Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21

Thread: Sodium sulfite kills juvenile salmonids

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,526

    Default Sodium sulfite kills juvenile salmonids

    http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/o...ns/topics/5396

    The results of these experiments
    confirmed that some of the commercially
    available cures caused mortality in both
    steelhead and chinook juveniles (Figs. 1
    and 2). In any given tank mortality
    ranged from 0-30% during the 23 day
    period. However, researchers also found
    that there was considerable variability in
    the individual sensitivity of the juvenile


    Injection of eggs cured
    with sodium sulfite caused 30-35% mortality within a 10 day period. Removal of sodium
    sulfite eliminated the mortality (0%).

    I know that there are all types of reasons why a laboratory study cannot be directly applied to the river and streams of Alaska. However, the fact a single cured egg with sodium sulfite can kill some juvenile chinook salmon should result in people thinking about using a cure that does not contain sodium sulfite. The link is to the article but the figures would not show in my browser. However, the text is there for your review.





  2. #2
    Member Tearbear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1,986

    Default

    Interesting news Nerka. Borax, that is sometimes used in home cured salmon eggs for bait, may not be good for any salmon either, as it is sodium tetraborate...says don't get it your eyes, and do not take internally.
    "Grin and Bear It"

  3. #3
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Thumbs up Oregon recommends sulfite-free eggs since 2011 . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Tearbear View Post
    Borax, that is sometimes used in home cured salmon eggs for bait, may not be good for any salmon either, as it is sodium tetraborate...says don't get it your eyes, and do not take internally.

    Sodium sulfite in egg cures and cured eggs


    A recent study by ODFW and OSU showed that a common ingredient in some egg cures and cured eggs – sodium sulfite – can be toxic when consumed by juvenile salmon and steelhead. Anglers can help reduce this risk to juvenile fish by doing the following when buying, preparing and fishing cured eggs:



    1. Choose eggs and egg cures that meet Oregon guidelines for sodium sulfites. (The manufacturers and products listed below have been certified as meeting Oregon guidelines. It includes only those manufacturers who have submitted information to ODFW for certification. The list will be updated as additional products are certified.)
    2. If you’re making your own cure, consider using borax instead of sodium sulfite.
    3. When you’re fishing with cured eggs:
      1. Don’t add additional sodium sulfite to already cured eggs
      2. Don’t dump unused eggs in the river where they can be eaten by juvenile fish
      3. Consider the use of net bags to reduce the likelihood of young fish eating the eggs.

    Thank you for joining us in our efforts to help protect young salmon and steelhead.

    Meeting Oregon Guidelines


    Beginning Oct. 1, 2011, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) asked cured egg and egg cure manufacturers to voluntarily limit the amount of sodium sulfite used in egg cures and cured eggs to comply with new guidelines to protect juvenile fish.
    Products produced after Oct. 1, 2011 will be labeled “meets Oregon guidelines” assuming they meet our criteria for sodium sulfite. Products produced prior to Oct. 1 are not required to be labeled and it may take up to a year for existing inventory to clear the shelves. The following products, listed by manufacturer, have now been certified as meeting ODFW guidelines.

    —the rest of the article here: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources...cured_eggs.asp



    —more information here: http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs...NEWS/109020336

    —and here: http://oregonflyfishingblog.com/2009...earchers-find/

    —and here: http://www.washingtonlakes.com/forum...16769&p=172375

    —and here: http://www.newportnewstimes.com/v2_n...=29912&page=73


  4. #4
    Member Tearbear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1,986

    Default

    [QUOTE=Marcus;1338914]
    If you’re making your own cure, consider using borax instead of sodium sulfite
    .
    [QUOTE]

    That's nice to know, thanks Marcus. I did say "may" not be good for salmon.





    "Grin and Bear It"

  5. #5
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Unhappy Behind the curve . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Tearbear View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    If you’re making your own cure, consider using borax instead of sodium sulfite.
    That's nice to know, thanks Marcus. I did say "may" not be good for salmon.

    Just passing on what's out there, Tearbear . . kinda makes one wonder why Alaska is so far behind the curve on this issue.


    Who knows . . we might find out that what's good today becomes bad tomorrow . .


    . . hard to keep up . .

  6. #6
    Member Tearbear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1,986

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    If you’re making your own cure, consider using borax instead of sodium sulfite.
    Yeah, Borax...if you get it in your eyes, rinse with water for 15 minutes, or if it's ingested, rinse mouth, take a large full glass of milk or water, do not induce vomiting, call a physician immediately...doesn't sound that safe for fish either.
    "Grin and Bear It"

  7. #7

    Default

    Oh comeon, everyone knows fish love that "red-hot double stuff"! That's why it works so well! They wouldn't eat it if it was bad for them!

    Next thing someone's gonna say that lead weights and WD-40 are toxic too, or that barbed hooks increase C&R mortality...

    Ya bunch of greenies!!!

    Ha!

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    Just passing on what's out there, Tearbear . . kinda makes one wonder why Alaska is so far behind the curve on this issue.


    Who knows . . we might find out that what's good today becomes bad tomorrow . .


    . . hard to keep up . .

