Carp Virus

If it doesn't fit in a specific freshwater fishing section, post it here
User avatar
wokka1
Rank: Premium Member
Rank: Premium Member
Posts: 410
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:11 pm

Re: Carp Virus

Postby wokka1 » Tue May 03, 2016 9:50 pm

4liters wrote:If anyone wants a chuckle have a listen to Barnaby Joyce talking about this in parliament today. CAAARP!




Haha, thanks for that. Caaaaaarrrrrp

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1287693/Barnaby-Joyce-tells-parliament-afflicted-disgusting-carp.html



Remove these ads.

Bob Nudd
Rank: Banjo
Rank: Banjo
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 10:21 pm

Re: Carp Virus

Postby Bob Nudd » Tue May 03, 2016 10:04 pm

i support carp eradication as much as the next man, but. let's say the virus works and works brilliantly - kills 95% of the carp. let's even assume that the rivers don't get completely devastated by the fallout caused by thousands of tonnes of dead carp. then what? the 5% of carp that survived the virus will be ­immune to further infection and in all probability produce offspring that will also be immune. there is a reason they got to be a dominating species - they were not introduced in large numbers to begin with so i don't see why they shouldn't do it again. the reality is that natives are weak and incapable of holding the ground against the carp - that's a proven historical fact. releasing the virus would give us 5, maybe 10 years relief and then it will be back to square one.

there's a (possible) solution, but it will never be implemented in Australia for obvious reasons.

Basti
Rank: Premium Member
Rank: Premium Member
Posts: 2024
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2013 3:50 pm
Location: SE Melbourne

Re: Carp Virus

Postby Basti » Tue May 03, 2016 10:54 pm

Bob Nudd wrote:i support carp eradication as much as the next man, but. let's say the virus works and works brilliantly - kills 95% of the carp. let's even assume that the rivers don't get completely devastated by the fallout caused by thousands of tonnes of dead carp. then what? the 5% of carp that survived the virus will be ­immune to further infection and in all probability produce offspring that will also be immune. there is a reason they got to be a dominating species - they were not introduced in large numbers to begin with so i don't see why they shouldn't do it again. the reality is that natives are weak and incapable of holding the ground against the carp - that's a proven historical fact. releasing the virus would give us 5, maybe 10 years relief and then it will be back to square one.

there's a (possible) solution, but it will never be implemented in Australia for obvious reasons.

that's how immunity works and i'm sure that the scientists behind this are expecting that very eventuality. this will take a while though. in the meantime, work on alternative measures can be undertaken. They could even try a different strain of virus like what they are about to do with rabbits and calicivirus. then there's the daughterless carp thing which i really hope they get funded again.

i'm interested to hear what the solution you mention would be

Bob Nudd
Rank: Banjo
Rank: Banjo
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 10:21 pm

Re: Carp Virus

Postby Bob Nudd » Tue May 03, 2016 11:28 pm

the solution that i have in mind is to outcompete carp naturally. for example, the fisheries could start stocking Roach in order to reduce the living space and the food base available to the carp. Roach are almost as prolific but a far lesser evil than carp - they are not bottom feeders so won't cause problems to the waterways and an excellent source of food for the natives and trout.

either this, or give rods to the kangaroos and teach them to fish carp.

Mutley and Scruffy
Rank: Cephalopod
Rank: Cephalopod
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2016 12:09 am
Location: Shepparton

Re: Carp Virus

Postby Mutley and Scruffy » Wed May 04, 2016 11:22 am

Bob Nudd wrote:i support carp eradication as much as the next man, but. let's say the virus works and works brilliantly - kills 95% of the carp. let's even assume that the rivers don't get completely devastated by the fallout caused by thousands of tonnes of dead carp. then what? the 5% of carp that survived the virus will be ­immune to further infection and in all probability produce offspring that will also be immune. there is a reason they got to be a dominating species - they were not introduced in large numbers to begin with so i don't see why they shouldn't do it again. the reality is that natives are weak and incapable of holding the ground against the carp - that's a proven historical fact. releasing the virus would give us 5, maybe 10 years relief and then it will be back to square one.

there's a (possible) solution, but it will never be implemented in Australia for obvious reasons.

