4.5 Article

Effectiveness of the Food-Safe Anaesthetic Isobutanol in the Live Transport of Tropical Spiny Lobster Species

期刊

FISHES
卷 7, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/fishes7010040

关键词

spiny lobster; live transport; anaesthetic; ammonia; Panulirus; emersion

资金

  1. Australian Research Council's Research Hub for Sustainable Onshore Lobster Aquaculture [IH190100014]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study suggests that the use of isobutanol can reduce ammonia levels and mortalities during the live transport of tropical lobsters. Treatment with 50 ppm isobutanol in ambient seawater temperature is more effective than cold stunning treatment.
The strong demand for live spiny lobsters in Asian markets is being met by long-distance airfreight. Holding lobsters out of water during transportation often results in mortalities due to the accumulation of metabolites, especially ammonia. This study examined the potential to improve the survival of tropical lobster species exported from India through the use of the food-safe aquatic anaesthetic isobutanol, both with and without cold stunning, typically used prior to live lobster transportation. The results of the study indicate that treatment with 50 ppm isobutanol in ambient seawater temperature (i.e., 28 degrees C) prior to simulated live transport for 22 h significantly reduces ammonia levels in the haemolymph in all four lobster species (Panulirus homarus, P. ornatus, P. versicolor and P. polyphagus) compared to lobsters treated with cold stunning (i.e., 16.5 degrees C) with and without 10 ppm isobutanol. Cold stunning at 16.5 degrees C combined with 10 ppm isobutanol reduced ammonia levels compared to cold stunning alone only in P. ornatus. All experimental lobsters were returned to ambient seawater after simulated transport and were alive after 48 h. These results indicate that isobutanol has the potential to be used to suppress metabolism during the live transport of tropical lobsters and to reduce mortalities during live transport.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据