    What???? Alaska listening to Oregon on how manage a salmon fishery. I thought everyone on this forum had the attitude that "that ain't how we do it up here. We have the best salmon management in the world." Does that mean I should start listening to Doc when he tells us to take action and learn from our/their mistakes???

  9. #9
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    Oh comeon, everyone knows fish love that "red-hot double stuff"! That's why it works so well! They wouldn't eat it if it was bad for them!

    Next thing someone's gonna say that lead weights and WD-40 are toxic too, or that barbed hooks increase C&R mortality...

    Ya bunch of greenies!!!

    Ha!

    Here's the scoop on WD-40: http://www.wd40company.com/files/pdf...d494716385.pdf


    ****************


    Non-toxic Sinkers and Jigs

    The loss of sinkers and lures is a routine part of fishing. Unfortunately, lost sinkers, especially split shot, may be mistaken for food or grit and eaten by waterbirds such as ducks, geese, swans, gulls, or loons. Toxic effects of even a single lead sinker can cause birds to sicken and increases the risk of death through predation, exposure, or lead poisoning.
    As responsible anglers, we should seek to reduce the unintended effects on the natural environment and leave no trace of our presence. A trip to your favorite tackle shop will reveal a variety of alternatives to lead split shot, sinkers and jig heads. By switching to non-toxic sinkers with your next purchase, you can assure that your fishing tackle choices are helping to reduce the risk of lead poisoning to birds.
    New York State passed legislation that will prohibit the sale of certain lead sinkers. Beginning in May 2004, the sale of lead fishing sinkers (including "split shot") weighing one-half ounce or less will not be permitted.
    The new legislation (Environmental Conservation Law, Section 11-0308) regarding the ban of sale of small lead fishing sinkers states:
    S 11-0308.* Sale of small lead fishing sinkers prohibited.

    1. No person shall sell at retail or offer for retail sale lead fishing sinkers weighing one-half ounce or less. Each day of sale or offering for sale shall constitute a separate violation of this section.
    2. For the purposes of this section, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
      • "sinker" shall mean any device that is designed to be attached to a fishing line and intended to sink the line. Such term shall not include artificial lures, weighted line, weighted flies or jig heads.
      • "sell at retail" or "retail sale" shall mean the sale to any person in the state for any purpose other than for resale.

    3. The department shall provide notice of the prohibition of the retail sale or offering for sale of lead fishing sinkers weighing one-half ounce or less in the state fishing regulations guide.

    * NB Effective since May 7, 2004
    See how difficult it is to distinguish split shot from pebbles. Can you tell the difference? Search this photo for the eight lead sinkers (split shot).


    ************************


    While Alaska should be commended for outlawing felt soles on waders and hip-boots, is Alaska behind the curve on egg cure, WD-40 and lead weights?


    . . .
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	icon_e_surprised.gif 
Views:	94 
Size:	415 Bytes 
ID:	74820

  10. #10
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by penguin View Post
    What???? Alaska listening to Oregon on how manage a salmon fishery. . . Does that mean I should start listening to Doc . .

    Only if that person lives in Oregon and works in fisheries management for Oregon Department of Fish & Game . . .


    . . .
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	wink.jpeg 
Views:	15 
Size:	6.2 KB 
ID:	74821

  11. #11
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Products produced after Oct. 1, 2011 will be labeled “meets Oregon guidelines” assuming they meet our criteria for sodium sulfite. Products produced prior to Oct. 1 are not required to be labeled and it may take up to a year for existing inventory to clear the shelves. The following products, listed by manufacturer, have now been certified as meeting ODFW guidelines.


    Amerman’s Salmon Eggs

    • Salmon Cured Eggs
    • Steelhead Cured Eggs
    • Amerman Steelhead Cure
    • Amerman Salmon Cure


    Crowes Bait Company

    • Salmon Roe for Salmon
    • Salmon Roe for Steelhead


    D&G Bait, Inc.

    • Cured Salmon Roe


    Mr. Shur-Cure Bait Cure & Preserver

    • Egg & Prawn Cure
    • Herring Brine


    Nate’s Bait

    • Egg Cure
    • Strike Force
    • Egg Cure Plus
    • Bor-roe Cure
    • Cured Roe


    Pautzke Bait Co., Inc.

    • Fire Cure
    • BorX O’ Fire


    Pro-Cure Bait Scents

    • Pro-Cure Egg Cures
    • Tuna Flavored Egg Cures
    • UV Glow Egg Cures
    • Last Supper Egg Cures
    • Wizard Egg Cures


    Sunrise Bait

    • Cured Salmon Eggs
    • Boraxed Salmon Eggs


    TNT Bait Cure

    • Kenai Egg Cure
    • Radiant Orange Egg Cure
    • Radical Red Egg Cure
    • Natural Glow Egg Cure
    • Krill Dynamite Egg Cure


    Triple Threat Bait

    • Deadly Egg Dry Cure
    • Secret Egg Dry Cure


    Xtreme Northwest Bait Co.

    • Cure-All Bait Cure
    "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
    http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg
    The KeenEye MD

  12. #12

    Default

    Thanks Doc, all the sarcasm in the world can't replace good, solid data

  13. #13
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Wink



    It's been here all along . . in post #3 . . shoulda clicked on the link . . .



    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    Sodium sulfite in egg cures and cured eggs
    —the rest of the article here: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources...cured_eggs.asp

    . . .

  14. #14

    Default

    My most sincere apologies Marcus. Sometimes time and attention span constraints dictate that I merely skim your posts. And, Tapatalk didn't show the links...

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    It's nice to know there are plenty of egg cures on the market that no longer have sodium sulfite. However, the study raises alot of issues.

    The rivers I fish in SW Washington normally get heavy pressure all year around from folks using cured eggs for bait. Some anglers use nothing else. They just drift eggs. As a result, the rivers have large amounts of discarded cured eggs along the river bottom, particularly in the slow water, where they settle out. Over the course of 10 years of fishing on these rivers, I can count the number of dead salmon smolt I've seen on one hand. So if cured eggs are a source of mortality, it is not very obvious. I'm not saying cured eggs don't kill juvenile salmon, but given the large number of skien eggs I see on the bottom of the river, it can't be all that significant. My sense is that smolt don't eat many cured eggs once they've lost their color (i.e., turn white). Cured eggs lose their color and their oil content very quickly when immersed in water. Indeed that's the whole point of curing them.

    Also, it's likely that many of the cures listed once had sodium sulfite as an ingredient. It had a purpose, or they would not have used it. Since the study was done, they've eliminated sodium sulfite. Okay, but what did they replace it with? If we assume sodium sulfite had a purpose, the manufacturer most likely replace it with another compound that would serve the same purpose (whatever it was). Is the new compound any better than sodium sulfite? Could it be even worse? That is, would it result in even higher levels of mortality? Dunno, since they haven't tested the new cures. They have only elimated sodium sulfite, and said it's good to go. So even if the cure is labeled as being consistent with Oregon guidelines, it does NOT mean it's any safer for salmon than cures with sodium sulfite. Indeed, the new cures could be even worse.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,526

    Default

    Cohoangler, two wrongs do not make a right as they say. So if the new stuff on the market is potentially worse it should be tested. Maybe we have this all wrong. Maybe the manufactures should be required to test their product before they put it out in the environment?

    Relative to seeing dead fish I have walked miles of streams in my life and have seen few dead juveniles, yet we know most juvenile fish die before making it to smolt size.

    I would agree that the study was a controlled laboratory study and therefore in the actual river the toxic nature may be reduced or eliminated with time. However, the question I have is why have it if there are good alternatives. I respect you position that the alternatives may be harmful but to me the manufactures should show that it is not before the cure is made legal.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    Agreed. Anectdotal evidence, even from veteran anglers, does not signify scientific evidence. But if you read how they did the study, I'm not sure how representative it was of a stream environment either. Anglers don't normally force-feed cured eggs to juvenile salmon to see how they react. I'm not surprised that 30% died.

    On your second point, I also agree, but further studies weren't done. And none were required. No further studies were done to see whether the new cures were any less lethal than the original. ODFW just assumed that sodium sulfite was the culpret, and told the manufacturers them to take it out. So they did. And then they allowed them to slap a label on it saying it met Oregon guidelines. Which is true, but those guidelines only require them to eliminate sodium sulfite. There was no follow up testing to see whether the new stuff is any better than the original. Plus, it's questionable whether the culpret was sodium sulfite. There are alot of compounds that go into an egg cure. Not sure how they decided it was soduim sulfite.

  18. #18
    Supporting Member iofthetaiga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tanana Valley AK
    Posts
    7,217

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    ...but further studies weren't done. And none were required. No further studies were done to see whether the new cures were any less lethal than the original.... Plus, it's questionable whether the culpret was sodium sulfite. There are alot of compounds that go into an egg cure. Not sure how they decided it was soduim sulfite.
    "The researchers initially tested the effects of 4 or 5 commercially available cures in a laboratory setting." ...They then hypothesised that of the other cures tested, the likely culprit was sodium sulfate. To confirm this, they removed sodium sulfate and re-tested; mortality dropped to zero. Seems reasonably conclusive evidence that out of several commercially used egg preservatives, sodium sulfate was killing the test subjects, while the others were not. http://library.state.or.us/repositor...5454/index.pdf
    ...he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. ~Thomas Jefferson
    I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief. ~Gerry Spence
    The last thing Alaska needs is another bigot. ~member Catch It
    #Resist

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    And other thing.......

    Removing sodium sulfite was completely voluntary by the manufacturers. They were under no obligation to do so. And ODFW has no regulatory authority to enforce their decree.

    It would have been nice to have both available to see whether the new cures are as effective as the original.

  20. #20
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by iofthetaiga View Post
    "The researchers . . hypothesised that . . the likely culprit was sodium sulfate. To confirm this, they removed sodium sulfate and re-tested; mortality dropped to zero. Seems reasonably conclusive evidence that out of several commercially used egg preservatives, sodium sulfate was killing the test subjects . .
    Indeed . . . . +1


    These were "scientists" doing the testing . . weren't they?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •