ELECTRONICAL LARVICULTURE NEWSLETTER ISSUE 216
March 15, 2005
- USING BIOBALLS IN SHRIMP CULTURE TANKS
- TAURA SYNDROME VIRUS (TSV) IN THAILAND AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO TSV IN CHINA AND THE AMERICAS
- POLYCHAETE WORMS—A VECTOR FOR WHITE SPOT SYNDROME VIRUS (WSSV)
- NODAVIRUS INFECTION CAUSES MORTALITIES IN HATCHERY PRODUCED LARVAE OF LATES CALCARIFER: FIRST REPORT FROM INDIA
- THE SECOND HATCHERY FEEDS AND TECHNOLOGY WORKSHOP
USING BIOBALLS IN SHRIMP CULTURE TANKS
QUESTION:
From: Sanjoy Banerjee (sanjoydada@yahoo.com)
To: shrimp@yahoogroups.com shrimp@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 27 February 2005
We are trying out bioballs in the hatchery tanks to improve water quality for production of P. monodon. The bioballs are placed within the culture tanks before the introduction of the nauplii. We have obtained results with good and poor production using the same technique. Has anyone tried using bioballs within the culture tanks (hatchery) and can share their experience in terms of their benefit.
Sanjoy Banerjee
Postdoctoral Researcher
Aquatic Animal Health Unit
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine
Universiti Putra Malaysia
43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor Malaysia
*********************************************
COMMENTS 1:
I have just completed 2 demo trials in 1acre pond with a new zero-exchange system in Sabak Bernam (Malaysia). Achieved 20% increase in yield with extremely healthy P. monodon. Will start 4 trials in a chronic whitespot area next week.
Giam Kim giamkim@yahoo.com
*********************************************
COMMENTS 2:
I use a recirculation system for hatchery and regularly rear P. monodon larvae at high densities with very good results. I use bioballs in my biological filter and they give me good results, all my filters including the biological filter, bead filter, ozonator, protein skimmer etc are placed outside the tank.
Anil Ghanekar anilghanekar@yahoo.com
*********************************************
COMMENTS 3:
What is a bio-ball, what does it look like, what is it made of ?
Dipi Ghumman getdipi@yahoo.com
*********************************************
COMMENTS 4:
Bio-balls are very popular in the US among aquarists. Just go to Google to and search for bioballs, you will find several types and pictures. A common brand is CoralLife Bio-balls, but those are going to be way too expensive to be used in Aquaculture. There is also another wet/dry filter media (same type of bio-filter principle) called Bio-Bale (http://www.cpraquatic.com/products/biobale.html) and the AquaMats (http://www.aquamats.com/) Agrolimonar (agrolimonar@yahoo.com)
*********************************************
COMMENTS 5:
How cost effective is bioball ? It is impressive to note a yield increment of 20 % in grow out pond. We have looked at some previously but costs were high.
Robin Liew robinliew@myjaring.net
*********************************************
COMMENTS 6:
Does the manufacturer/marketer of "BioBalls" have a website?
Bob Rosenberry
Editor/Publisher Shrimp News International
10845 Scripps Ranch Boulevard, #4 San Diego, CA 92131 USA
Phone 858-271-6354
Fax 858-271-0324
Email bob@shrimpnews.com Webpage http://www.shrimpnews.com
*********************************************
COMMENTS 7:
The manufacturer/marketer of bioballs is from Taiwan. There is no website.
Sanjoy Banerjee (sanjoydada@yahoo.com)
*********************************************
COMMENTS 8:
Do not know of any website for bioballs, but we make them ourselves for our own use.
Anil Ghanekar anilghanekar@yahoo.com
*********************************************
COMMENTS 9:
I do use them in anaerobic pressure system, for nitrates removal (not nitrites) in a zero exchange CRas system for tilapia, it works well; if it works for fish, it should work for prawns. It is easily available locally in Malaysia. Price is about US 0.10 each.
wkyao kao@streamyx.com
*********************************************
COMMENTS 10:
From what I have read, a fired clay ball of similar size has considerably more surface area than the Bioballs we are discussing in plastic. Local production of clay bioballs should be very economical.
Neal Van Milligen
cavm@aol.com
*********************************************
COMMENTS 11:
1. The bacterial biofilm that needs to develop on the bioballs needs time to develop (much longer than a larval rearing cycle), so one assumes that these bioballs have been conditioned in some other biofiltration system?
2. If you are moving the "live" bioballs from one larval rearing tank to another, how do you prevent cross contamination? How have you overcome these two problems?
Laurence Evans web@ecotao.com
*********************************************
COMMENTS 12:
When external biological filter units containing the bioballs are used, it is possible to replace them as required by maintaining additional 'conditioned' units separately.
