RD.

Looking good, Ryan.

In the wild Pangasius sanitwongsei feed on fish & crustaceans, not that I need to tell Ryan this, but do your fish a favour & save the beef for the barbecue.

Ask Henry for this:

Scobinancistrus aureatus .... used to be mine. One very bad azz pleco. lol

Great looking set ups, Jay!

In my non-expert opinion, that's certainly one way to potentially F up a perfectly good fish. Food dyes are only approved for specific intended uses, which are also largely based on what the average "human" would consume on a regular basis. (not fish) Approval of a color additive for one intended use does not mean approval for other uses, such as feeding to arowana (or any species of fish) on a regular basis. Certified color additives have special names consisting of a prefix, such as FD&C, D&C, or Ext. D&C; a color; and a number. All are man made, and are typically derived from petroleum & coal sources. In 1990, FDA discontinued the provisional listing of all lake forms of FD&C Red No. 3 and its dye form used in external drugs and cosmetics. The uses were terminated because one study of the color additive in male rats showed an association with thyroid tumors. In announcing the decision, FDA stressed that any human risk posed by FD&C Red No. 3 was extremely small (so they say) and was based less on safety concerns than the legal mandate of the Delaney Clause. FD&C Red No. 3 remains permanently listed for use in food and ingested drugs, although FDA has announced its intent to propose rescinding those listings. Due to the health risks associated with FD&C Red #40 (aka Allura Red AC), its use is currently banned in Denmark, Belgium, France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Sweden, and Norway. Some fun reading for you. http://hubpages.com/hub/GUIDE-TO-ARTIFICIAL-FOOD-COLORINGS http://www.feingold.org/Research/dye.html http://www.lactose.co.uk/milkallergy/foodadditives100.html http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecfa/jecmono/v44jec17.htm http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecfa/jecmono/v024je04.htm The reality is that MOST of the synthetic food dies (especially those used for the color RED) have at some level been associated with health risks in humans, and I can only imagine how they might potentially effect the health of a fish from long term use. Of course if you would like to experiment with your 2K+ arowana, due to a comment that you read on the internet, by a self proclaimed expert, that's certainly your prerogative, Wayne.

Wow, amazing shots Bret, and superb specimens.

Blake - best to sell them all as hybrids, as you have no idea what their lineage is, and neither does anyone here. As an example, the the second fish doesn't look anything like a Taiwan Reef, it looks like a S. fryeri cross. The yellow labs may not even be pure.

If you're feeding SW & MP twice a day, getting anything to go for pellets isn't going to be an overly easy task.

An RTC will eat dog dirt if trained to do so. lol Sorry Theo, poor choice of words. I meant tank raised, as in they have been "in country" for some time. They appear to be either recent imports, or nutrient deprived fish. Having said that, CL's are indeed now being bred commercially in captivity (Florida for sure, and I think Czechoslovakia as well), using hormones to induce breeding. BTW - color wise, the Borneo clown loaches are FAR nicer than Sumatran, although they cost a bit more at wholesale level.

Are those wild caught specimens, or tank raised? BTW - you might be interested in this. http://albertaaquatica.com/index.php?showtopic=29019 Yours would have been originally collected in Sumatra.

Stunning, congrats on your new rays Trevor!

Unfortunately he never went into any detail as to the "new" tank that fish went in to, or the type of lighting used. From what I have seen in both Ryan & Bret's aros, the color of substrate and background, as well as the type of lighting used, can make a massive difference in how the fish looks. Night & day difference in both the golds, and the reds, which is no big surprise, and why grooming techniques such as white tank treatment have become so popular with breeders. With red aros, dark tank treatment (with regards to substrate/background) is definitely going to result in the best overall color. Natural sunlight would be ideal as far as lighting goes, but most of us in NA don't have that option.

The loaches below were 6+ inches when that photo was taken, & raised on an exclusive diet of 1mm & 2mm NLS. I've taken clown loaches that had their ribs showing, and brought them around within 30 days of eating NLS. The goal shouldn't be to "fatten them up", but to get them healthy. They will fill out soon enough on a quality diet.

Hey Wayne, that fish has really bulked up! As far as the color, Bret just covered it all very well. From what I have seen with aros, they are like most other fish in that they will adapt to their surroundings. Placing a fish in all-white (or even light toned) environment will typically cause a morphological color change within the chromatophore cells of the fish, as will placing a fish in a tank with dark substrate, and a dark background. For deep red toned fish, a darker environment (substrate/background) will typically bring out the best color in the fish. It looks like the color is there, you just have to help bring it out.

Absolutely. As previously mentioned, some garden hoses can contain anti-mildew agents, as well as excessive heavy metal content, such as lead. http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Consumer/story?id=3369894&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312 Sorry to hear about your fish.