I accept your concerns regarding 5% of surviving carp having a chance to repopulate. However, I believe if the carp population were to be reduced dramatically, they would not be so successful in repopulating. Of course they did it rather well first time around. I wonder if they had some help from us though! Over fishing of cod and hindrance to native spawning with barriers such as weirs etc. Things have changed now with a C & R mentality, stocking of natives and fish ladders being installed.

As for our natives being weak, I have fished a local channel system since I was a teen (I am 50 now). These channels are fed from Goulburn Weir. Cod that have been stocked into the Goulburn have found their way into the channel system. These cod have smashed the carp and redfin population in the channels.
Bob Nudd wrote:the solution that i have in mind is to outcompete carp naturally. for example, the fisheries could start stocking Roach in order to reduce the living space and the food base available to the carp. Roach are almost as prolific but a far lesser evil than carp - they are not bottom feeders so won't cause problems to the waterways and an excellent source of food for the natives and trout.

either this, or give rods to the kangaroos and teach them to fish carp.

Obviously this would never happen. You say roach would limit the living space for carp yet roach do not feed on the bottom. Wouldn't this allow the carp to still feed on the bottom, or even force them to feed on the bottom...and still leave them plenty of food? Just my thoughts.
cheers
Jim

brybry
Rank: Flathead
Rank: Flathead
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 12:45 pm

Re: Carp Virus

Postby brybry » Wed May 04, 2016 11:42 am

I'd be interested to know what the impact on our natives would be.

Anecdotally is seems that numbers of Cod and Golden perch in our waterways has improved over the last decade or so. Presumably these fish predate on juvenile carp.

Is this virus is going to remove a major food source for our natives.

Assuming that the carp don't come back (big assumption, I know), I think that over time an ecosystem will rebalance itself and numbers of native forage species like bony bream will grow to fill the gap left by carp. But, until then, will the numbers of native sportfish take an initial hit through the eradication of carp?



Remove these ads.

User avatar
4liters
Rank: Premium Member
Rank: Premium Member
Posts: 4377
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2014 8:05 am

Re: Carp Virus

Postby 4liters » Wed May 04, 2016 7:43 pm

There are a couple of articles on CAARRRP herpes doing the rounds that answer a lot of the questions and concerns some people have had:
https://theconversation.com/carpageddon ... alia-58787

Yesterday’s announcement of funding for a National Carp Control Plan – including the release of the carp herpes virus – has generated a lot of interest in the media. I welcome plans to release the virus by the end of 2018. In January I wrote an article here explaining the concept and why I think it could work in Australia.

Since the announcement I’ve listened to discussions on radio and television highlighting the concerns of the public. I hope to address some of the confusion and set the record straight.

What will we do with piles of dead fish?

Among people who live near the Murray River or one of its tributaries, this is the main objection to the release of the virus. This in itself suggests that those close to the rivers understand the implications of carp being 80% of the biomass in the Murray Darling Basin. Many people have lived through black-water events (where oxygen levels drop resulting in large fish kills) and they know how unpleasant it is to have a lot of dead fish at one time.

Their concerns are justified. Fortunately, Science Minister Christopher Pyne is aware that hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of tonnes of dead carp will need to be cleaned up, and this will require community consultation and potential legislative changes. Pyne says we can use dead carp as fertiliser, as pet food or bury them in large graves. It is interesting to note that the fertiliser company Charlie Carp welcomes the move and may expand their business into South Australia so they can respond to large fish kills there.

The trick will be disposing of the fish quickly because after 48 hours they will begin to rot and will not be suitable for use. My reading of the announcement suggests that planning for this one time big carp kill will be a large part of the $15 million spent over the next two years.

How is the virus transmitted?

