IMPORT OF VIRUS INFECTED SHRIMP IN SOUTH AMERICA
From: Jose Martinez
To: shrimp@egroups.com
Sent: June 09, 2000
COMMENTS 1:
We shipped 24 million PLs in February to Belize to AQUAMAR (Linda
Thorton) and they not only ever got WSV from us, but
they had record harvest for this farm (10,000 lbs. one long cycle
with partial harvest). Also, we sent nauplii to Costa Rica (Cosechas
Marinas, Carlos Lara) until the end of February and they are still WSV
free where the farm of this group is located and the area that is WSV
positive is near Nicaragua and was receiving nauplii from TUMACO; although
I am not suggesting that this was the vector of transmission, it is a
possibility. Finally, Cultivos de Tonosi, had a record harvest (4,300
lbs/ha.) for the year 1999 in Panama with 17 million Pls from us stocked
in February and March, and did not show positive WSV until the end of the
cycle.
We sent the last shipment of nauplii to Ecuador at the end of
February in agreement with the producers of Ecuador before any official
restriction was issued from the government of Ecuador because we all felt
it was the right thing to do. Panama was officially diagnosed
positive with WSV on April 10, 1999. So I guess, if we did not infect
Belize, and Costa Rica, how could we have selectively infected Ecuador if
we didn't even know WSV was present in the area?
Live nauplii, PL, and broodstock is a potential high risk vector of
transmission, nevertheless, when you compare live aquatic shipment
from zones that are not positive with an exotic pathogen versus importing
frozen product in containers from areas that are positive with exotic
pathogens such as ASIA, I feel the later is riskier.
In any event, we are facing a group of people that have a processing
plant in Panama that want to bring frozen shrimp from Asia to Panama for
RE-processing. We have made a great effort to stop them since we feel they
might have brought the problem to us and other plants are doing the same
probably without knowing the danger this poses in the aquaculture
industry.
I personally did not feel this was a high risk in the past, but after
listening to Dr. Lightner and Dr. Frelier (both came to illustrate
the
President and the Cabinet in Panama last month) I am positive that is
how we are all getting infected.
We have started a movement to create a regional (South, Central and
Mexico) agreement that will permanently stop any frozen shrimp from
Asia or any other zone which is infected with an exotic pathogen. Even the
World Commerce Organization has an agreement which allows the exclusion of
imports from areas that have exotic pathogens.
If there are processing plants in Ecuador, Mexico, and perhaps
Honduras that have imported shrimp from Asia, I wish to receive the
information to farallon1@pananet.com
I would also like to hear the opinion of those that wish to comment
on
whether they agree with Dr. Lightner's description of the potential
risk
associated with importing frozen shrimp from areas that are positive
with exotic pathogens.
I think it is time we all get united in an effort to stop the
introduction
of Asiatic pathogen from those that are trying to keep their
processing
plants busy. I wish the GAA would pronounce itself on this issue.
Facing the group that is trying to do this in Panama has not been
easy.
The Panamenian Aquaculture Association (ASPAC) is making a great
effort to preserve our country free of new pathogens and to try to rebound
from the same virus that Ecuador is suffering from.
Jose Martinez
farallon1@pananet.com
***********************
COMMENTS 2:
Personally I agree with you on the issue of importing shrimp from Asia and probably within the same continent for reprocessing but I have serious doubts on importing live stocks of animals unless we can limit the number of imports for specific use in broodstock projects (with proper quarantine) as it should be a priority for each industry to develop their own seed....the proposal of forming this organization sounds really good in my personal opinion.
Sandro Coglitore
Omarsa S.A
sandro@omarsa.com.ec
************************
COMMENTS 3 :
Commercial importation of live seed and developing internal sources are
two different subjects. What may seem fair to you may not be for someone
else.
It is everyone's right to be able to import if this may contribute to
solve his problem as long as this does not affect others.
In that respect, I believe there are rules to be followed. Not
bringing
products, live or frozen from areas that have known pathogens that
are
exotic, should be No.1.
If you could be guaranteed that there is a seed available in large
quantities that would give you 50% survival after a WSV attack and
that under the a 95% confidence level you could say that it is also WSV
free, wouldn't you be interested as a source to aid the Ecuadorian
industry?
Would you prefer to prohibit this importation in order to be
self-sufficient? What if you can't do it? What if this takes two
years?
I am happy to hear that you are still up and running, and I have no
doubt that there would be an industry in Ecuador after WSV (I sure hope
so), but is it correct to allow imports that could indeed get the industry
back on its feet.
There are many live stocks that move across borders in many other
industries. I think we must find a way to do it with the
appropriate
controls.
Jose Martinez
farallon1@pananet.com
****************************
COMMENTS 4:
Concerning international movement of shrimp products and pathogens there
is a case where a pathogen went the other way (west to east).
Taura Syndrome Virus was introduced to Taiwan in 1999 and caused
(participated in) massive losses in the developing White Shrimp
industry there. This year, TSV hopped over to mainland China and is
helping wreck a fledgling PV industry there.