Anil Ghanekar anilghanekar@yahoo.com
*********************************************
COMMENTS 13:
You are correct on both concerns. One solution is to have alternate biofiltration units (movable or capable of connection / disconnection from LRT), which you can "fire up" prior to start of larval culture by feeding suitable ammonium compounds, possibly vits & trace elements, etc. I have played with this on an experimental scale, and it was a while back, but seem to remember that "seeding" with bought-in bugs is also recommended to get the first unit going in a reasonable time frame. They are indeed slow-growers. It seems consistent with Murphy's laws that useful critters be hard to culture whereas pathogens appear capable of spontaneous generation and violent proliferation. You might recall Dallas Weaver's comment a couple of years back, that distributing six-packs of beer among hatchery workers would yield all the nitrogenous filter-starter compounds you need, and trace elements to boot. But the idea is unlikely to prove popular with certification bodies.
Julio Estrada (julioe@speed.net.ec)
*********************************************
COMMENTS 14:
We condition the bioballs for more than a month and each larval rearing tank has its own biofiltration system.
Sanjoy Banerjee sanjoydada@yahoo.com
TAURA SYNDROME VIRUS (TSV) IN THAILAND AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO TSV IN CHINA AND THE AMERICAS
Linda Nielsen, Wiwat Sang-oum, Supapon Cheevadhanarak, Timothy W. Flegel-2005
Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, 63: 101-106
ABSTRACT:
The cultivation of exotic Penaeus vannamei in Thailand began on a very limited scale in the late 1990s, but a Thai government ban on the cultivation of P. monodon in freshwater areas in 2000 led many Thai shrimp farmers to shift to cultivation of P. vannamei. Alarmed by the possibility of Taura syndrome virus (TSV) introduction, the Thai Department of Fisheries required that imported stocks of P. vannamei be certified free of TSV by RT-PCR (Reverse Trasciption Polymerase Chain Reaction) testing. During the interval of allowed importation, over 150000 broodstock shrimp were imported, 67% of these from China and Taiwan. Despite the safeguards, TSV outbreaks occurred and we confirmed the first outbreak by RT-PCR in early 2003. This resulted in a governmental ban on all shrimp broodstock imports from February 2003, but TSV outbreaks have continued, possibly due to original introductions or to the continued illegal importation of stocks. To determine the origin of the TSV in Thailand, the viral coat protein gene VP1 was amplified by RT-PCR from several shrimp specimens found positive for TSV by RT-PCR from January to November 2003. These included 7 samples from P. vannamei disease outbreaks in Thailand, 3 other non-diseased shrimp samples from Thailand and Burma and 6 samples including P. vannamei and P. japonicus from China. Comparison revealed that the Thai, Burmese and Chinese TSV types formed a clade distinct from a clade of TSV types from the Americas.
(Centex Shrimp, Faculty of Science, Mahidol University, Rama 6 Road, Bangkok 10400, Thailand; email of T. Flegel: sctwf@mahidol.ac.th)
POLYCHAETE WORMS—A VECTOR FOR WHITE SPOT SYNDROME VIRUS (WSSV)
K. K. Vijayan, V. Stalin Raj, C. P. Balasubramanian, S. V. Alavandi,V. Thillai Sekhar, T. C. Santiago-2005
Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, 63 (2-3): 107-111
ABSTRACT:
The present work provides the first evidence of polychaete worms as passive vectors of white spot syndrome virus (WSSV) in the transmission of white spot disease to Penaeus monodon broodstocks. The study was based on live polychaete worms, Marphysa spp., obtained from worm suppliers/worm fishers as well as samples collected from 8 stations on the northern coast of Tamilnadu (India). Tiger shrimp Penaeus monodon broodstock with undeveloped ovaries were experimentally infected with WSSV by feeding with polychaete worms exposed to WSSV. Fifty percent of polychaete worms obtained from worm suppliers were found to be WSSV positive by 2-step PCR, indicating high prevalence of WSSV in the live polychaetes used as broodstock feed by hatcheries in this area. Of 8 stations surveyed, 5 had WSSV positive worms with prevalence ranging from 16.7 to 75%. Polychaetes collected from areas near shrimp farms showed a higher level of contamination. Laboratory challenge experiments confirmed the field observations, and >60% of worms exposed to WSSV inoculum were proved to be WSSV positive after a 7 d exposure. It was also confirmed that P. monodon broodstock could be infected with WSSV by feeding on WSSV contaminated polychaete worms. Though the present study indicates only a low level infectivity in wild polychaetes, laboratory experiments clearly indicated the possibility of WSSV transfer from the live feed to shrimp broodstock, suggesting that polychaete worms could play a role in the epizootiology of WSSV.
(Central Institute of Brackishwater Aquaculture (CIBA-ICAR), 75 Santhome High Road, Chennai-600 028, India; email of K. Vijayan: kkvijayan@hotmail.com)
NODAVIRUS INFECTION CAUSES MORTALITIES IN HATCHERY PRODUCED LARVAE OF LATES CALCARIFER: FIRST REPORT FROM INDIA
I. S. Azad, M. S. Shekhar, A. R. Thirunavukkarasu, M. Poornima, M. Kailasam, J. J. S. Rajan, S. A. Ali, M. Abraham, P. Ravichandran-2005
Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, 63 (2-3): 113-118
ABSTRACT:
Larvae (15 to 21 d post hatch, dph) of the Asian sea bass Lates calcarifer (Bloch) suffered heavy mortalities (60 to 90%) during the hatchery-rearing phase. Darkened and moribund larvae showed no evidence of bacterial or parasitic infections. Tissue sections of brain and spinal cord showed clear necrotic vacuolation. Electron microscopy revealed membrane-bound viral particles in the cytoplasm of the nerve cells. The viral particles measured 28 to 30 nm in diameter. Primer sets, designed for the amplification of the RNA2 segment of the piscine nodavirus coat protein gene, were used in the RT-PCR analysis of moribund larvae of 20 and 21 dph which produced the amplified product of 430 bp. The clinical manifestations, pathology and electron microscopy observations supported by the RT-PCR analysis suggest that the nerve necrosis was due to nodavirus infection in the larvae. This is the first report of piscine nodavirus infection from the Indian sub-continent.
(Central Institute of Brackishwater Aquaculture, 75-Santhome High Road, R. A. Puram, Chennai 600 028, India; email of I.S. Azad: azadis@rediffmail.com)
THE SECOND HATCHERY FEEDS AND TECHNOLOGY WORKSHOP
September 30-October 1, 2004
Sydney, Australia
Compiled by S. Kolkovski, J. Heine and S. Clarke
Deartment of Fisheries – Research Division
PO Box 20, North Beach 6920, WA
Australia
www.fish.wa.gov.au
CONTENTS:
Introduction
Keynote Speakers:
• Nutritional requirements for finfish larvae (M.S. Izquierdo)
• Aspects of host-microflora interactions in marine aquaculture: From disease problems to microflora management (Jan A. Olafsen)
• Current status of live food culture in Japan (Atsushi Hagiwara, Hiroshi Kuwada)
• European Aquaculture: Recent Developments in Marine Hatchery Technologies (John Sweetman)
• Nutrition, digestion and development in marine fish larvae (Laure Villeneuve, Chantal Cahu, Jose Zambonino, Enric Gisbert)
Technical Session
• Live and formulated feeds: challenges, capabilities and research at the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) (Mike Hall, David McKinnon, Michael Horne, Paul Southgate (JCU), Samantha Duggan, Alby Steffens, Matthew Salmon and Matt Kenway)
• CSIRO Marine Research - Capabilities and Research in Larval Feeds (Malcolm Brown, Sue Blackburn, Nigel Preston)
• Early weaning of Barramundi, Lates calcarifer (Bloch), in a commercial, intensive, semi-automated, recirculated larval rearing system (Darwin Aquaculture Centre, NT) (Jerome M. P. Bosmans, Glenn R. Schipp, Damon J. Gore, Ben Jones, Francois-Eric Vauchez and Keith K. Newman)
• Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries (Richard Knuckey and Elizabeth Cox)
• James Cook University (Tish Pankhurst, Paul Southgate, Chaoshu Zeng, Rocky de Nys, Dean Jerry, Ned Pankhurst)
• Applied research and training - the Aquaculture Development Unit approach (Greg Jenkins (Challenger TAFE, WA))
• Mariculture Research and Advisory Group - Department of Fisheries, Western Australia (Sagiv Kolkovski and Sabine Daume)
• South Australian Research and Development Institute (Wayne Hutchinson (SARDI))
• Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute (Stephen Battaglene, Arthur Ritar John Purser, Chris Bolch (TAFI))
• Hatchery Technology on the Breeding and Fry Production of Marine Finfish in Indonesia (Ketut Sugama, Adi Hanafi and Mike Rimmer)
• Hatchery Capability at NIWA Aquaculture (Michael Bruce)
Industry Perspectives
• Commercial practices for the production of barramundi, Lates calcarifer, fingerlings: An industry summary (Trevor A. Anderson (Australian Barramundi Farmers Assoc.))
• Marine Farms Limited (Steve Nel)
• MG Kailis Exmouth Hatchery (Roger Barnard)
• Overview of lobster aquaculture research (Satoshi Mikami and Anna Kuballa (AFRDC))
© Copyright 2000 - Laboratory of Aquaculture & Artemia Reference Center - Ghent
University, Belgium