There were some giggles about how this virus is transmitted among fish, given that herpes is a sexually transmitted disease in humans. However, all the fish have to do is bump into one another to transmit the virus, and they can also be infected by the virus that lives in the water, although the virus will only survive for a few days outside of the body of a fish.

Once infected, any survivors will carry the carp-specific herpes virus for life. Stress can re-activate the virus, causing it to persist in the carp population and allowing it to spread rapidly under crowded conditions.

What a waste – we could have sold these fish overseas!

It is true that Australians resist eating carp due a perception that they are “junk” fish. Some say they have a muddy flavour, or that they are too bony. Neither of these issues stop people in Europe, the Middle East and Asia eating carp, where they are a common part of the diet.

There are two problems with the suggestion that we are missing a commercial opportunity here. The first is the economic viability of shipping fish to the other side of the world. We cannot get them there alive so we will need to freeze or can the carp, and once we’ve done that, consumers must pay enough to cover the processing and shipping.

I was on a committee with the NSW Department of Fisheries 15 years ago that was looking for markets for carp products. Enthusiastic investors with support from government could not find a way to make money with this export.

The second problem is that any industry relying on carp as a product will not remove carp from our rivers. Carp are causing enormous damage to the ecology of rivers and lakes across our continent and fishing alone will never remove enough of them to return those ecosystems to health.

But biological control never works, does it?

“Myxomatosis and cane toads – need I say more?” was a text to my local ABC radio station by someone concerned about the failure of biological control in the past. Yes, cane toads were a disastrous introduction to Australia and it is now clear that the problem was insufficient research prior to release. The carp herpes virus has been researched in Australian laboratories for 7 years so far. See my previous article for more on why this looks like a safe bio-control option.

Myxomatosis actually worked beautifully, killing 500 million rabbits in two years after the first release in 1950. Resistance did increase in the decades to follow and in 1996 another virus (calicivirus) was released to further reduce rabbit populations.

The rabbit plague of 1860 onward was the fastest spread of any mammal in the world. Rabbits had an enormous environmental and economic impact right across Australia, leading us to build the rabbit-proof fence. In 1887 the state of New South Wales was offering a reward of £25,000 for any successful method not previously known for exterminating rabbits. Although srabbits were useful for food in the depression and to make lots of hats, nobody wants to return to pre-myxomatosis times.

And no, we didn’t kill all the rabbits, just like we will not kill all the carp. However, a virus transmitted by water may be more effective as suggested by the government’s goal of a 95% carp reduction by 2045.

Carp are natural by now – our native fish rely on them for food


Australian native fish have been seriously impacted by carp. Many of them are visual predators, such as the magnificent Murray Cod. The turbidity created by carp reduces their ability to hunt and thrive, even though the high biomass of carp may give them plenty to eat.

The muddy river that runs through my home town is a hazard for swimmers and boaters because you can’t see the snags. This is due almost entirely to the presence of carp. None of us can remember when the Murray River ran clear and native fish were more common than introduced fish, but Senator Anne Ruston, Assistant Minister for Water Resources, recalls her mother and grandmother talking about being able to see the bottom of the river.

If you cannot imagine why anybody cares what type of fish are living in our rivers, remember that native Australian fish and plants are not adapted to the muddy rivers we have now. Let’s give them a chance to grow and thrive again in an environment more similar to the natural situation.

Sounds like a waste of money

Our Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce says that carp cost the economy up to $500 million per year. I don’t know how he got that figure but it may include the extra water treatment we need for river towns like mine and tourism losses due to reduced biodiversity and frequent algal blooms. Even if it is only half of that, spending $15 million to remove carp from the system seems like a sound investment.

The future of Australia’s waterways are at stake. Is there anything more precious than clean, fresh water?

and this one which I won't quote in full because it's pretty long
https://blog.csiro.au/reclaiming-our-ri ... eral-carp/
2. Will CyHV-3 be effective as a biocontrol agent?

CyHV-3 first appeared in Israel in 1998 and quickly spread throughout the world, killing-off common and koi carp. Ironically carp are farmed in many countries and are an important food source. So, while CyHV-3 has devastated carp farming, the overseas experience has demonstrated how it could be used successfully as a biocontrol agent here.

Testing of CyHV-3 in the high-security Fish Diseases Laboratory at our Australian Animal Health Laboratory (AAHL), in Geelong, Victoria, has proven that the same virus does in fact kill Australian carp, and it kills them fast.

The flip side is our rigorous testing to ensure that the virus won’t affect native Australian or important introduced species of fish. It has been shown to pose no danger to 13 native species such as Murray cod, various species of perch, eel and catfish, as well as a crustacean (yabbies) and a non-native fish species, the rainbow trout. Our work has shown that there are no clinical or pathological changes in these non-target animals, nor is there any evidence that the virus multiplies in these species.

Chickens, mice, frogs, turtles and water dragons have also been tested as representatives of a wider community of birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles. Again the virus has shown no effect on them which also makes us confident that it won’t affect that other major group of mammals – humans.

Based on lessons learnt from past use of viral biocontrol agents for invasive vertebrates, we expect that CyHV-3 will have the greatest impact in the first couple of years after release. After that, its effectiveness may be diminished, but not lost, as virus and host adapt to each other.

Therefore, we need an integrated pest management program that utilizes other methods to complement our virus. These include new broad-scale technologies such as ‘daughterless’ technology to create male-only populations, as well as traditional regional methods such as trapping, the commercial collection of carp, and controlling access of carp to breeding grounds.

4. How can we be sure that widespread distribution of the virus is safe for people?

CyHV-3 has devastated carp farming around the world yet despite the large numbers of people working on these affected farms, there has been no evidence of any effect of the virus on them.

We have also exposed mice to CyHV-3, and found no evidence of disease. Mice were chosen as being a representative mammal, just like a human.

And finally, a report to the European Commission by the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare stated that there is no evidence for ANY fish virus causing disease in humans.

How does the herpes virus work?

The virus – CyHV-3 – mainly damages the kidneys, skin and gills of koi carp. Kidney and skin are very important in helping the fish maintain its water balance. Animals living in a freshwater environment need to stop water getting into the body (skin) and to pump out excess water that does get in (kidneys). In affected fish there is a water imbalance which causes a mineral imbalance. Among other things, the latter could affect heart function (although that has not yet been shown in carp). Damage to the gills affects the carp’s ability to breathe and this is the cause of death.

After a fish is infected by the virus, the virus multiplies in the fish for about seven days (depending on the water temperature). During this time the fish eats and appears quite normal. It then takes about 24 hours from the first signs of disease (darkening of the skin; reddened gills) until the fish dies.
How is it transmitted?

Most commonly the virus appears to be transmitted by direct contact between fish, but fish can also be infected by virus in the water. The virus alone will never wipe out carp completely; there will always be some survivors. As in ANY herpesvirus infection in any host, survivors are infected with herpesvirus for life. These are what is known as latent infections, where the virus is present but does not seem to cause any signs of disease. However, if a latently-infected animal is stressed for any reason then the virus re-activates and can be spread. This should allow the virus to survive in the carp population.

How do you know it won’t infect other species?


We have done rigorous testing to ensure that the virus won’t affect native Australian or important introduced species of fish. It has been shown to pose no danger to 13 native species such as Murray cod, various species of perch, eel and catfish, as well as a crustacean (yabbies) and a non-native fish species, the rainbow trout. Our work has shown that there are no clinical or pathological changes in these non-target animals, nor is there any evidence that the virus multiplies in these species.
Chickens, mice, frogs, turtles and water dragons have also been tested as representatives of a wider community of birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles. Again the virus has shown no effect on them which also makes us confident that it won’t affect that other major group of mammals – humans.

What’s to stop the virus mutating and infecting other species?

