The Puffer Forum

Just returned form the Fish Health Management Conference where such noted fish vets such as Dr Noga, Dr Stoskopf, Dr Lewbart, Dr Harms, Dr Gratzek, Dr Swanson, Dr Levine and George Blasiola were the presenters.

Thought all would find this very interesting!!!

The discussion of clove oil versus MS 222 for fish anesthesia was discussed. Both have been used/researched and the findings were MS 222 was safer than clove oil. Clove oil is thick/viscous and disrupts the gas exchange across the gills - in other words it can literally suffocate the fish. After prolonged or repeated exposure, detrimental results have occurred. They also reported that recovery times were longer for clove oil than MS 222 ( tricaine methanesulfonate).

The margin of error was less in dosing with clove oil as well. When both clove oil and MS 222 were dosed at a slightly higher dose ( 200 ppm) - 13/15 fish required resuscitation with clove oil, while 0 required additional care with MS 222.

Interesting, thanks Kelly! This sort of follows my experience with repeated clove oil treatments, especially over a relatively short period of time with my SAPs. Now to look into getting some MS 222.

Found some. Seems its the active ingredient in Finquel, available at Drs. F&S. http://www.drsfostersmith.com/Product/P ... 004+113021

Fosters & Smith has it.

As does Seahorsesource. com.

Argent is the manufacturer and you can go to their website as well.

What about locations for folks across the pond?

Thank you for the information PQ, this is extremely helpful for all of us.

Pufferpunk wrote:What about locations for folks across the pond?

I only posted the sites that I have experience with....I would recommend contact Argent directly and ask if they ship to whatever area in question and if not, any suppliers or distributors.....

Having used both, I would say MS222 would probably be better for the faint of heart, or those anesthetizing something for the first time. Having them tip over to the side gently is probably less frightening than having them go belly up.

However, although MS222 is safer for the fish to use, clove oil is definitely safer for the handler (and even though I can't stand the smell, would be my preference if I had to choose). MS222 (I can't find the links anymore) is a very potent suspected carcinogen in people (not in fish), and can cause serious problems with people if handled improperly, including blindness (http://segate.sunet.se/cgi-bin/wa?A2=in ... -sci&P=751 - primary source is given in the correspondence). Its toxicity also increases with light exposure and salinity increase (again, can't find links anymore, sorry). As well, in bright light its potency tends to decrease rapidly. What we found is the longer the solution sat in the light, the more MS222 we had to add to knock the fish out, 'course we had to be using it in a brightly lit room with salt water.

So, I guess what I'm trying to say is, be careful if you're planning to use MS222. DO NOT handle it with bare hands (even in solution), try to latex wear gloves, and try not to get it into eyes, mouth, etc.

What other people at the lab I worked in did was first use a tiny bit of clove oil to calm the fish down, and then use MS222 to knock them out completely. The team I worked on never tried this, but they claimed that this way you would use much less MS222, and it was less stressful for the fish.

Nusquam wrote:Having used both, I would say MS222 would probably be better for the faint of heart, or those anesthetizing something for the first time. Having them tip over to the side gently is probably less frightening than having them go belly up.

MS222 also does not coat the gills and impair oxygenation. Fish can be connected to a continuous flow of the anesthesia and be kept out of the tank for hours. Surgery (up to three hours) has been done successfully with MS 222 without any lingering/long term effects.

However, although MS222 is safer for the fish to use, clove oil is definitely safer for the handler (and even though I can't stand the smell, would be my preference if I had to choose). MS222 (I can't find the links anymore) is a very potent suspected carcinogen in people (not in fish), and can cause serious problems with people if handled improperly, including blindness (http://segate.sunet.se/cgi-bin/wa?A2=in ... -sci&P=751 - primary source is given in the correspondence). Its toxicity also increases with light exposure and salinity increase (again, can't find links anymore, sorry).

MS 222 is unstable when exposed to light and loses potency. The dose does not change with fresh vs salt. Buffering may be needed in low alkalinity water conditions. Higher doses may be needed in hard water conditions.

As well, in bright light its potency tends to decrease rapidly.

This contradicts what was stated above about light causing toxicity.

What we found is the longer the solution sat in the light, the more MS222 we had to add to knock the fish out, 'course we had to be using it in a brightly lit room with salt water.

This is true - light causes instability. Water temperatures and water quality also affects potency. Size and type of fish determines the doses as well - some species require higher doses. Solutions of MS 222 should not be reused after 30 days of reconstitution or if exposed to light or if there is debris, feces, mucous, etc in the solution.

So, I guess what I'm trying to say is, be careful if you're planning to use MS222. DO NOT handle it with bare hands (even in solution), try to latex wear gloves, and try not to get it into eyes, mouth, etc.

Gloves should be worn anytime one is working with fish to prevent the spread of pathogens both fish to human and human to fish.

What other people at the lab I worked in did was first use a tiny bit of clove oil to calm the fish down, and then use MS222 to knock them out completely. The team I worked on never tried this, but they claimed that this way you would use much less MS222, and it was less stressful for the fish.

The problem with clove oil is the viscosity and it coats the gills impairing oxygenation - suffocation. This is not my research/experience but well known/respected published fish vets - Drs Noga, Lewbart, Stoskopf, Harms, Swanson, et al.

Lack of oxygen from use of clove oil would explain the seeming brain damage fish seem to take after a number of treatments. If I ever have to trim one of my puffers, I will pop for the MS222

Nick,
Exactly! This has been demonstrated and documented by fish vets on numerous occasions.

I have never used clove oil and after attending the last Fish Health Conference at NCSU, I will never try it. I have used MS 222 for 10 years and have never had a problem. I have devised my own anesthesia 'machine' similar to the one used at NCSU so I can keep fish out longer without having to resedate frequently - they are kept under a constant stable level.

Pufferqueen,

I hope you didn't take my post as a knock on using MS222. I was simply stating my experiences with it, and the information I found out about it a couple years back; I would never presume myself more knowledgeable about it than you, or any of the sources you stated.

I know that they can be kept out of the tank for hours while using it. After that particular project, I met a graduate student who was using MS222 for his own salmon studies (he was using coho, we were using chinook), and he used MS222 to keep the fish out of water for hours at a time. Unfortunately, the fish would have to be euthenized after his experiments, but they still had to be anesthetized during, and I know it would not have been possible with clove oil.

I'm sorry about the confusion: it is not the dose that the source I found said changed from salt to fresh water. It was the danger associated to people. The source (I wish I could find it again) said something to the effect that it was a more potent carcinogen in people when used in salt water, as well as if it was used in brighter light. Everything I said about toxicity of MS222 was meant for people, not fish. I completely agree that MS222 is safer for the FISH, but not necessarily for the PEOPLE using them.

Very good tip about the gloves, though. I don't think people really realize that they can pass on pathogens to their fish from handling. I do find it tricky handling fish with gloves on, but I will definitely try to keep that in mind next time I have to handle a live fish!

Again, I apologize for the confusion, and if you thought I was trying to prove you wrong or something silly like that These are just opinions from my (very little) experience/research of MS222 and clove oil. However, I thought it would be important for people to know that there is a potential risk to their health from using MS222 since I wish someone had told me, I would have been MUCH more careful around it.

Very good tip about the gloves, though. I don't think people really realize that they can pass on pathogens to their fish from handling. I do find it tricky handling fish with gloves on, but I will definitely try to keep that in mind next time I have to handle a live fish!

What about pathogens form fish to you? Ever seen what tuburculosis looks like?

I've always known they can pass pathogens to me. But I never really thought about passing them onto them. My mind works in weird ways, I suppose. Either way, all I was saying was that it's a good tip, I just never really thought about it. At the lab we were at, it was mostly me and this other girl not wearing them because we would have to catch the fish first, and long story short, we either had to spend 10-20 minutes drying our hands in between catching and working with the fish so that we could get our hands dry enough to put new gloves on (and we were short on time anyway) or work with gloves that were slipping out of our hands because the water was in them already. I admit, it was probably one of the worst labs (procedurally) I have worked at. However, under the circumstances, unless we both got a pair of giant gloves that went up to our arms pits (we didn't know those existed, or we probably would have asked for them) we would not have been able to use gloves at all.

Just to re-iterate, I meant absolutely no disrespect from my post, and I'm sorry it may have been taken that way. I have the utmost respect for the people who work day in and day out helping newbies like me on this site, and would never INTENTIONALLY do or say anything to put them or their (much more knowledgeable) opinions down. I just thought it was important to hear both sides of it. Again, it was only because I wished someone had told me how dangerous it could be when handled improperly.