temporary isolated water bath treatment with the
antibiotic in suspension or in solution, rather than incorporating it into
the feed...If anyone has more insight into that please let me know, since
the FDA is slow on many things, but nevertheless they can make changes in
restrictions and regulations at a whim...so, this is to the best of my
knowledge.
I could be mistaken, but the only antibiotic additive in animal feeds in
the US that I know of is in some formulations of chicken feed, and that
would be erythromyacin...Anyone more familiar with that please let us
know.... I really don't know what is done with dairy or cattle feeds, but
to the best of my knowledge, antibiotic additives to feeds for the purpose
of prophylatic intentions (continuous antibiotic treatment whether the
animal has a disease or not) are not the rule but the exception with
respect to animal feed formulations in agriculture...I know that
antibiotics are overused in the world today,especially in hospitals and in
"knee jerk" prescriptions issued by our family doctors for little things
like ear aches and the like...this does concern me, especially in the area
of drug resistant bacteria..
So, I guess this brings us back to the subject of drug resistance and
bacterial genetics. Stuart B. Levy wrote a good article on this subject in
the March 1998 issue of Scientific American. Dr. Levy points out that
bacteria pick up resistance genes from other bacterial cells in 3 main
ways. "Often they receive whole plasmids bearing one or more such genes
from a donor bacterial cell via the mechanism of bacterial conjugation.
Other times, a virus will pick up a resistance gene from one bacterium and
inject ito into a different bacterial cell. Finally, bacteria sometimes
scavenge gene-bearing snippets of DNA from dead bacterial cells in their
vicinity. Genes obtained through viruses or from dead cells persis in
their new owner if they become incorporated stably into the recipient's
chromosome or into a plasmid" but this is just basic modern microbiology.
What I have found of interest, however, which kind of counterbalances that
seemingly promiscuous picture of our bacterial buddies, (swapping genes
like baseball cards), is a report of what happened to a biotech version of
a Rhizobium meliloti released on April 19,1988, in Pepin County, Wisconsin.
Having altered the genes and enhanced the bacterium's nitrogen-fixing
capability, Biotechnica Agriculture, a Cambridge, Massachusetts-based
biotech firm tried to enhance the yields of alfalfa by as much as 17%,
which they had demonstrated in greenhouse trials. The test was the first
opin-air release of biotech-altered microbes in the Midwest, and the second
in the United States.
So what happened? This small scale field test of genetically engineered
microbes supported what the overwhelming majority of experts in this field
at the time suspected would happen: The indigenous bugs beat out the
genetically engineered bacterium. Biotechnica's Rhizobia got so thorougly
outcompeted by local microbial residents that Biotechnica scientists could
barely find them in the test plot soil.
This story of the demise of the lab bug has less to do with genetic
transfer than competion and being overwhelmed by the myriad of natural
bugs.
On the other hand, we read in The Ecology of Soil Bacteria, an old book I
have dusted off just recently, that inter-generic transformation between
Rhizobium and Agrobacterium (2 different genera, not just 2 different
species) was reported way back in 1953, before they were tampering
artificial DNA recombinations...so the implication is that certain traits
(genetic material) can cross genus boundaries in Nature...
I think someone was trying to tell us the importance and implications of
that the other day in this list- The good aspects of it vis a vis
aquaponics.. This sounds like we don't have a clear cut picture of genetic
transfer across genera lines in microbes in Nature...sometimes it happens
sometimes not. Isnt that neat?
With respect to hormones, no fish farmer I know uses hormones in the feed
they buy. And no feed mill I know of incorporates any kind of hormone into
their fish feed formulation. I keep hearing about this in connection with
objections to fish food pellets- these objections center around reported
massive use of antibiotics and hormones in fish feeds, but if you look to
the facts it seems that at least for fish feed, that this is one of those
myths or rumors that just keeps getting perpetuated through repetition,
without folks checking into the particular facts...Again, this is from my
experience with US fish feed manufacturers, and I cannot address the mills
outside the US...so take this with a grain of salt, as usual...
I will say this though: antibiotics are compounds that usually come from
fungi...soil fungi. Therefore antibiotics such as penicillin, etc. were
found in Nature by Flemming and others by serendipity, and not synthesized
from scratch. Therefore they have occurred naturally in the soil and
elsewhere for eons. Another thing about hormones is that any predator fish
which eats adult forgage fish in the wild will injest small but detectable
quantities of steroids in the tissues of the fish it is eating..so a
largemouth bass that eats an adult bluegill that is small enough for it to
swallow can get an extrasomatic dose of naturally occurring steroids in the
flesh of what they are eating since the largemouth bass I know of don't
cook their prey before they eat them. (ie., fish testosterone or estogen is
present in the tissues of adult forage fish, and these hormones, which are
proteins, do not get de-natured because they have not been cooked).
The difference is- and this is an important difference- the quantities of
these materials that make people concerned whenever they suspect that they
are being artificially added to animal feedstuffs....I think these concerns
are valid if they were true or very common, but to the best of my
knowledge, I seem to find that these concerns are not based on common
agricultural practices...at least around my neck of the woods.
Another thing I wanted to point out is that antibiotics are at least
partially transformed - biochemically altered- by the biochemistry and
physiology of the animal or human body. The liver has many remarkable,
wonderful, beautiful, enzyme systems- the mixed function oxidase system,
the cytochrome P450 system, yada, yada, yada, which takes xenobiotic
compounds (stuff that the body did not make, but that the liver has to get
rid of anyway) and modifies those compounds in order to ensure that they
are excreted. Consequently, in both human and animal systems, the manure
does not have 100% active antibiotics from the animal treated with that
compound, if you see what I mean.
In other words, a great deal of biochemical "composting" goes on in the
blood, intestines, and liver of the animals before the paddy hits the
turf...
Comments?
Ted.
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 18 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: Feed additives
From: sbonney@iquest.net
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 21:42:37 -0500
Antibiotics have been a staple in animal feed since the late 1940's when
Pfizer discovered, through trials conducted at land grant universities,
faster growth rates for animals fed sub-therapeutic doses. Coupled with the
very crowded conditions of confined feeding, and the concominant need for
treatment of diseases, antibiotics have had a presence in the food chain
since soon after their discovery 50+ years ago. Any wonder we have
resistant strains of pathogens? I'm not sure if commercial fish food
contains antibiotics, however.
Steve
Steve Bonney, President
Sustainable Earth
a 501(c)3 not-for-profit dedicated to economic development through
sustainable agriculture
100 Georgton Ct., W. Lafayette IN 47906
tel (765)463-9366; fax (765)497-0164; email sbonney@iquest.net
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 19 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Other mail lists
From: Brian Gracia
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 22:29:02 -0600
Some time ago, someone posted an address for a mail list on worms. Does
anyone know the address?
Brian
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 20 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: Specs
From: doelle
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 14:42:05 +1000
Ted,
you wrote:
>In the US, antibiotic additives are not allowed in fish feed manufacturing.
> That is, they are NOT ALLOWED as a prophylatic (disease preventative
>agent) in fish feeds for aquacultured animals grown for human consumption.
This is very good to hear. Unfortunately it is not the same in the feed
delivered to developing coutries, although it may be restricted to a few
companies.
>Only 2 antibiotics are allowed in aquaculture (by the US Food and Drug
>Administration) that I know of, and then only for therapeutic purposes
>(once disease has already broken out in the aquaculture system and the
>treatment is to be short term and limited)- those are Terramyacin
>(oxytetracycline) and Romet. The aquaculture operations that I am aware
>of- especially fish hatcheries where the fish are not going immediately to
>human consumption, but will be stocked into waters as fingerlings- isolate
>the diseased animals - usually these are the big, very valuable brood stock
>animals in the hatchery, that are in limited numbers compared to the
>millions of fish fry or fingerlings- These treated animals are isolated
>from the unaffected animals and the antibiotics are introduced either by
>injection or by a temporary isolated water bath treatment with the
>antibiotic in suspension or in solution, rather than incorporating it into
>the feed...If anyone has more insight into that please let me know, since
>the FDA is slow on many things, but nevertheless they can make changes in
>restrictions and regulations at a whim...so, this is to the best of my
>knowledge.