There are well-established rules of international trade that apply to
shrimp pathogens just as they do for pathogens of poultry, beef, etc.
These rules must be applied judiciously but fairly in shrimp so that risks
are reduced without killing the golden goose of global trade.
Jim Wyban PhD
High Health Aquaculture, Inc.
Tel./fax: 808.982.9163
e-mail: wyban@gte.net
www.hihealthshrimp.com
**************************
COMMENTS 5:
What are the "well established rules of international trade that
apply to shrimp pathogens"? I have seen lots of frozen product come
into California which were emergency harvest diseased animals. These
animals are sold to retail, or processed with the waste entering the ocean
(our sewer discharges in So. California are deep offshore without
chlorination), or possibly repackaged as bait shrimp for the local
fishermen. I know of no controls on the viral pathogens associated with
this product. We also move significant numbers of several species of
shrimp through the ornamental fish trade with no real disease control.
Everyone seems to be focusing on the movement of aquaculture animals
(broodstock, nauplii, and PL's) while ignoring larger problems. At least
with broodstock, nauplii and PL's, most people are trying to
implement some bio-security and are trying to minimize transmission.
I expect my suppliers of any livestock to let me know of any
identified pathogens which they have problems with, not just whether they
are SPF and I will let them know when I find anything on/in their animals.
From a practical standpoint, knowing that an SPF source of stocks is clean
of a,b,c, and d pathogens but is still exposed to some less serious
pathogen such as vibrio that is resistant to X,Y and Z anti-biotic, is
very useful information and tells you something about what to watch out
for and what not to treat with.
The local fisherman who goes to the store and buys a block of frozen
small, cheap monodon for bait or the processing plant dumping
tons of waste product into the sewer system may be the larger source
of spread around the world. It's funny, here in California they
have pages of regulations of what types of baits can be used where
and in particular live baits, but nothing about using small imported
shrimp as bait.
Dallas E. Weaver, Ph.D.
Scientific Hatcheries
5542 Engineer Dr.
Huntington Beach
CA 92649, USA
Tel. 714-890-0138
Fax 714-890-3778
deweaver@gte.net
********************
COMMENTS 6:
The issue of import/export of live product and virus transmission is a
difficult one. It goes beyond the issue of geographic borders
although clearly the level of confidence on disease status and the
opportunities for importation of exotic pathogens may increase with
increasing geographic distance particularly as international borders are
crossed.
Clearly there is ample evidence to show that viruses remain viable in
frozen products. Assessing the level of risk is somewhat more
complicated. Some viruses survive freezing and refreezing more than
others. Different agents may be localized in specific tissues suggesting
for example that importation of head on product may be more risky than
importation of tails. Similarly, importation of smaller count sizes
from emergency harvests would likely be more risky than importing wild
caught shrimp even from areas where virus is endemic as viral
loads might be lower. As a minimum precaution, steps can be taken at
processing facilities to manage risk. If importation cannot be
excluded (as for example in the US where a huge industry depends upon
imported product) regulations may be developed which for example 1)
prohibit direct discharge of effluents without treatment and 2) control
disposal of solid waste material. At the very least, those of us in
the aquaculture industry need to be wary of trucks, containers, etc.
coming onto farms from even the best packing plants.
Similarly, the industry should set internal standards for transfer of
live
broodstock, nauplii, post larvae, etc. A series of standards
should be
required of the supplier depending upon the level of disease
assurance targeted. For example the following are basic information which
may be asked of a supplier to better assess potential risks:
(1) Contact information
(2) Manager experience
(3) Prior permits and experience
(4) Facility location and isolation
(5) Water source and treatment
(6) Sentinel system management
(7) Feed content and sources
(8) Species held on facility
(9) Biosecurity protocols
(10) Facility disease history
(11) Stock history
(12) Dry-out history and protocol
(13) Disease testing protocol and labs with documentation
(14) Information from other customers
I will end this with a question. What are opinions on an extended
quarantine/nursery phase to allow for evaluation of stocks before stocking
into ponds? With TSV for example, a 25 to 30 day quarantine can very
much improve the outlook for identification of infected stock. With
WSSV, is it perhaps more likely that an infected batch will be able to
slip through a 25 day quarantine? What about cost benefit considerations? One
could expect to lose a certain percentage of the PL in an intensive
quarantine system and during transfer to ponds for restocking. On the
other hand, reducing risks of disease could certainly be worth the "cost".
Technologies for intensive nursery quarantine systems have been developed
and applied successfully in many different areas. On the other hand, many
in the industry have moved away from nursery systems particularly during
the years of fighting TSV. Should a new farm invest in an expensive
nursery/quarantine system and should existing operations consider
retrofitting?
Craig L. Browdy
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
Marine Resources Research Institute
Waddell Mariculture Center
POB 809
Bluffton SC 29910 USA
Tel. 843-837-3795 (x140)
Fax 843-837-3487
e-mail: browdycl@musc.edu
***********************
COMMENTS 7:
The question to be answered is whether there is ANY risk of
contamination of NEW diseases when importing live or frozen products?
If the answer is yes, then I suggest that a policy of TOTAL exclusion may
be implemented by the importing government from those areas that contain
any NEW (or exotic) pathogen.
Once the pathogen has establish itself in the aquaculture grow out
zone of the potential importing country, then a policy of biosecurity may
be
imposed and imports may be allowed.
To me it is a simple matter of allowing natural barriers (such as the
Pacific Ocean) to protect us as much as possible and do not expedite
the transmission of diseases.
WE must be able to continue with commercial exchange in a safe manner
and to have regional policies that make the natural barriers effective. As
an example, I can mention that the deadly Aftosa Fever in cattle exists
south of the Panama Colombia border. We have the Darien Jungle which is a
natural barrier that has protected for many years not only the cattle
industry in Panama, but from Panama to Canada.
The Commerce Department of the US is issuing health certificate for
exports of Asian origin products that are being shipped to Latin
America, some for reprocessing and some for consumption. This is not
helping at all since our authorities assume (wrongfully so) that
everything that comes from the US is free of viruses. This wrong sense of
trust has allowed that frozen products from Asia comes in to all our
countries.
I have started a campaign to stop this and I wish we would all get
together on this one. We must ask the US Department of Commerce to issue
certificate of health stating the biological origin as well as the "commercial
origin".
Placing the biological origin on the label is not good enough since
the
import permits are issued based on the documents which do not include
the label.
Jose Martinez
farallon1@pananet.com
************************
COMMENTS 8:
We know that the major virus diseases cause massive problems in
aquaculture ponds and we can document thousands of cases around the
world with some billion dollars in damages. However, I have been
trying to pin down cases where we had measurable impacts on the
natural environment with our movement of these shrimp virus around
the world. There may be a reasonable case for an impact of IHHNV in
the Sea of Cortez, but as usual the data may be confounded with other
variables such as over-fishing, etc.
Does anyone know of good studies that show the impact on the
environment? If we can't find any good studies, is it because there
is no significant impact of this virus on the animals under natural
conditions? Or, is it because no one has looked at the problem in
enough detail? If these virus are primarily a problem of aquaculture,
it says something about the stress of our culture systems. It means that
we aren't doing something in an optimal fashion in managing our artificial
ecologies (called ponds) relative to how nature manages its ecologies.
The answer to the question of the impact on the environment could
provide a lot of guidance as to the direction we should look for
aquaculture of the future.
In this case, negative results showing no impact in the natural
environment would be very useful. We now have a lot of recent
introductions into the wild ranging from WSV into Central America to
TSV into Asia and their impacts on wild fisheries as a database.
Dallas E. Weaver, Ph.D.
Scientific Hatcheries
5542 Engineer Dr.
Huntington Beach
CA 92649, USA
Tel. 714-890-0138
Fax 714-890-3778
deweaver@gte.net
*******************
COMMENTS 9:
We U.S. shrimp farmers have been put under extreme restrictions of
quarantine and restricted water exchange in the name of protecting the
wild stocks while the regulators turn a blind eye to the use of imported
frozen shrimp as bait by the recreational fishermen, the exchange of ships
ballast, and to a degree, the effluent from processing plants.
The shrimp and other crustaceans of the waters of SC and, from what I
hear, the Gulf of Mexico are carrying the White Spot Virus among
others and we discovered that fact prior to WSV showing up in the ponds. We
can be certain that the shrimp farmers didn't import WSV with postlarvae
because the almost 100% mortality associated with WSV is impossible to
overlook and the victims of every epizootic have been thoroughly examined
by gene probe.
This means that the regulators, while being extremely tough on the
shrimp farmers, have missed the real pathway that is infecting the wild
stocks, whatever it is. In the case of WSV the infection could not have
been the result of pond culture activities.
Despite a percentage of the wild stocks testing positive for WSV, the
most deadly of the shrimp viruses found in SC, the wild catch
both from trawling and bait casting activities continues to increase. The
effect on the viability of the shrimp farmers from these viruses, however,
is another matter. The number of viable farms in SC has gone from 15 to 4
with the introduction of TSV and WSV and the energetic regulation that
came with it.
Despite the application of the philosophy of "err on the side of
caution"
to the regulations the result was contrary to the intent. The
farmers have been decimated while the wild has become infected.
It's time to take a realistic look at the effect of these viruses on
the wild stocks and adjust the regulations in accordance with reality. The
best study I know of is the one done by Dr. Rolland Laramore entitled "Shrimp
Culture in Honduras Following the Taura Syndrome Virus" In this study
he finds no appreciable loss in the wild population of postlarvae as a
result of TSV infections in the ponds.
David C. Cannon
Edisto Seafarms, Inc.
Edisto Island, SC
dcannon@dycon.com