• You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up

Wipe Out

ghostsword said:
I know the above sounds too harsh, I do apologize, this is meant not at you directly, but as a lesson to all.
Click to expand...

Mate, though I still think you're completely wrong there's absolutely no need to apologise. All you're doing is stating your perfectly well reasoned argument as part of a civilised debate. To be frank the considered and grown up approach of people like you is one of the main reasons I love this forum. On many other places this thread would have turned into a flame war by now.

cheebs said:
I'm not sure i agree with your sofa analogy either saj but I also dont think its that similar to this situation. As a dog owner, you have a responsability to control your dog when it puts other members of hte public at risk, but also a responsibility to keep the dog safe. If it was a dog toy you bought, that got ripped apart, and subsequently caused the dog to choke to death, then I would agree with you.
Click to expand...

No mate, I still think the sofa analogy is more appropriate than the dog toy one. That's because, ultimately, a plant is part of the environment (the furniture if you like) of a tank in which a shrimp lives. I think a poisoned catappa leaf would be more akin to a dog toy.

ghostsword said:
To use your example, had I bought a sofa, the dog chewed on it and died do you think that I could have any standing on a court to argue my case? Do you know any supplier of sofas that says that their items are safe to be chewed by dogs?
Click to expand...

Luis, I think you've inadvertently made my point for me. That being that the sofa manufacturer shouldn't have to say that the sofa is dog safe. The customer shouldn't have to check on the manufacturer's website whether it is dog safe. The manufacturer should just make it dog safe. They shouldn't be making or selling products with toxins in. And a company that sells plants for aquariums shouldn't be selling plants that are covered in poison.

I think the legal issue is neither here nor there. As I said in the previous post, I'm not saying that the seller has a legal responsibility. They have a moral one and a reputation to keep.

I agree that java plants are on the right track. But let's be clear here, following their advice wouldn't have saved my shrimp. I did more than the advice said and they still died didn't they. The only way that advice slip would have helped would be if I had decided to chuck the plants in the bin because it scared me. Of course I would have already paid for them at that point wouldn't I.

So I say to you again, do you seriously expect the average punter with shrimp in their tank to quarantine plants for days? Are you really saying to that punter it's your fault that your shrimp are at risk and not the seller? Because if you are then you're saying that keeping shrimp is for a small elite who have the time and resources (and understanding partners/family) to do that quarantine and the rest aren't allowed.

What I'm saying is let the seller do the quarantine and then we, the buyer, pay a bit extra for safe plants. It shouldn't cost vast amounts more after all so I don't think this will be pricing customers out of the market. It will be keeping their livestock safe though.
 
Also, a quick update. No further losses to report. The three blue pearls in the main tank keep on rocking and the sakuras and remaining golden bees all seem fine in the nano. I have added a new tester shrimp into the main tank late last week and it's also fine. Unfortunately the loss of the shrimp has resulted in a massive snail population bloom but at least they're keeping the algae in check.

Looks like the toxins haven't been absorbed by anything in the tank. I've been running activated carbon in both and doing lots of water changes so that seems to have sorted it.

By the way, according to this blog Prime does not have EDTA in it:

First, I was surprised to find out that Prime does NOT have EDTA in it and was never formulated to treat heavy metals but they later found out that one or more of their "proprietary" ingredients had some kind of effect on some heavy metals but it's not the same as the chelating effect of EDTA. Here's what Seachem says:
Prime is not a chelating agent, so it does not work that way with heavy metals. Soluble heavy metals (metal ions that can be absorbed) are in an oxidized state. Prime reduces metals, which detoxifies them. Note that it does not remove metals from the water (it just detoxifies them), so you really should have a decent water supply or RO/DI equipment. Please also note again that we talk about detoxifying heavy metals found in tap water at typical concentrations; we do not sell Prime to detoxify heavy metals at abnormally high concentrations.
Click to expand...
http://goldlenny.blogspot.com/2010/09/discussiong-about-seachem-prime-and.html
 
hotweldfire said:
They shouldn't be making or selling products with toxins in. And a company that sells plants for aquariums shouldn't be selling plants that are covered in poison.
Click to expand...

Now this I fully agree with.

The toxins may be toxic not just to the fish and shrimps but also to us. God know what ailments we may come out in the next couple of years.

Just because they are deemed safe now that does not mean much. Asbestos was ok a while ago, remember?
 
Sadly this issue has now been reported several times on this forum and others...

I have today emailed Fera who are responsible for the import legislation adherence. I have also emailed the farms which we use in Singapore and Borneo for a formal response. The response will be posted publicly on this forum and on my website when I get them.

http://www.fera.defra.gov.uk/plants/plantHealth/
The above link is the site for Fera who clearly state what they do and what they don't...

This issue has been reported in:

http://forum.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/showthread.php?t=82320
http://forum.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/showthread.php?t=71907
http://www.ukaps.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=17143&p=176977&hilit=wipeout#p176977
http://www.ukaps.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=19481

When I get the formal response from the farms, and also confirmed details relating to fera - I will be posting a warning on my site.
For the benefit of the forum - this one and others I have asked for specific names of chemicals that they hold in their facility - what they are used for etc.

It was posted earlier on this thread - something to do with a fogger for a flea treatment - not good really - but I can say that I have personally fallen foul of:
air fresheners
Window cleaner
polish (spray versions)
washing up liquid
nasal medication (the spray types)
and the list does go on... sadly many of these product contain items which are toxic to man and beast - this means that shrimp can be harmed as well...
 
Thank you Tony for trying to solve this. I am sure sooner or later this issue could be sorted. I myself once treated my Cherry and CRS with anti bed bug spray :wideyed: They did not like it either.
I would say any spray is potentially dangerous.
 
Hi all,
Thanks to Tony, I'll be very interested in any response from either FERA or the farms in SE Asia. I haven't got any further with gathering any hard evidence for the possible toxic compound, but my suspicion is that it may be an organophosphorus insecticide "Temephos", probably in the BASF "ABATE" formulation, dispersed via a fogger as a mosquito larvicide, and particularly for the control of Dengue Fever. <http://www.bentzjaz.com.sg/construction.asp>.

It would combine being persistent and very toxic to crustaceans, but relatively plant/people safe.
<http://www.ecotox.org.au/aje/archives/vol1p107.pdf>

"Insecticide resistance in dengue vectors"
Insecticides such as the organophosphate temephos can be applied to these large containers to reduce larval density. Temephos has very low mammalian toxicity, low odor, is available in long lasting formulations, is relatively cheap, and is usually the insecticide of choice for larviciding water supplies used for washing clothes, bathing, and cleaning dishes. It can also be used to treat drinking water although acceptance levels are often low......
Click to expand...

From: TropIKA.net vol.1 no.1 Jan./Mar. 2010, Hilary RansonI,*; Joseph BurhaniII; Nongkran LumjuanII; William C Black IVIII
ILiverpool School of Tropical Medicine, UK
IIResearch Institute for Health Sciences, Chiang Mai University, Thailand
IIIColorado State University, USA

cheers Darrel
 
RE: identifying the substance, just want to flag again that whatever it is doesn't harm snails at all. They are thriving in the main tank now and I didn't see any casualties when the shrimp went. Don't know if that helps to identify it.
 
I can confirm the following information has been provided by the farms in Singapore who supply plants to the UK market. This information has been consulted on with respected persons in this industry.

Phytosanitary certification requires the plants to be free of pests and disease prior to export to the receiving country. The methods applied are as follows – information supplied per farm:

Our premium plants are dipped in BUPROFEZIN (0.01%) & TRICHLORFON (0.08%) for the duration 120 minutes

Our primary supplier for standard plants dip in IMIDACLOPRID 18.3% V/V (0.005%) for 45 minutes

Our second supplier for standard plant range dip in IMIDACLOPRID 18.3% V/V (0.005%) for 60 minutes

All farms advise that following exposure to the above chemicals, all plants are rinsed in freshwater – although they do not advise for how long. The advice from the farms for end customers is that they quarantine the plants in a plant only system before introducing to a tank populated with inverts & crustaceans etc.

Plants that are classed as overstock remain in our tanks until sold – this can be up to 6 days.

Reference has been made against all three chemicals detailed above, and as such we will now produce a recommendation sheet for our customers to use about plant quarantine.

Our recommendation will be that all plants from ANY supplier should be quarantined in Alkaline water for a minimum of 2 hours to 48 hours, then finally rinsed in tap water prior to addition to any tank with livestock present. Please note - we say a MINIMUM of 2 hours and suggest that 48 hours be better... don't forget to perform water changes when appropriate.

Alkaline water can be easily made using caustic soda or hydrogen peroxide mixed with water until the pH reaches 8.5. Remember to wash your plants in tap water as a final preparation before they go in your tank.

Reference has been made from:
http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/ex ... n-ext.html
http://sitem.herts.ac.uk/aeru/iupac/100.htm
http://www.imidaclopridandtrees.com/mammalbirdfish.html

What has been specifically noticed is that

Trichlorofon is a particularly aggressive organophosphate pesticide. It is however can be detected in acidic water up to 526 days at 20C at pH5.0. That said – if alkaline water is used – pH8.5 then this product is 99% degraded within 2 hours.

Buprofezin is an insecticide – specifically an acaricide. It is not approved for use in the UK. The degradation half life is 50 days within soil and 16 days in water at pH7.0, 20C. This product specifically requires extended quarantine of at least 48 hours.

Imidacloprid is a systemic insecticide. It has a 3 hour half life in water pH neutral. It is known to be non toxic to fish, moderately toxic to crustaceans and highly toxic to invertebrates. The addition of this chemical to water reputedly degrades to CO2 as a side effect of the degradation in the presence of light.
 
Hi all,
Well done Tony, that is absolutely brilliant and I don't think we need to look any further.

TRICHLORFON <http://www.pesticideinfo.org/Detail_Chemical.jsp?Rec_Id=PC33346>
Chlorophos insecticides are highly toxic organophosphate insecticides and cause damage to the nervous system ("anti-cholinesterase compounds"), so you would expect to see the shrimp "staggering" about before dying. They are non-systemic, so shouldn't end up in the plant.

BUPROFEZIN I don't know much about, but it is "Insect Growth Regulator", which means that it would stop crustaceans shedding their skins (it interrupts chitin synthesis), so it could cause death in the longer term.

However the one I would really worry about would be IMIDACLOPRID, this is a systemic, neonicotinoid insecticide and would remain in the plant for some time. Neonicotonoids are suspected of causing a lot of the decline of insect biodiversity in Europe and the USA, and a really not the sort of compound you would want anywhere near your shrimps.

IMIDACLOPRID has low toxicity to fish, but is highly toxic to crustaceans, in conc. as low as 1 ppb for Mysis shrimp. "Products containing imidacloprid may be very toxic to aquatic invertebrates." "The half-life in water is much greater than 31 days at pH 5, 7 and 9". from Kidd & James (1991) The Agrochemicals Handbook, Third Edition. Royal Society of Chemistry Information Services, Cambridge, UK.

Most studies show that these neonicotinoid pesticides are extremely persistent. "The solubility of imidacloprid in water is relatively high: 0.51 g/l, and its octanol-water partitioning coefficient is quite low: log Kow = 0.57 (Gupta et al., 2002). Imidacloprid is generally persistent in water, and not easily biodegradable (Tišler et al., 2009). Indeed, Overmyer et al. (2005) found no significant differences in imidacloprid concentration in water over a 48-hour experiment, and Roberts & Hutson (1999) reported that it is likely to remain in the water column in aquatic systems, and has an aerobic sediment and water DT50 of 30 to 162 days (time for 50% decline of the initial pesticide concentration, or half-life time). More details here: <http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/student-theses/2010-0722-200330/MSc Thesis Tessa van Dijk.pdf>".

I couldn't find anything for residue in leaves in aquatic systems but Kreutzweiser et al. (2009) in "Imidacloprid in leaves from systemically treated trees may inhibit litter breakdown by non-target invertebrates". Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 72:4, pp 1053–1057 said:
Abs. "Imidacloprid is a systemic insecticide that is used in trees to control several invasive, wood-boring insect pests in North America. Applications to deciduous trees result in foliar concentrations of imidacloprid that could pose a risk of harm to non-target decomposer invertebrates when autumn-shed leaves fall to forest floors or adjacent water bodies. ........ There was no significant preferential feeding on non-contaminated leaves in selection microcosms indicating that the invertebrates could not detect and avoid imidacloprid-containing leaves. Mass loss and area consumed of both imidacloprid-containing and natural leaves in selection microcosms were significantly less than in control microcosms, indicating a sub-lethal feeding inhibition effect from consumption of leaf material at realistic field concentrations of 18–30 µg/g fresh weight. Our results indicate that imidacloprid at realistic concentrations in leaves can inhibit leaf litter breakdown through adverse sub-lethal effects on decomposer invertebrates."

cheers Darrel
 
Thanks, Tony and Darrel.

I will update the pinned threads accordingly.

Although it's tragic that hotweldfire lost his livestock, at least the consequent investigations have turned up what may have been the cause and appropriate steps can be taken to help prevent reoccurance. So thanks again to hotweldfire for sharing his cautionary tale.

Cheers,
George
 
Thanks Darrel

So reading this about IMIDACLOPRID in particular makes me think that I should never buy plants sourced from the farms in Singapore if I intend to keep shrimp in the same tank, now or potentially any time in the future if i value the wellbeing of my livestock.

By the way, I think its commendable that Tony is being so transparrent about this issue. :thumbup:
 
Cheebs and all on the forum...

