Another DE Thread

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gshock;3771971; said:
There was one documentary i saw a long time ago with a wild silver that had DE, but that was like 1 out of all the ones they showed. If we think of it as trauma, it really does make sense. Not much they can run into in the wild, with the occaisional one jumping into a thick branch or something trying to get food.

Ya someone else had also mentioned this doc, would like to see it myself. Was the aro with DE photographed under the water or held out of the water?
 
also wild aros that get de could have been caught fishing...as many fish smack the side of the boat when thrashing...as one way to get it...
 
Bderick67;3771550; said:
This is because everybody has ideas, but nobody has any type proof other then "hear say". Many who are questioned get defensive when they can't provide answers.



Why? There are lots of injuries(though not in the fish world) that are "cured" by doing surgery to remove scar tissue.




Lots of videos on youtube of wild arowana, yet to see any with DE. You've previously mentioned this and I'll ask you again, can you provide something showing a wild silver with DE?

You said it yourself in an earlier post. "How do we know it is not some sort of scar tissue and is a result of the DE and not the cause? " Because without a cause there would not be the scar tissue.

I find it extremely contradictory how you always ask other members for solid proof when you yourself cannot provide any "valid proof" as to why our suggestions are wrong :irked:.
 
willtang3000;3772350; said:
You said it yourself in an earlier post. "How do we know it is not some sort of scar tissue and is a result of the DE and not the cause? " Because without a cause there would not be the scar tissue.

I find it extremely contradictory how you always ask other members for solid proof when you yourself cannot provide any "valid proof" as to why our suggestions are wrong :irked:.
I dont even think we need proof on whether its fat or not at all. Think about it.
1. Fat usually comes in the form on marbling on the actual flesh, have you ever eaten torro? Thats the fatest peice of fish i have ever seen in my life and it doesnt come in a sort of sheet like that, it's just really marbled, but nowhere to the extent of having a whole sheet of tissue like thing.

2. Why would the fat need to be cut out? Fat could've been easily pulled out without the need of cutting it off right? Of course I am not very familiar with this, so any biology majors could correct me if im wrong.

3. Just in general, fat is oily. From experience with cooking fat (sheets of fat), it breaks up really easily and it feels really oily, from the looks of that video, it looks quite elasticky and seems like a pain in the ass to even cut out. Doesn't look like it would even tear. I'm pretty sure that is not a characteristic of fat. Even from meat you get at the market. When you cut that huge white peice of fat off your meats before cooking, it cuts off fairly easy and breaks up with an easy twist.
 
My family own a restuarant and I can tell you that the substance looks pretty similar to the fat you would strip from beef when filleting.

Never eaten torro personally as I don't go back to Hong Kong much.
 
willtang3000;3772837; said:
My family own a restuarant and I can tell you that the substance looks pretty similar to the fat you would strip from beef when filleting.
I too have seen this, but though it looks nearly the same, its nowhere near as stretchy and tough, it rips very easily. What you're referring to is tallow, its characteristics are more like cheese than anything. That thing that got cut out from the eye seems more like the tendons you cut out from beef.
 
Also just remembered, how would a small "sheet" of fat be able to push the eye out? Wouldnt the fat have to be a solid mass and not a layer like thing? Also, why would only the top of the eye be pushed out from the socket? Wouldn't the whole eye be pushed out if fat was accumulated behind it? Some pictures here show a more severe case of drop eye.




These pictures were taken after the owner came back from a long weekend stating that the aro's were perfectly fine before he left. How would fat be able to accumulate in such short amounts of time? What kind of event, other than jumping into the lid, could've happened in these short days? This already takes out quite a few theories. Most theories require long periods of time, saying that DE will slowly develop becoming more and more severe, but how many of us have actually experienced something like that? Fat accumulation would take months to happen, thats for sure. Also, with theories such as, lack of excercise, it would also take quite a bit of time to actually drop, and would definitely not happen after 3-4 days. Also, if this aro was left alone for the long weekend with no one in the house, I doubt the owner would keep his lights on for 3-4 days, if this was the case, we don't even need to bother with the light reflection theories. Theres also some people saying that DE is caused by water params, fluctuations, and cold water water changes. If the owner was gone for the long weekend, how would he have even altered the water? The water would've been untouched at all, thus throwing out those theories as well. We also need to take into consideration, why would only one eye be affected instead of both at the same time? Also, looking at the first picture, we can clearly see the eye instead of drooping out, has actually fallen INTO the socket. If there was fat at the back of the eye pushing it out to droop, why is there space for this to happen? As you can see there is a sort of thin membrane holding the eye in both pictures, which i suspect is what the people cut out in the video posted as you obviously cannot get to what is behind the eye since this membrane like thing is blocking off the back. My question now, other than what forms DE, is, if this was really what they cut out, how the heck did that aro keep its eyes in the socket? Anyways, back on topic, the only theories now that I see possible are genetics and head trauma. Now heres where the tricky part comes in. There have been many people (Bderick67 and me included) that have seen DE develop within hours of head trauma. This, along with genetics would be able to explain everything above, plus why one eye is affect in most cases. Now the problem is, why do different species have different chances of getting DE? Going from highest chance to lowest change is:
1. Silver
2. Asian
3. Jar/Lei
4. Black
5. African
2 and 3 may be swapped, but from what i can see this is generally the order. The only trend I can see here is, it goes down the line as to how commonly found the aros are. Silver being very common, and african being very rare. So do silvers really have a genetic trait that makes them more prone to DE (supporting genetics) or is it just because silvers are most common, so we mostly hear and see of silvers having DE? This would suggest that all aros have the same amount of chance, and are capable of getting DE, but because we see and hear more of one species, thus we assume they are more suceptible to DE. Although possible, it is also quite improbable that genetics cause an aro's eye to drop over the course of a couple days, which would make head trauma seem like a more probable cause. Anyone else want to add on or rebut?
 
willtang3000;3772350; said:
You said it yourself in an earlier post. "How do we know it is not some sort of scar tissue and is a result of the DE and not the cause? " Because without a cause there would not be the scar tissue.

I find it extremely contradictory how you always ask other members for solid proof when you yourself cannot provide any "valid proof" as to why our suggestions are wrong :irked:.

:ROFL: I have to prove you hear say wrong? I don't know what it is, that is the reason for the questioning. Yet your lack of any real evidence leaves my questions unanswered. Your "because my family own a restaurant" is the best excuse I've seen yet:screwy: Your entire argument is that it looks like fat so it must be fat

You my friend claim the DE is caused by fat build up. I only suggested the tissue behind the eye is the result of the DE such as maybe in the case of swelling form and injury. There are a couple people here on MFK that have drained a yellow fluid from behind the DE, does this sound like fat to you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
MonsterFishKeepers.com