When it comes to understanding the effects of mutations in viruses, work on many viruses over many years has resulted in some general observations. Firstly, some viruses are naturally promiscuous, meaning they will infect a wide range of species (e.g. the influenza viruses). Herpesviruses are NOT considered to belong to this promiscuous group of viruses. In fact, herpesviruses are generally considered to be species-specific, i.e. each host species has its own herpesvirus(es). Secondly, viruses that are species-specific can occasionally jump into new hosts, but these jumps seem to be determined by two factors.

The vast majority of virus jumps really only occur between closely-related host species (e.g. AIDS virus and Ebola virus jumping from non-human primates into humans).
The nature of the genetic material of the virus. Viruses can be broadly classified as RNA or DNA viruses depending on the nature of their genetic material. DNA viruses (like koi herpesvirus) are relatively stable, whereas RNA viruses (like AIDS virus, Ebola virus, influenza virus) are much more likely to undergo mutations that potentially allow these viruses to jump hosts (although, as already mentioned, generally the jump is still into a closely-related species). In comparison, koi herpesvirus is a very large and complex DNA virus, and as a result they are rarely associated with jumps.

It’s worth noting that two viruses have been released in Australia to control rabbits, the Calicivirus (an RNA virus) and before that, the virus causing Myxomatosis (a complex DNA virus). These viruses have been present in Australia for around 20 and 60 years respectively and there is still no evidence of either virus jumping into another host during all that time.

For koi herpesvirus, the important observation is that it has only been found in carp. Carp belong to a group of fish known as cyprinids, and there are no native cyprinids in Australian waterways. The native fish in Australia that are most closely related to cyprinids are the native catfish. The susceptibility of two different species of native catfish to koi herpesvirus has been tested, and there was no evidence of disease or of virus multiplication in either species.

Won’t carp eventually develop resistance to the virus?

Whenever a virus is used as a biocontrol agent, the virus kills large numbers of the target for the first couple of years. But, gradually the virus and host come to a state of equilibrium that allows both to survive. At that point there has been a marked initial reduction in the numbers of the target, and the virus then continues to cause a lower level mortality in the target such that the target numbers never recover to their original levels.

We’ve seen this happen with both the Calicivirus and the Myxoma virus in their effects on rabbits, and those viruses still do a great job in controlling rabbit numbers in Australia.
2015/16 Species comp total: 289cm
Brown Trout: 37cm
Flathead: 51cm; Squid: 36cm; Australian Salmon: 51cm; Snapper 46cm; Silver Trevally 23cm; KGW: 45cm

User avatar
Broomstick
Rank: Premium Member
Rank: Premium Member
Posts: 770
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 10:43 am

Re: Carp Virus

Postby Broomstick » Wed May 04, 2016 11:40 pm

Bob Nudd wrote:the solution that i have in mind is to outcompete carp naturally. for example, the fisheries could start stocking Roach in order to reduce the living space and the food base available to the carp. Roach are almost as prolific but a far lesser evil than carp - they are not bottom feeders so won't cause problems to the waterways and an excellent source of food for the natives and trout.

either this, or give rods to the kangaroos and teach them to fish carp.


You've contradicted yourself here. If carp are bottom feeders and roach are not, they obviously fill different ecological niches and won't be in direct competition. Introducing roach would do absolutely nothing to reduce the carp population.

User avatar
davek
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4816
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 7:59 am
Location: nagambie

Re: Carp Virus

Postby davek » Fri May 06, 2016 5:20 pm

carp.PNG
carp.PNG (288.16 KiB) Viewed 435 times
It's an exhilarating feeling catching a fish
But it's an even better feeling releasing them

User avatar
Boonanza
Rank: Premium Member
Rank: Premium Member
Posts: 3547
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:31 pm
Location: Mernda

Re: Carp Virus

Postby Boonanza » Fri May 06, 2016 5:44 pm

davek wrote:
carp.PNG


LMFAO Davo :rofl: :thumbsup:
Water is the most essential element of life, because without water you can’t go fishing. :water:



Remove these ads.


Return to “General Fresh Water Fishing”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests