[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: fungus on eggs
The need to use acriflavine is probably dictated by individual factors.
I have "proven" to myself, that under my conditions there is a certain
advantage to using it:
I ran the following experiment: Collecting aggs from the mop, I would
put one egg into plain water, the next egg into 2 ppm acriflavine
solution, next into water, and so on. About 50% fewer eggs fungussed in
acriflavine solution, including eggs that turned white, but did not
What I did NOT do, is to follow both batches of eggs through eying-up,
hatching and raising of fry -- because that is really what counts.
Dale Deck wrote:
> There seems to be a lot of talk on the necessity of using acriflavin.
> Has anyone ever proven that it is of any value in the retardation of
> fundus on eggs. I have proven to my own satisfaction that it is not
> I have had eggs that fungus when none was used and also when acriflavin
> was added to the water, and suddenly the eggs would not fungus. I seldom
> use it and only do in desperation when the eggs keep on getting fungus.
> I have had much better success with using damp peat and incubating the
> eggs on it, there may be some that fungus but they probably are infertile
> from the beginning.
> I would think anyone that has treated water from the tap could use
> that to inhibit the fungus and by the time the eggs hatch the water
> would be aged enough and the chlorne would be gone. I have not tested
> this as I have my own well water.
> I would like to know if anyone has done side by side with acriflavin
> and sterile water. So many times we do things because we were started
> doing things that way and we just keep on doing them. I know that I
> have, and probably will continue to do so.
> Dale Deck
> icq #16183097