The Importance of Measuring Carbon Dioxide in Aquaculture


By Pete Southgate, the Fish Vet Group - While oxygen and ammonia levels are often viewed, rightly, as critical to fish health and performance, carbon dioxide tends to be ignored and very few aquaculture facilities regularly monitor CO2 levels. This is partly due to the fact that it is not easy to measure CO2 and partly due to an assumption that, if their other water quality parameters, particularly oxygen, are OK, then CO2 will not be an issue.
Fish Vet Group

There are, however, circumstances when carbon dioxide levels can be relatively high and there is an increasing body of evidence to suggest that there are a number of ways in which CO2 can have an adverse effect on fish health.

Carbon dioxide levels of below 10mg/l are thought to be well tolerated by fish, although sensitivity to the gas varies between species. The level of CO2 in the water varies with the respiratory and photosynthetic activity of animals and plants in incoming water, the level of decomposition of organic material in that water (a very significant contributor to CO2 levels in some nutrient-rich waters), and the respiration of the fish themselves. CO2 can build up to significantly high levels in systems with large numbers of fish and relatively slow water turnover.

The effect of increased CO2 in water is to reduce the rate at which CO2 from the fish's own metabolism can be released from the blood through the gills, thus the CO2 in the blood also increases - this is known as hypercapnia - resulting in a drop in the blood pH, an acidosis. At the same time the oxygen-carrying ability of the haemoglobin in the blood is reduced.

So, what is the effect of this hypercapnia? In the short term the physiology of the fish can counteract the effect by balancing the acidosis with an exchange of ions such as increasing the uptake of bicarbonate and losing hydrogen and phosphate ions and little harm is done. In the long term this balancing act can have a more profound effect on the health of the fish.

Nephrocalcinosis in salmonids has long been recognised as a pathological entity related to high dissolved CO2, eventually leading to the formation of large mineralised deposits within the excretory tissue of the kidney and associated kidney pathology. The condition can result in poor condition and performance and occasional fish loss, particularly if other 'stressors' are present. The relationship between nephrocalcinosis and high CO2 is still not completely understood, but is likely to involve the excretion of minerals, particularly phosphorus and calcium, when compensating for blood acidosis.

Some of the work presented most elegantly at recent Alpharma conferences would also suggest that poor water quality in hatcheries and smolt units, particularly high CO2 and hypercapnia, may lead to an increased susceptibility of fish to pathogens which later leads to clinical disease with, for example, IPN. By paying appropriate attention to this aspect of water quality in the early rearing stages, this may reduce vulnerability to clinical disease.

Tony Wall, in a recent Fish Farming Today article (A is for Deformity) highlighted issues relating to spinal abnormalities. It has been postulated that bone demineralisation associated with hypercapnia may be playing a role in this and it is an area which needs to be rigorously investigated.

As mentioned earlier, CO2 is not the easiest of gases to monitor, standard laboratory methods are pretty complex, although there is a relatively easy titration method which is fairly accurate and could be carried out on the farm. CO2 meters tend to be costly and temperamental (insert wife joke here).

Do try to consider the effect of CO2 on your fish stocks. Remember that high levels of oxygen may not help either as the fish respiratory rate is governed by levels of oxygen, high O2 can slow the rate of elimination of CO2 from the blood, thus increasing the hypercapnia. By increasing levels of oxygen, you may just make things worse.

Source: Fish Vet Group - July 2005

Streptococcosis In Tilapia: A More Complex Problem

To improve our understanding of streptococcal disease in tilapia, Intervet/Schering-Plough Animal Health, Brian Sheehan performed extensive epidemiological studies in the major tilapia-producing countries of Asia and Latin America.

These studies have yielded almost 500 streptococcal isolates recovered from tilapia at approximately 50 sites in 13 countries over the last 8 years. The isolates were identified using standard biochemical and bacteriological identification methods and subsequently analyzed by cluster analysis (unweighted pair-group average based on percent disagreement). Interestingly, of the nearly 500 streptococcal isolates recovered from tilapia, 82 per cent were identified as Streptococcus agalactiae and 18 per cent were identified as Streptococcus iniae.

S. iniae is a significant fish pathogen causing disease and mortality in many marine and freshwater cultured fish species in tropical and sub-tropical areas. Vaccines to combat S. iniae infection in a variety of fish species including tilapia are available, and there is a large body of literature on the pathogenesis of this organism in a variety of fish species.

Considerably less information is available for fish-pathogenic S. agalactiae. Although more commonly associated with disease in human and bovine hosts, fish-pathogenic S. agalactiae has been documented from as early as 1966, when a non-hemolytic Group B Streptococcus was identified as the cause of two epizootics in golden shiners (Notemigonus crysoleucas). Today, with the intensification of aquaculture, we find S. agalactiae to be a significant cause of mortality and morbidity in both marine and freshwater cultured species and particularly in tilapia.

Table 1. Major streptococcal pathogens of tilapia and their prevalence in the Asia-Pacific region

Global prevalence
(as per cent of total streptococcal isolations)*
S. agalactiae Biotype 1
26
S. agalactiae Biotype 2
56
S. iniae
18
* Data generated by Intervet/Schering-Plough Animal Health, Singapore

Detailed analysis of our tilapia S. agalactiae isolates suggests the presence of two distinct clusters, which differ in a variety of biochemical and phenotypic characteristics. We refer to these distinct clusters as biotypes; on this basis, we differentiate between typically beta-hemolytic “classical” S. agalactiae (hereafter referred to as S. agalactiae Biotype 1) and typically non-beta-hemolytic S. agalactiae (hereafter referred to as S. agalactiae Biotype 2). These latter strains were previously classified as S. difficile /S. difficilis but have subsequently been reclassified as non-hemolytic variants of S. agalactiae.

In our epidemiological surveys to date, 26 per cent of all streptococcal isolates of tilapia were found to be S. agalactiae Biotype 1 and 56 per cent were identified as S. agalactiae Biotype 2 (Table 1). The significance of this observation and how it relates to the development of S. agalactiae vaccines for tilapia will be explored in this paper.

Materials and methods

Bacterial isolates recovered from diseased tilapia were identified as S. iniae or S. agalactiae Biotype 1 or Biotype 2 using a variety of standard biochemical and phenotypic tests. The test results were analyzed by cluster analysis (unweighted pair-group average based on percent disagreement). Alternatively, identification was made using species- and/or biotypespecific PCR.

Experimental S. agalactiae Biotype 1 or Biotype 2 vaccines were manufactured as water-in-oil emulsions containing inactivated biotype-specific bacterial antigens and metabolizable non-mineral oil. The vaccines were given as a single dose to fish weighing 15 g or more.

The efficacy of the biotype-specific vaccines was evaluated in laboratory trials following intraperitoneal vaccination of 15 g tilapia. Age-matched, unvaccinated fish from the same cohort and origin were maintained as controls.

At various time points after vaccination, vaccinated and control fish were challenged by intraperitoneal injection with virulent heterologous S. agalactiae Biotype 1 or Biotype 2 strains. Fish were observed for 14 or 15 days post-challenge and mortality was recorded daily. Post-mortem recovery of the challenge organism was performed on fish that died during the observation period and on all surviving fish at the end of the observation period.

Results

To date, we have identified the species and, for S. agalactiae, the biotype of almost 500 streptococcal isolates gathered from approximately 50 sites in 13 countries. This is not a true epidemiological analysis since some sites were visited on multiple occasions and are therefore overrepresented in the data set, but this nonetheless represents a detailed analysis of the impact of streptococcal disease in tilapia.

As mentioned above, 26 per cent of all streptococcal isolates of tilapia were found to be S. agalactiae Biotype 1 and 56 per cent were identified as S. agalactiae Biotype 2; 18 per cent were identified as S. iniae.

It is intriguing that our analysis further suggests that the S. agalactiae biotypes are present in distinct geographical zones (Figure 1).

From our sampling of tilapia worldwide, S. agalactiae Biotype 2 is the most prevalent and geographically diverse of the streptococcal pathogens. In Asia, we find S. agalactiae Biotype 2 in China, Indonesia, Vietnam and the Philippines, and in Latin America, we have found it in Ecuador, Honduras, Mexico and, most recently, in samples from Brazil.

In contrast, we find S. agalactiae Biotype 1 to be the dominant streptococcal pathogen of tilapia in Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore. S. iniae is often found in association with S. agalactiae Biotypes 1 or 2 in China, Ecuador, Honduras, Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand. Only in the Philippines and Vietnam have we observed S. agalactiae Biotype 1, S. agalactiae Biotype 2 and S. iniae in tilapia in the same country.

It is known that S. iniae vaccines do not provide protection against S. agalactiae infection. To determine if our classification of the fish pathogenic S. agalactiae has consequences for the development of vaccines to control this devastating disease, we assessed in a laboratory challenge the ability of biotype-specific vaccines to protect against lethal challenge with S. agalactiae Biotype 1 or Biotype 2 strains. The results of representative experiments are shown in Figures 2 and 3 and are summarized in Tables 2 and 3.

Tilapia vaccinated with an experimental S. agalactiae Biotype 1 vaccine were protected against lethal challenge with a virulent S. agalactiae Biotype 1 strain (Figure 2A). However, no protection against challenge with a virulent Biotype 2 strain was observed in the Biotype 1-vaccinated fish (Figure 2B).


Figure 2A (top) and 2B (bottom). Efficacy of a S. agalactiae Biotype 1 vaccine against challenge with a heterologous S. agalactiae Biotype 1 strain (A) and a S. agalactiae Biotype 2 strain (B). Vaccinated and unvaccinated control tilapia were challenged as described at 3 weeks post-vaccination. Fish were observed for 15 days after challenge and mortality was recorded daily. Post-mortem recovery of the challenge organism was performed on fish that died during the observation period and on all surviving fish at the end of the observation period after challenge (included as “pos”).

Similarly, fish vaccinated with a S. agalactiae Biotype 2 vaccine were protected against lethal S. agalactiae Biotype 2 challenge (Figure 3A); however, there was no protection against challenge with a virulent Biotype 1 strain in the Biotype 2-vaccinated fish (Figure 3B). Thus, vaccination with biotype-specific bacterin vaccines induces biotype-specific protection against mortality caused by S. agalactiae.


Conclusions

Our data suggest that S. agalactiae, and to a lesser extent S. iniae, are the principal agents of streptococcosis in tilapia. Detailed analysis of our tilapia S. agalactiae isolates suggests the presence of two biotypes, which differ in a variety of biochemical and phenotypic characteristics.

In our experience, these two S. agalactiae biotypes cause subtly distinct disease syndromes. S. agalactiae Biotype 1 infects fish throughout the production cycle from juvenile to grow-out, while S. agalactiae Biotype 2 causes disease predominantly in larger fish.

Moreover, and most significantly from a health-management perspective, we have demonstrated that immunity is biotype-specific.


Figure 3A (top) and 3B (bottom). Efficacy of a S. agalactiae Biotype 2 vaccine against challenge with a heterologous S. agalactiae Biotype 2 strain (A) and a S. agalactiae Biotype 1 strain (B). Vaccinated and unvaccinated control tilapia were challenged as described at 3 weeks post-vaccination. Fish were observed for 14 days post-challenge and mortality was recorded daily. Post-mortem recovery of the challenge organism was performed on fish that died during the observation period and on all surviving fish at the end of the observation period after challenge (included as “pos”).

To our knowledge, there are no obvious geographical, physiological or environmental explanations for the country-to-country distribution of S. agalactiae Biotypes 1 and 2. It would be prudent, however, to consider that the distribution might change in time, probably through trade in live fish.