Separate names with a comma.
Join thousands of other pet owners and pet lovers on the UK's most popular and friendly pet community and discussion forum.
Discussion in 'Fish Keeping Chat' started by Fishy person, Nov 21, 2010.
Sorry if I've misread
If you put that with the other text it relates to, instead of just peeling off what you like, it soon becomes quite clear:
"Advocates of fish spa treatments claim that Garra rufa secrete an enzyme in their saliva called Diathanol which reportedly promotes the healing process of various skin conditions.
However, Dr Alastair Lyndon - a well known lecturer in fish nutrition and enzymes - says differently. Believe it or not, Diathanol is a defunct chemical name which was used upto the 1960's to describe a certain group of organic chemicals. Diathanol is not an enzyme and nor has the name been used in any scientific research papers and other literature. This term is being used as a marketing ploy by fish spas.
Dr Lyndon also quite rightly points out that in general, fish don't possess salivary glands, further casting a dark shadow over the fish spa industry."
I have not just drawn the conclusion from the fact that fish don't generally produce saliva and used it as the sole reason for why fish spas should be banned. It is just one of many reasons that I've highlighted in this thread and in others on the forum.
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference
Let's just get one thing very clear: my opinion stands that I openly object to fish spas and I have the right to voice that opinion. Exploiting fish in the name of profit in this manner goes against my own ethics. I won't offer any further advice to people wishing to open a fish spa. Don't imply that I'm fighting a lost cause or that I'm a one-man crusade.
To be perfectly honest, I don't care if you have a desire to open and run a fish spa, I will simply encourage people not to give their money to people like yourself and make them aware of the health risks and cruelty that goes on.
It's contradictory to say that you'll ensure that fish welfare will be of paramount importance when you know all too well that you'll have to keep the fish in adverse conditions for your business to stay afloat.
Take your comments to a much larger fishkeeping forum and stir-up a virtual lynch mob amongst the 99.9% of members who disagree with the fish spa industry.
My concern over these spas is the ignornace around contracting bacteria skin infections - particularily Mycobacterium marinum infections and similar.
I know from unfrotunately contracting this infection personally from an outstandingly maintained and filtered reef tank that it's very easy to contract rather unpleasant infections purley from the water collumn that unfortunatley will problably go misdiagnosed for some time until there are more poor people visitng GP's with similar issues. 6 months+ of a vareity of anti-biotics and there is still a risk that the bacterium will return.
UV won't provide a guiaranteed kill to these forms of bacterial infection so how can spa's guarnatee public safety?
The Fish Spa Working group which has been formed to produce "Guidance on the management of the Public health Risks from fish pedicures" released their draft results for consultation on June 15th 2011.
The draft conclusion : "On the basis of the evidence and the consensus view of experts, the Fish Spa Working group concluded that the risk of infection as a result of a fish pedicure is likely to be very low, but cannot be completely excluded" There are several interesting recommendations made and the document should be widely available in near future if not already. Interestingly, the onus is on appropriate and thorough pre and post use user screening. Before anyone comments; This document does not in anyway purport to address fish welfare issues. These concerns fall under the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
Wishing all a happy weekend.
Do you have any contact details for the fish spa working group, I would be interested in their findings.
Well I seem to have provoked quite a debate regarding Garra Rufa pedicures.
What's interesting is that I do understand that this practice is not natural but neither is keeping fish in any tank, millions of fish die each week at the hands of hobbyists, I have to have a licence to hold fish perhaps people who keep fish should also be made to own a licence this may reduce the impulse buys. aquarium shops will sell fish to anyone for profit without asking questions regarding the conditions or the persons knowledge.
Through this debate health issues have been brought up but nothing has proved that there is a significant risk of infections providing adequate care is taken before the. Pedicure is given. Research is still being carried out and I Will fully support the findings.
If anyone's interested my next topic will be Recirculating Aquaculture/ponic systems or (RAS) for short, fish farming reducing the demand on the worlds fish stocks.
Fishy Person ,
I am out of the office until 15-08-11 but will forward the details you requested above then.
The document is titled: Guidance on the Management or the Public Health Risks from Fish Pedicures and has been produced by the multi-agency Fish Spa Working group, convened by the health Proptection Agency (HPA) The document is a draft and consultative with closing date for comments 0n 29-07-11. I do not believe the document is as yet available on general release. You may be able to gain further info from the HPA website.
You are quite right to have concerns Mycobacterium marinum is typically transmitted to the skin where an open wound, graze or cut comes into contact with the organsm in biofilm. This places the emphasis on the thorough inspection of clients feet, ankles and lower legs by the spa staff before allowing a person to undertake the treatment. I fully appreciate that most providers of this type of treatment may be wholly unaware of this hazard and it is this area that needs to be addressed.
Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae and Streptococcus iniae are both typically associated with handling fish out of water and zoonitic infection is rare even in theose who hadle fish regularly. The latter usually causes high mortality in fish and as such both are considered to be low risk to humans.
Reports of Aeronomas sp. infections are rare but have been serious in immunocompromised patents, and is more likely to cause d and v via food borne and is thought to be a low risk pathogen in a spa setting.
Streptococcus agalactiae are known to have caused death in consignments of Garra rufaHuman infections with S. agalactiae usually occur in neonates or as cause of puerperal sepsis and well assoc with diabetes sufferers abd again considered low risk in a spa setting.
Have a great weekend. Pol
IMHO, I think Fishy Person do have some points in there. Probably the more important thing about this is not the welfare of the fish but the the welfare of the people using the service. This is in regards to health issues of contamination and transmissions of any forms of disease.
The Health protection Agency have now made the Guidance on the management of the public
health risks from fish pedicures available> The paper can be found at:http://www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1317131045549