Now we have a known source of the contaminants that are on the plants we import here to the UK - I have decided that at PlantedTanks we are specifically going to cease trading at the end of February with the supplier who uses IMIDACLOPRID specifically. This will clearly reduce our stock lines of certain plants and will invariably cause issues in the longer term for supply of some of the crypts.

To combat this - we have already begun testing on a UK IV grown range of plants. We will report on these in the near future with photos etc. These plants will be grown by ourselves. We have sourced some of the more interesting crypts such as flamingo etc and these are in the first trial batch. We will be adding more plants in the near future.

We will take the hit on the chemicals here at PlantedTanks and hopefully in the future will be able to provide 100% UK grown plants with ZERO pesticide or insecticides.

Being transparent in this issue means that hopefully in the future - we will still be trading. I believe we work with our customers and supporters to benefit you all. I can only hope that the other companies who use the same suppliers we do will also follow suit.
 
Tony, I have to say that I was far from happy about your original response to this issue and your first posts on this thread.What you've got going for you as a company is your ability to source some of the rarer varieties. That's why I've bought from you in the past, not the price. Given the risks we've discovered I would never buy your imported plants again. I have to point out that the secondary issue was the quality of the plants. Some of them were in a sorry state, especially the zosty which appeared to have been wrapped in newspaper by the grower so resembled straw.

However, I think your increasing transparency and change of strategy does you credit. With the increasing awareness of this issue (which we at least in part have George to thank for) I think what you're doing is the way to go. Being able to supply a line of rare and safe UK grown in vitro plants will put you in an enviable position to sell to a handful of people like me who are willing to pay a fair old bit for them. It may be a small market but it is a luxury one.

I just hope you keep a sharp eye on the suppliers you continue to use as there will still be a large market out there who will not be aware of the danger of insecticides. I.e. I hope you do go through with your plans to warn people that the imported ones are not shrimp safe and what quarantine measures they have to use in order to make them so. Crucially I think you need to do this before people buy rather than just slipping a note in with the plants. Buyers need to make an informed decision about the costs versus the work they have to put in to make the plants safe. Many may decide they'd rather spend the extra few quid on in vitro if they are fully informed.
 
Hi all,
I feel really sorry for every-one who has lost shrimps, but I don't think you can really blame the importers and re-sellers in the UK for selling plants that are potentially toxic. I think the problem lies with the fact that the growers are treating the plants with a cocktail of extremely toxic insecticides, some of which can potentially remain toxic in the plant for a long time period after export. I don't think any one could have predicted this.

Now we know the extent and nature of the problem I would applaud Tony for both finding out what the compounds are, and the decision he has made about the plants that "PlantedTanks" will stock in future.

cheers Darrel
 
dw1305 said:
Hi all,
I feel really sorry for every-one who has lost shrimps, but I don't think you can really blame the importers and re-sellers in the UK for selling plants that are potentially toxic. I think the problem lies with the fact that the growers are treating the plants with a cocktail of extremely toxic insecticides, some of which can potentially remain toxic in the plant for a long time period after export. I don't think any one could have predicted this.

Now we know the extent and nature of the problem I would applaud Tony for both finding out what the compounds are, and the decision he has made about the plants that "PlantedTanks" will stock in future.

cheers Darrel
Click to expand...

I'm afraid I have to disagree Darrel. I think you'd be right if there had been no previous cause for concern however

- before Tony came on this thread to reveal where the plants had come from almost every single person had guessed it was his company. I think that tells a pretty compelling story

- by his own admission there have been previous losses

- how long did it take him to find out what his suppliers were treating the plants with? A week? Three days? You don't think he could have done this before a massive fuss was made about the issue on this thread? Seems to me perfectly reasonable to expect a reseller to have asked this question of a supplier before buying plants from them.

I don't want to get into a fight with him on this. My last post was a genuine attempt to draw a line under this and move on. My tanks are healthy again and I have shrimp breeding. I do really think he has done the right thing by taking on my advice and that of others here. However, he has to shoulder some of the blame for what happened. He has been slack in ensuring his plants are safe and is not guilt free.
 
I don't wish to enter into witch hunting here, but I do have to agree with what HWF is saying... I alerted Tony to the issue with his plants nearly a year ago, after which he promised to carry out some tests and do some investigating, but it seems no action was taking until the dirty laundry was on display, so to speak.
 
Sorry to resurect but i needed a thread to say that i've had a similar wipe out, but i dont think its down to plants its down to a dead zebra snail that i did not remove.. has this almost certently upped my ammonia and bacteria in the tank? I only have one survivor and i cant find the others so i assume there all dead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top