|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #3
My carp encyclopedia Jon told me this ages ago.
|
|
|
|
From Bernice Brewster:
'fish treatment is more about the handler feeling better, rather than being effective for the fish. I have seen all manner of substances applied to fish skin such as oral adhesives to secure some form of topical treatment in place, most come off once the fish is back in the water. Fish have a good immune system although at cooler temperatures is dampened down to save energy but I have seen fish recover naturally from wounds/infections which would hospitalised a human for many months. Currently, there isn't a suitable topical treatment but if we treat fish with the respect and careful handling, then they shouldn't need further intervention.'
From Ian Welby:
'non of the various tested products were known to the secondary authors, although I know one of them was apparently based on propolis. They were just a random selection of the most popular brands. One of the issues is non of the products list there actual ingredients.. however propolis has never actually been scientifically tested as a antiseptic for fish.
So yes my take on the results is that I will no longer recommend any topical antiseptic for use by anglers.'
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1
The title of the thread is a bit misleading, some of those tested were effective, even if not 'main stream' Carp branded.
It's about time we saw a scientifically proven paper on this subject, hats off to them. I've only skimmed it but the conclusion on propolis is damning in my pov, this sentence says it all.
Discarding the lack of any antibacterial or antifungal effects for propolis against the panel of four major carp pathogens employed in this study
Other things have thrown Qs for me but they're kind of null and void given the above sentence.
Over a decade ago I posted on the forum that a tank fish of mine treated with propolis developed a hole at the treatment site, coincidence, maybe not now, but cell death at site can be a positive.
2 of the 'controls' seem kind of moot too from a commercial pov, iodine/betadine which are being phased out due to carcinogenic links, and any antibiotic, as they'll never be allowed to be used by the 'lay man' due to regulation and fears of antibiotic resistance.
If they do use the paper to make a commercially available product it may be some time in the offing if they test it first. It's a shame they can't say which of the existing treatments to use, it's kind of left us in 'limbo'.
EDIT, on a further read I'll be interested to see which essential oil proved effective. In the post on propolis here many years ago I mentioned my propolis smelled like clove to me and that's because it possibly contained the same Terpine, eugenol, which is a potent anti bacterial/fungal. I wonder if the propolis tested contained eugenol and if so why it wasn't effective.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1
Big news tbf. I have always doubted propolis as a useful product in angling. What I would say is that just because propolis isn't useful, it doesn't make all carp care products a waste of time. There are antibacterial products available that aint covered by the report.
|
|
|
|
Ian Welby and Bernice Brewster have conducted research into 10 carp care products (propolis based) and concluded that they offer no benefit to carp and actually might hinder new cell growth
LINKY POO™ https://www.facebook.com/groups/185451090859
Very interesting, imo.
I've always used propolis since my barbelling days but wont bother anymore, suppose it means they go back a few seconds quicker!
ATB
Ash
|
|