It's part way down this page, AmyTerence http://albertaaquatica.com/index.php?showall=0&sort_key=members_display_name&sort_order=asc&max_results=20&app=members&section=view&module=list&quickjump=A&name_box=begins&name=A&st=60 Check their recent posts, looks like a spammer for Ugg boots. .

Yes, and no. NLS can verify their own ingredients, just as some countries in turn analyze & verify what NLS states on their labels. Yes, the USDA/APHIS system does have rules, some rather strict ones, but only when one begins to export to EU countries do you begin to realize how carefully some countries inspect their imported products. Many of those countries do not just rely on "good faith", and actually analyze & inspect pet food products before being allowed into their country for resale. They make Canada's inspection & approval process seem like a trip to Disneyland. As an example, Turkey tests for GMO in pet food, and due to their outdated testing equipment that is used, any positive reading at all can be enough to stop the import of the product. (even as little as .0025%) You simply get a pos or a neg reading, and a pos reading means a no go. In the UK, where more sophisticated and modern equipment is used they can verify the exact percentage, with 0.9% being the threshold for a "Contains GMO" required label. So in some countries, even the slightest bit of GMO residue can trigger a red flag at their border. Is this a problem in Canada, or the USA? Nope, not as far as importing goes. Apparently the North American market isn't concerned about GMO products entering into the food chain, be it human, or pet. Some fun reading on that subject from Agriculture Canada. http://www.ats.agr.gc.ca/eur/4328-eng.htm An interesting comment from that link ....... Getting back to the original subject ......... Yes & no. Even large scale distributors within Canada use common trade names on their wholesale lists, I've seen some of those lists, as I have seen many wholesale lists from outside of North America. Quite frankly, some of the worst distributors for using old school trade names are those based in the USA. Right now I'm holding a wholesale list from a US based exporter that has "Haplochromis Ahli" listed, when the reality is those fish are actually Sciaenochromis fryeri. The true S. "ahli" is almost non existent in the hobby. Some wholesale lists will have nothing more than "Electric Blue Hap" on their list, describing that same species. And these aren't Non Business Tax Paying Back Yard Fish Importers or exporters, in some cases these are well known wholesalers that have been supplying the hobby trade for decades. While I realize that many of the larger wholesalers will have the correct common and scientific names listed for their aquatic animals, as of right now there are major pet chain stores in Canada that have the incorrect nomenclature listed for their "blue crayfish", or as they have them listed "Electric Blue Lobster". These aren't little stores, that buy from backyard breeders, yet on one of those wholesale distribution lists it simply states "Electric Blue Lobster". With nothing more than a generic trade name to go off of, the fish dept. manager places the same generic trade name on their tanks. And round & round it goes. What you stated is simply not always the reality of what is currently taking place, or has taken place, for the past 25 years. Somewhere along the line, the ball can, and often does get dropped. As an example, Petsmart typically sells "Electric Blue Lobster" listed in fine print as Cherax Tenuimanus, which is definitely not the case, those crays are actually C. quadricarinatus, or from what is currently being sold here locally, P. alleni. I just confirmed that with their supplier, so there's no guesswork on my part. The problem is twofold, one a supplier that uses only a generic common name on their wholesale list, and two, stores that don't insist on the correct latin name to describe what they are purchasing. The result - the consumer is not getting what they are paying for, even if the cute young gal at Petsmart insists that "they will get as big as a lobster". You've been in this game long enough to know that aquatic animals are often misidentified, described incorrectly, or simply listed with generic common names. It doesn't just happen with small scale exporters, importers, or distributors. Then factor in the retail outlets that go outside the local distributors, and import their own fish, and things can become even more complicated. We are no longer talking about a "few" major importers, and their long term well established suppliers, but hundreds/thousands of Canadian vendors, who are dealing with suppliers from around the globe. This has already created a weak link in the CFIA's armor with regards to the pet food trade in Canada, and IMO it will have the same effect on the livestock trade. These new regulations can & will work, but only to a degree. This is not just an opinion, but is based on what I have already personally seen take place since the pet food regs rolled out last year. As fast as one hole gets plugged up, another emerges to replace it. And I'm not pointing a finger at just the CFIA, the CBSA (Canada Border Services Agency) plays just as large a role (if not more) in all of this as the CFIA does. My issue with the CFIA is that in some instances they appear to have turned a blind eye and deaf ears as to what is taking place. Take it from someone who spent his formative years on a major Canada/US border on the East coast, this is not just a West coast problem. There are those in the aquatic industry on the east coast that seemingly smuggle in illegal contraband (as in sans proper permits) on a daily/weekly basis, and apparently, get away with it. I don't know what the answer is, and again I'm not trying to be cynical, I'm simply being realistic. You can have all the rules & regs in the world, but those regulations will only be as strong as those who have been put in place to enforce them.

No argument there, but I think that they key is the CFIA is going to attempt to regulate this, and this attempt is going to be based entirely on a good faith system, and not much more. That's what bothers me about how this new regulation has been designed. I have very little trust or faith in a system that is already failing, where both importers & exporters clearly have misidentified many species of aquatic animals. In many cases these may very well be honest mistakes, but they are mistakes just the same. The CFIA is concerned about an EU strain of crayfish plague, hence the reason for some of the various crayfish species going on their list, but the reality is most importers cannot differentiate between the various species of crayfish, and mistakes are already being made in this area as well. Many exporters use old school generic trade names to describe their stock, and nothing more. "Electric Blue Lobster" is a generic trade name used to describe several different species of crayfish. Perhaps these new regs will force exporters & importers to change this bad habit (using generic trade names), but even still, unless there is someone at the border crossing who can identify the difference between juvenile Cherax quadricarinatus, and juvenile Procambarus alleni, or a Symphysodon discus, from a Symphysodon aequifasciatus, I don't see how all the lists in the world are going to stop any known or perceived threat to the human food chain, or native wild populations in Canada. Personally I see a lot of potential problems within the very short list that has already been created. I'm not trying to come across as being cynical, I'm simply being realistic about something that is clearly already taking place within the aquatic industry.

My reason for starting this thread was simple, to inform those who might otherwise not be aware of the new regulations, and to see if anyone could answer my question as to why discus ended up on this list, and/or which specific disease discus fish had been associated with. Seeing as I don't import fish from out of the country, I don't even have a dog in this fight, so I'm certainly not getting emotional over this discussion. lol Of course I'm speculating as to how this will all play out, just as you are. And your point is? As mentioned a number of times in this discussion; I am not against the regulation of animals & animal products being imported into Canada, I'm actually all for it. I just found it ironic that previously you stated; .........and suddenly now have done a complete 360, and now state: And yet you somehow feel that anyone with a differing opinion, is baseless, and holds no ground? Or anyone with a differing opinion is spreading discordance, and expressing dissension. After tossing this around for a few days, and taking a closer look at the new regs, and what's behind them, I personally don't believe that that the ornamental fish trade is ever going to become a priority with regards to these new regulations. The lists are very specific, targeting specific diseases, and specific aquatic animals known to frequently carry these diseases. Which I already stated above. I suspect that at the end of the day there will be thousands of ornamental tropical fish species entering Canada just like they always have, no permit required. I guess time will tell. For now, if anyone figures out the discus fish connection, and what specific disease they have been targeted for, please share. Cheers

.....previously you stated; I believe that you have already answered your own question.

I never said that it would work. What I said was: Of course it wouldn't be effective, I don't think that AB even has a CFIA DVM. My permits are stamped by a CFIA DVM based in Surrey BC, which is routed to him via the CFIA office in Calgary. Random checks would be purely hit & miss, but would be better than no checks at all. (maybe?) I don't think a system such as CITES would work either, for the same reasons, not enough manpower to handle the work load. As it is now a CITES permit for a handful of Asian aros can take 3-6 weeks to process. Imagine how smoothly things would go with thousands of ornamental (and native) species involved. IMO the CFIA's role in all of this seems clear enough. Support species conservation, and sustainable resource management. Unless it somehow directly affects those areas, I doubt that the ornamental fish trade is ever going to become a priority. At least that's how it looks & sounds to me, especially after viewing the Susceptible Species list, and the Proposed List of Diseases. Those lists are very specific, targeting specific diseases, and specific aquatic animals known to frequently carry 1 or more of those diseases. I'm still at a loss as to how discus ended up on the list?

According to the CFIA, their "top priority" is food safety. (human) I seriously doubt that the tropical fish trade is at the top of any of their lists, and realistically it isn't feasible for CFIA certified vets to check each & every batch of fish imported into Canada. They simply don't have the manpower required. IMO the new regulations are better than nothing, but not by much. Personally I'd feel a lot better about it if the CFIA implemented some form of random batch checking. That alone would at least assist in keeping most exporters somewhat honest, or risk being banned from further imports into Canada. That would add a bit of bite to their regs, without being so stringent as to hinder trade.

Absolutely. And to answer your question before you edited your response ..... China was used as an example because in recent history it has one of the worst track records with regards to human health/safety issues, and is clearly at the top of the CFIA's hit list when it comes to human health/safety issues & concerns. I simply find it ironic that the CFIA insists on first hand risk assessments being performed by their (CFIA's) own people of overseas fish food manufacturing facilities, but at the same time are going to allow these same countries to perform their own risk assessments of all live aquatic animals being exported to our country. How in the hell that makes any sense to anyone is beyond me.

Oh no, I couldn't imagine that a country with this kind of track record in human health & safety, would resort to bribery & falsifying documents regarding the health & safety of their exported fish. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_safety_incidents_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China As stated previously, the CFIA has clearly placed the burden of proof on the exporting countries, and those health certs are only going to be as good as those who perform the tests, and supply the certificates.