A water testing kit for fishing

Started by JasonGotaProblem, March 26, 2021, 01:30:13 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

JasonGotaProblem

Does a kit exist that one could use to test a water sample to determine if it's a good idea to eat the fish from that lake/river/whatever?

If not, that might be a million dollar idea. I have no idea what such a kit would entail, as im not sure what specific compounds I'd want to test for. But...
Any machine is a smoke machine if you use it wrong enough.

philaroman

#1
crayfish are a good ballpark indicator  ;)  
assuming some species are geographically appropriate,
they're among first/quickest to die off w/ water decline
empty shells are just molting; actual carcasses or complete absence is bad news

a craw trap is combo water testing / bait collection  ;D

MarkT

#2
Bottom grabbers would be affected by whatever is in the mud, flowing water from the top might not reflect what the fish are exposed to.  Kinda like in the ocean where you might not want to eat the inshore species in the bay/harbor but offshore pelagics would be fine.

If in doubt, throw it back.  It's not you'll starve without that fish... it's a hobby, not survival.
When I was your age Pluto was a planet!

Wompus Cat

The only sure fire way is to Test the food from the waters you fish .Some things are cumulative and will slowly kill you and the food while other things  may dissipate from the foods such as seasonal algae and many aquatic thingies .
Older Bigger fish may have cumulative toxins  like Mercury for instance and the Fish is still going but if you eat a lot of them you may not .
We had for several years in the lake where I live a toxin called Golden Algae  and the Corps of INJUNSNEERS said were ok to eat the floating carcasses it affected but  in my opinion any one  with an IQ count above the number of nostrils they had would not consider it .
This merely Food For Thought and not to be construed as Factual l advice on my part .
Mostly I go by what my ol Mammy said .
If it Smells Bad ,Don't Eat IT. Except for Bierkause and Limburger .
If a Grass Hopper Carried a Shotgun then the Birds wouldn't MESS with Him

JasonGotaProblem

Truth be told I've never kept and eaten a freshwater fish, though I have kept and eaten my share of saltwater fish.

I've been giving some though to how I'd decide which freshwater fish I would be willing to eat, and the major factor, to my limited knowledge, is the water. The water characteristics, to my understanding, also affect the flavor of the fish.

So far what I've come up with is that I would never eat a fish from a manmade drainage pond, but would consider fish from a natural lake. But given my line of work I am intimately aware that every manmade pond eventually outfalls to a natural body of water, so that distinction on its own is not enough. One needs to be able to evaluate the water in those natural lakes. And water looking brownish is frequently more an indication of organic matter than pollution, and clear doesnt always mean clean either.

Some of these are very obvious statements, I'm sure. I just wish there was some easy way to evaluate.

And I'd never eat a dead fish I found floating unless I was already starving.
Any machine is a smoke machine if you use it wrong enough.


JasonGotaProblem

#6
Quote from: Tiddlerbasher on March 26, 2021, 03:42:11 PM
https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=water+quality+test+kit&adgrpid=57218374030&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIyMWIw6XO7wIVCbbtCh0WLAaYEAAYAiAAEgLOwfD_BwE&hvadid=259073034149&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=1006507&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=e&hvrand=13243543398823831275&hvtargid=kwd-298363484358&hydadcr=12890_1766960&tag=googhydr-21&ref=pd_sl_4j3nfnmb0h_e

I assure you I googled it first. I'm aware that generalized water test kits are a thing that exists. I'm gonna assume you posted that in jest, instead of assuming you were just being dismissive.

Edit: I know I ask a lot of novice questions in a forum full of non-novices. You're allowed to be dismissive.
Any machine is a smoke machine if you use it wrong enough.

philaroman


Environmental Tolerance Limits
Crayfish are extremely hardy animals that can tolerate wide ranges of water temperatures and salinities. They can even survive the drying up and loss of their streams and ponds. They respond to these extreme habitat disruptions by aestivation in burrows or other refugia or by migration to still intact water sources. Crayfish are very intolerant of pollution and other human-generated fouling of their environment. A rich crayfish population, then, is a very positive index of habitat quality. Crayfish are more abundant in streams that have acidic water. This abundance may be due more to the acid-generated absence of fish which prey on crayfish than to a direct, positive influence of the acid on the crayfish itself.[i/]

https://www.dept.psu.edu/nkbiology/naturetrail/speciespages/crayfish.htm#:~:text=Crayfish%20are%20very%20intolerant%20of%20pollution%20and%20other,more%20abundant%20in%20streams%20that%20have%20acidic%20water.


Midway Tommy

Quote from: JasonGotaPenn on March 26, 2021, 03:28:23 PM
Truth be told I've never kept and eaten a freshwater fish, though I have kept and eaten my share of saltwater fish.

I've been giving some though to how I'd decide which freshwater fish I would be willing to eat, and the major factor, to my limited knowledge, is the water. The water characteristics, to my understanding, also affect the flavor of the fish.

So far what I've come up with is that I would never eat a fish from a manmade drainage pond, but would consider fish from a natural lake. But given my line of work I am intimately aware that every manmade pond eventually outfalls to a natural body of water, so that distinction on its own is not enough. One needs to be able to evaluate the water in those natural lakes. And water looking brownish is frequently more an indication of organic matter than pollution, and clear doesnt always mean clean either.

Some of these are very obvious statements, I'm sure. I just wish there was some easy way to evaluate.

And I'd never eat a dead fish I found floating unless I was already starving.

Interesting. ??? How did you get so gun shy?

I can't stand the taste of most saltwater fish other than boiled halibut dipped in butter and/or fresh or canned salmon. I love  freshwater fish and eat them regularly, though.

Most states have some sort of Department of Environmental Quality reports similar to this.. You just have to find them. They will also have warnings about polluted waters where no fish should be eaten. All fish have some contaminants, including saltwater species, so it's important to know how much & how often to eat them. Unless the fish is coming from highly polluted water system most are safe to eat in limited quantities 
Love those open face spinning reels! (Especially ABU & ABU/Zebco Cardinals)

Tommy D (ORCA), NE



Favorite Activity? ............... In our boat fishing
RELAXING w/ MY BEST FRIEND (My wife Bonnie)

JasonGotaProblem

Very interesting commentary re: crayfish. I'm told we have some in FL but I've never seen one in the wild. Maybe all the water ive been near is polluted.

I don't think it's being gun shy as much as the fact that I only picked freshwater fishing back up about a month ago after a 25yr hiatus and all my previous FW fishing was in a super gross retention pond in my childhood neighborhood where no water test would be needed to know not to eat them.

The only freshwater fish that I know I've eaten is FW catfish which i enjoy, and tilapia which I refuse to eat, and have asked my wife not to make it if I'm home so I don't have to smell it. Can you tell I'm opinionated?
Any machine is a smoke machine if you use it wrong enough.

oc1

You would need to be testing for industrial (chemical) toxins, bacterial toxins and algal toxins.  The first, and perhaps the largest, problem is determining the possible hazards and knowing what to look for.  That will be different for every body of water.

The industrial toxins would be the easiest if you knew what the chemicals of concern are in your area.  For some chemical parameters you can even get a field/home test kit.  Check LaMotte and Hach test kits.  

There are also field/home test kits for salmonella bacteria.  Testing for Vibrio bacteria would require a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test sort of like what they use to check for Covid.  Testing for E. coli bacteria would require culturing a sample on agar plates an then counting the colonies that grow.

Algal toxins would also require PCR tests designed specifically for the suspect algae.

Forget about it.  The time, equipment and training to make a definitive conclusion would be a career in itself.  It would actually be several careers because no one person has the expertise to do it all.  That is why we have government health departments.  They have the expertise, equipment and laboratory training to handle this kind of stuff.  The health department will be able to tell you which fish are probably safe to consume.

JasonGotaProblem

Quote from: oc1 on March 26, 2021, 07:45:54 PM
You would need to be testing for industrial (chemical) toxins, bacterial toxins and algal toxins.  The first, and perhaps the largest, problem is determining the possible hazards and knowing what to look for.  That will be different for every body of water.

The industrial toxins would be the easiest if you knew what the chemicals of concern are in your area.  For some chemical parameters you can even get a field/home test kit.  Check LaMotte and Hach test kits.  

There are also field/home test kits for salmonella bacteria.  Testing for Vibrio bacteria would require a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test sort of like what they use to check for Covid.  Testing for E. coli bacteria would require culturing a sample on agar plates an then counting the colonies that grow.

Algal toxins would also require PCR tests designed specifically for the suspect algae.

Forget about it.  The time, equipment and training to make a definitive conclusion would be a career in itself.  It would actually be several careers because no one person has the expertise to do it all.  That is why we have government health departments.  They have the expertise, equipment and laboratory training to handle this kind of stuff.  The health department will be able to tell you which fish are probably safe to consume.

Dang it Steve way to crush my dreams. The last gasp of such an idea would be something along the lines of a pocket spectroscope. Yeah $$$$$$
Any machine is a smoke machine if you use it wrong enough.

Tightlines667

Quote from: JasonGotaPenn on March 26, 2021, 09:16:22 PM
Quote from: oc1 on March 26, 2021, 07:45:54 PM
You would need to be testing for industrial (chemical) toxins, bacterial toxins and algal toxins.  The first, and perhaps the largest, problem is determining the possible hazards and knowing what to look for.  That will be different for every body of water.

The industrial toxins would be the easiest if you knew what the chemicals of concern are in your area.  For some chemical parameters you can even get a field/home test kit.  Check LaMotte and Hach test kits.  

There are also field/home test kits for salmonella bacteria.  Testing for Vibrio bacteria would require a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test sort of like what they use to check for Covid.  Testing for E. coli bacteria would require culturing a sample on agar plates an then counting the colonies that grow.

Algal toxins would also require PCR tests designed specifically for the suspect algae.

Forget about it.  The time, equipment and training to make a definitive conclusion would be a career in itself.  It would actually be several careers because no one person has the expertise to do it all.  That is why we have government health departments.  They have the expertise, equipment and laboratory training to handle this kind of stuff.  The health department will be able to tell you which fish are probably safe to consume.

Dang it Steve way to crush my dreams. The last gasp of such an idea would be something along the lines of a pocket spectroscope. Yeah $$$$$$

Exactly, not to mention those bioacumulating toxins that may be present in high concentrations in fish, but not even detectable in the environment.  Toxic algal blooms for instance are usually short-lived events in response to low turnover and a spike in nutrient influx.  This means they are only obvious fir relativdly short periods in the environment, but may persist in organisms for much longer periods.  I think a common sense approach is best here.  You couod consider avoiding enclosed waterways with poor watershed/influx, low flow/turnover, shallower/less oligotrofic, obvious dead fish/organisms floating or on shore, excessive blue-green algae or single species dominated macrophytes, stagnent water, etc.

Most waterways do have encironmental assesment reports or other data available online if you do a little digging.  I once had a job testing water samples from lakes accross the midwest.  On average any given body of water was tested every 10 years, while many are routinely tested throughout the year.  Environmental impact statements, watershed assesments and other compliance documents are a great source for information on the water quality of specific bodies of water.  Look around a bit and you will be surprised what is already available.  This and a no nonsense approsch are better IMHO then trying to test yourself.

John
Hope springs eternal
for the consumate fishermen.

Brewcrafter

Jason - Along with the other great suggestions (environmental advisories/reports and the "crawdad index") another vague general rule of thumb is that stocked fish (I'm thinking mainly trout here) are going to be pretty safe in whatever impoundment or water you catch them from.  Reasoning goes like this: 1 - They are not very robust to begin with - if the water is not relatively good they will not do well, and more importantly (at least here in Cali) trout are only stocked in areas that have a certain level of fishing pressure (usually high) and the truth is they are usually not in the environment long enough before they are caught to accumulate anything particularly dangerous in substantial amounts.  For the most part they are just like that farmed trout that you find on a restaurant menu or at your local grocery store, except they been released in the wild for a short period of time until they are caught.  Eat and enjoy!!!! - john