News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Farm chemicals blamed for two-headed fish 

Farm chemicals blamed for two-headed fish

13 Jan, 2009 04:44 PM
Farm chemicals are the prime suspect as the cause of fish hatching with two heads in Queensland's Noosa River.

A number of Australian bass larvae on a fish farm hatched with severe deformities, with most bearing two heads.

A neighbouring macadamia nut farm is being examined as part of an investigation by the Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries.

It is suspected that chemicals used on the farm, while approved for use in Australia, may have caused the deformities but thus far there is no conclusive evidence connecting the farm to the two-headed fish.

Farm chemicals such as endosulfan, which is banned in other parts of the world, is still used in Australia and has been previously linked to fish kills.

According to a DPI&F spokesman, investigation into reports of fish deaths at the Sunshine Coast hatchery have been on-going for several years.

The DPI&F says the initial investigation was discontinued because no breaches of chemical use could be identified, and there was a lack of evidence to support further actions.

However, the investigation was reopened late last year when new complaints about fish health were reported.

The DPI&F says a fish pathologist and an aquaculture officer promptly visited the fish hatchery in December to undertake a thorough assessment of fish health.

Samples of the pond water at the hatchery came back negative for chemical residues.

The DPI&F says a biosecurity inspector also visited the adjoining macadamia farm and examined its records and its spraying techniques.

To date, test results have shown no evidence that chemicals used on the macadamia property have been used contrary to the label instructions, and they have also excluded the presence of infectious diseases.

Samples from dead fish collected by the owner are awaiting final testing and results should be available by February.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

RELATED COVERAGE

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
You pull the trigger very quickly. You must be shooting from the hip with the headline. It's only suspected not proved. Double headed freaks do happen in nature some times. It's like sheep growing an extra leg.
Posted by THE FARMER, 13/01/2009 12:18:07 PM
Who is the numnut that wrote the article? Or did you lift the whole lot from the "Greenies sensationalism Book"? The headlines blame the farmers (Attention Grabbing) then the article "suspects" the nearby farm, a couple of paragraphs down and you mention the boogy men, "Endosulfan" to finish off by saying that there are no chemical residue in the water........... Whoever wrote the article is either a failed politician, gets paid on attention grabbing headlines, is totally deficient in the thinking department or just a plain idiot! Which journalist school did you get him/her out of? Send him/her back for retraining and as a matter of fact you can probably sue the school and the teachers/professors for the entirety of his/her wages!!!!!
Posted by Peter, 14/01/2009 6:42:16 AM
Many of our political problems stem from gross public ignorance of natural processes. For years now many of our school kids have been taught that Mother Nature is benevolence unlimited, and those (people we have never met) who interfere with her are villains in society. In reality, although the provider of all our means of living, Nature is the very cruellest of mothers.
Posted by Ted O'Brien, 14/01/2009 6:50:27 AM
Maybe it has some thing to do with evolution.
Posted by shelly, 14/01/2009 7:57:50 AM
To blame something/someone doesn't prove guilt, so there is nothing wrong with the headline. Just as "approval" for a chemical doesn't mean that it is 100% safe always. Genes can be altered through natural and artificial means. A fish with two heads could be an abnormality, if there are a number of them it is wise to investigate.
Posted by Farmer Dave, 14/01/2009 9:21:07 AM
I am very disappointed in the level of trash journalism involved in the headline! There is no evidence to support the blame on the chemicals - including pond water that is negative for chemical residues!! Please be more realistic and level headed and remain less alarmist.
Posted by realist, 14/01/2009 9:33:43 AM
Great responses - attack the writers grammar - very mature. Many people said there was no evidence of problems from agent orange - now check out the deformed foetus collection in Tu Du Hospital in Saigon and other hospitals in Vietnam. If we must use chemicals, then we must also expect to have detrimental unexpected consequences.
Posted by Gordons49, 14/01/2009 11:10:28 AM
Just because the water is negative for chemical now doesn't mean it was at the time that the fish were being incubated. The exposure that may have caused the deformities could have happened some time prior. Endosulfan is rated as a "highly toxic" chemical by the USDA and is known to be teratogenic, mutagenic and carcinogenic. It is toxic to birds and to fish. It breaks down quite quickly (4 weeks) in water but hangs around a long time in soil. It's banned in other countries for some very good reasons...
Posted by Anna , 14/01/2009 11:25:29 AM
1. Confirm which chemicals were actually used. 2. State the date the eggs were hatched and when the 'alleged' contamination occured and align this with the negative testing result. 3. Wait until results from the dead fish are available. If you can't do all that, then don't write such an inflamatory, unbalanced article. It just dents your credibility and turns readers to other news groups.
Posted by Dissapointed with the journo, 14/01/2009 5:12:21 PM
Just ban farming and make farms into national parks and import the food. The greenies will be happy then.
Posted by jerangle, 14/01/2009 8:47:15 PM
1 | 2  |  next >

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
POLL
Q: Are you satisfied with how your industry body is spending your producer levies?

Yes
(16.7%)

No
(74%)

Undecided
(9.3%)

Total Votes: 365
Poll Date: 12 January, 2009

Most popular articles

Ray White Rural Pro-Tech
 
Metromax
 
IRRIGATION CONFERENCE 2010
 
photo gallery
 
QCL Facebook
 
QCL Twitter


 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...