Can traditional methods of selecting food accurately assess fish health?

• Main Authors: Cott, Peter, Amos, Amy L, Guzzo, Matthew, Chavarie, Louise, Goater, Cameron, Muir, Derek, Evans, Marlene
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: unknown
• Published: NRC Research Press (a division of Canadian Science Publishing) 2018
• Subjects: Mackenzie River; Burbot; Lota lota; Mackenzie river; lota
• Online Access: http://hdl.handle.net/1807/88385; http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/AS-2017-0052

Indigenous peoples living in Canadaâ s north have long-valued the livers of Burbot (Lota lota) as a traditional food source; however, there has been concern relating to liver quality and potential contaminants. In this study, livers of Burbot collected in lower Mackenzie River were ranked using a traditional appearance-based assessment. These rankings were compared to a variety of biological and contaminants metrics. Livers ranked â most palatableâ had a significantly higher mass and lipid content and were from younger fish with greater HSI and total mass, and had lower parasite intensities. There were no differences in the concentrations of persistent organic pollutants or metals, except copper, which although still well below consumption guidelines, was significantly higher in the livers that appeared most palatable. The results of this study demonstrated that traditional methods effectively assessed the quality of livers by selecting for the most nutritious (high lipid levels) and safest (low parasite loading) food. This method could be incorporated into a community-based monitoring framework as a rough index of overall fish and ecosystem health; however, would not be effective in screening food for anthropogenic contaminants. This study highlights the importance and value of incorporating traditional knowledge into scientific studies. The accepted manuscript in pdf format is listed with the files at the bottom of this page. The presentation of the authors' names and (or) special characters in the title of the manuscript may differ slightly between what is listed on this page and what is listed in the pdf file of the accepted manuscript; that in the pdf file of the accepted manuscript is what was submitted by the author.