I am with you and hope that these fish are not for human consumption,
because trramycin or oxytetracycline are very potent and almost last resort
antibiotics.
>
>I could be mistaken, but the only antibiotic additive in animal feeds in
>the US that I know of is in some formulations of chicken feed, and that
>would be erythromyacin...Anyone more familiar with that please let us
>know.
I like to know as well. Because of the common salmonella occurrence in
chicken, I have seen 'chicken farms', where this antibiotic addition is not
the exception, but is added rather frequently. It is obvious, because the
closer the animals are to each other and the less movement they have, the
greater is the outbreak and the chances for significant losses.
... I really don't know what is done with dairy or cattle feeds, but
>to the best of my knowledge, antibiotic additives to feeds for the purpose
>of prophylatic intentions (continuous antibiotic treatment whether the
>animal has a disease or not) are not the rule but the exception with
>respect to animal feed formulations in agriculture...I know that
>antibiotics are overused in the world today,especially in hospitals and in
>"knee jerk" prescriptions issued by our family doctors for little things
>like ear aches and the like...this does concern me, especially in the area
>of drug resistant bacteria..
See the problems of the golden Staphylococcus development and Pseudomonas
problems in hospitals. Both almost totally antibiotic resistant pathogens
[bacteria] have actually developed in hospitals themselves.
>So, I guess this brings us back to the subject of drug resistance and
>bacterial genetics. Stuart B. Levy wrote a good article on this subject in
>the March 1998 issue of Scientific American. Dr. Levy points out that
>bacteria pick up resistance genes from other bacterial cells in 3 main
>ways. "Often they receive whole plasmids bearing one or more such genes
>from a donor bacterial cell via the mechanism of bacterial conjugation.
>Other times, a virus will pick up a resistance gene from one bacterium and
>inject ito into a different bacterial cell. Finally, bacteria sometimes
>scavenge gene-bearing snippets of DNA from dead bacterial cells in their
>vicinity. Genes obtained through viruses or from dead cells persis in
>their new owner if they become incorporated stably into the recipient's
>chromosome or into a plasmid" but this is just basic modern microbiology.
You are correct and interpret the article ok. However, if there were no
resistant bacteria, this would not occur. Remember during the last days of
WW2, Flemings penicillin worked wonders and saved thousands of lives. Not
anymoer today, because of the overuse. I have always insisted that my
children never received an antibiotic during their childhood, but old
alternatives such sulfonamides etc, to which bacteria do not get resistant
as fast, as far as I am aware. Both children are now mothers themselves.
My grandson was given antibiotics for an ear problem and got asthma attacks.
Since I talked my daughter out of the use of antibiotics, no asthma attacks.
This relationship has been found recently also by medical experts and was
published here in Australia.
>
snip
>So what happened? This small scale field test of genetically engineered
>microbes supported what the overwhelming majority of experts in this field
>at the time suspected would happen: The indigenous bugs beat out the
>genetically engineered bacterium. Biotechnica's Rhizobia got so thorougly
>outcompeted by local microbial residents that Biotechnica scientists could
>barely find them in the test plot soil.
>This story of the demise of the lab bug has less to do with genetic
>transfer than competion and being overwhelmed by the myriad of natural
>bugs.
>
This is well known to us microbiologists. If you transfer a gene and ask the
bug to do more work, but keep the energy metabolism the same, one asks for
more work for the same amount of energy available. Thus growth will suffer
and this is the reason for failing in the competition for survivval of the
fittest. Darwin's Law.
>On the other hand, we read in The Ecology of Soil Bacteria, an old book I
>have dusted off just recently, that inter-generic transformation between
>Rhizobium and Agrobacterium (2 different genera, not just 2 different
>species) was reported way back in 1953, before they were tampering
>artificial DNA recombinations...so the implication is that certain traits
>(genetic material) can cross genus boundaries in Nature...
>
Of course, Ted. That is what evolution is all about, but it takes a long
time and does not effect necessarily our food.
>I think someone was trying to tell us the importance and implications of
>that the other day in this list- The good aspects of it vis a vis
>aquaponics.. This sounds like we don't have a clear cut picture of genetic
>transfer across genera lines in microbes in Nature...sometimes it happens
>sometimes not. Isnt that neat?
Sure, we can learn a lot of nature, but unfortunately many think they can do
better than nature. We can improve and speed up the process, but this would
not require genetic transfer.
>With respect to hormones, no fish farmer I know uses hormones in the feed
>they buy. And no feed mill I know of incorporates any kind of hormone into
>their fish feed formulation. I keep hearing about this in connection with
>objections to fish food pellets- these objections center around reported
>massive use of antibiotics and hormones in fish feeds, but if you look to
>the facts it seems that at least for fish feed, that this is one of those
>myths or rumors that just keeps getting perpetuated through repetition,
>without folks checking into the particular facts...Again, this is from my
>experience with US fish feed manufacturers, and I cannot address the mills
>outside the US...so take this with a grain of salt, as usual...
>
Exactly. Hormones are used very often to increase the size. I do not know
about fish aquaculture, but know that hormones have been used in the beef
industry and some countries. Germany introduced a law banning all beef
imports from certain countries known for its usage of hormones.
>I will say this though: antibiotics are compounds that usually come from
>fungi...soil fungi. Therefore antibiotics such as penicillin, etc. were
>found in Nature by Flemming and others by serendipity, and not synthesized
>from scratch. Therefore they have occurred naturally in the soil and
>elsewhere for eons.
Ted, this is exactly the reason why bacteria get resistant. They adapt in
nature to antibiotics. But antibiotic production in nature does not occur on
a regular basis, as it is a 'secondary' product. One has to manipulate the
medium of bacterial growth in order to get good antibiotic production. You
will never find an overproduction of antibiotics in soil and thus will
rarely find natural antibiotic resistancy in soil bacteria. This is often
used as an excuse rather than a fact.
>
>The difference is- and this is an important difference- the quantities of
>these materials that make people concerned whenever they suspect that they
>are being artificially added to animal feedstuffs....I think these concerns
>are valid if they were true or very common, but to the best of my
>knowledge, I seem to find that these concerns are not based on common
>agricultural practices...at least around my neck of the woods.
I am not so confident about that, as modern agricultural practices destroy
the soil population and some want to make it good again by so-called organic
fertilisation using pathogen infested manure.
>Another thing I wanted to point out is that antibiotics are at least
>partially transformed - biochemically altered- by the biochemistry and
>physiology of the animal or human body. The liver has many remarkable,
>wonderful, beautiful, enzyme systems-
-snip-
>
>In other words, a great deal of biochemical "composting" goes on in the
>blood, intestines, and liver of the animals before the paddy hits the
>turf...
>
This is true. I am not concerned about the antibiotic per se, but you and
the animals have in your stomach and guts a tremendous microflora which can
get resistant to these antibiotics and cause you eventually a tremendous
bellyache or worse.
This has also been scientifically proven. Ever heard about the mad cow
disease ?? and its effect on humans ??
Anyhow Ted, as you said before, caution is the mother of all things. I
simply believe that people can make as much money as they like, but please
not on cost of health.
We are certainly talking on the same wavelength.
Best wishes
Horst
Horst W.Doelle, D.Sc., D.Sc. [h.c.]
Chairman, IOBB
Director, MIRCEN-Biotechnology
FAX: +617-38783230
Email: doelle@ozemail.com.au
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 21 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: three pound lettuce bags
From: MUDDTOO
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 00:19:30 EST
Hello,
How about using a formica counter top - they're available everywere for about
$4 US per foot. Maybe a stainless steel 'salad' bowl, w/ the bottom removed,
could be mounted in the center of the counter to act as a funnel for the bag
below.
Joel
S&S Aqua Farm, 8386 County Road 8820, West Plains, MO 65775 417-256-5124
Web page http://www.townsqr.com/snsaqua/
|
