kribensis12
I know where you live
I recently found out that you can use Aspirin to help revive a fish when it goes into shock. Are there any other random over the counter / household items that will benefit a fish?
Aspirin ?
- Thread starter kribensis12
- Start date
🐠 May TOTM Voting is Live! 🐠
🏆 Click here to Vote! 🏆
This is most likely a placebo effect more than anything else. Aloe does have some functions for treating burns. It helps keep the skin moisturized and has some very mild anti-bacterial properties, both good things when treating a burn on you or I. But, in a fish tank, I don't think that any fish every has any problem keeping their skin or flesh moist. And, you actually want to encourage bacterial growth in your tanks for biodiversity and of course cycling bacteria. All in all, aloe vera really doesn't have a place in a fishtank, what you describe as soothing is most likely a placebo effect in that you felt like you did something to help your fish and they seem better so therefore is must have been the aloe.
Here in the scientific section, you need to cite some good quality research or evidence that aloe vera benefits a fishtank. Until then, public skepticism is very highly likely.
degsod
Fish Addict
I am going to go anecdotal on you. I have revived a fish that was definitely out of the water too long. I found him laying on my carpeting drying out after jumping from an acclimation bucket. I immediately placed him into the tank so that he could recover if he was still alive and he didn't seem to be recovering at all so I reached into the tank and just moved him forward through the water to move some water over his gills. In about 30 seconds he revived enough to swim out of my fingers. That was over a month ago and he is still doing fine. I consider what I did as a sort of fish artificial respiration that worked for my little Xiphophorus.
Jonathangerous
Fish Fanatic
"I keep a few plants and sometimes I use aloe vera to help soothe fish if they get ill.
This is most likely a placebo effect more than anything else."
I agree that lack of skepticism is a hallmark of bad science, but to automatically attribute the purported recovery of her fish as "placeboic" in nature without so much as a second thought is probably not the correct manner of approaching this issue--especially when, as you say yourself, that aloe expresses antimicrobial properties (http
/www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=149334).
This is most likely a placebo effect more than anything else."
I agree that lack of skepticism is a hallmark of bad science, but to automatically attribute the purported recovery of her fish as "placeboic" in nature without so much as a second thought is probably not the correct manner of approaching this issue--especially when, as you say yourself, that aloe expresses antimicrobial properties (http
/www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=149334).
But how does antimicrobial activities "sooth" fish. The word itself leans very heavily toward placebo, because, really, how can you tell how soothed a fish really is? You can ask people to rank it on a scale from 1 to 10, but even then the results are going to be all over the map. You can't even ask a fish, so how are you really going to know?
The bigger point is that here in the scientific section, we don't just accept anecdote, and I really, really want to see some evidence of how aloe vera helps fish before I am going to accept the post at face value. Because I don't believe that aloe vera does anything for fish at all, and I need to see some objective evidence that it does.
The bigger point is that here in the scientific section, we don't just accept anecdote, and I really, really want to see some evidence of how aloe vera helps fish before I am going to accept the post at face value. Because I don't believe that aloe vera does anything for fish at all, and I need to see some objective evidence that it does.
Jonathangerous
Fish Fanatic
"But how does antimicrobial activities "sooth" fish. The word itself leans very heavily toward placebo, because, really, how can you tell how soothed a fish really is?"
You’re playing the semantics game here. Don’t. What’s really being said here is that aloe extract aids in recovery of an ill fish, which is entirely plausible.
There are no papers mentioning mela/pima fix, alder cones, almond leaves, peat moss, etc etc etc, yet these are commonly used in the aquarium trade for medicinal purposes. Even if none of these work, they don’t damage the fish, so what’s the harm? Honestly, your whole argument is inane, because if you’re expecting publication level evidence for everything posted in the scientific section, there would be almost no posts. I already provided you with a study in which said extract exhibited antimicrobial properties. This should at least be enough for you to “accept” the possibility of aloe being used in a medicinal role in the aquarium hobby.
You’re playing the semantics game here. Don’t. What’s really being said here is that aloe extract aids in recovery of an ill fish, which is entirely plausible.
There are no papers mentioning mela/pima fix, alder cones, almond leaves, peat moss, etc etc etc, yet these are commonly used in the aquarium trade for medicinal purposes. Even if none of these work, they don’t damage the fish, so what’s the harm? Honestly, your whole argument is inane, because if you’re expecting publication level evidence for everything posted in the scientific section, there would be almost no posts. I already provided you with a study in which said extract exhibited antimicrobial properties. This should at least be enough for you to “accept” the possibility of aloe being used in a medicinal role in the aquarium hobby.
No. The semantics are vitally important. Don't tell me not to play that game, because the word choice is entirely the whole point.
In science, words take on very specific meaning separate from normal everyday use. The most significant example is science's use of the word "theory" versus common usage. Other examples would be how people casually toss about the word energy or momentum and the like, when they have very specific definitions. No physicist would accidentally use the word momentum when they meant energy because the two words have very different meanings.
Similarly, the word sooth has to have a very specific meaning. I already alluded to how the word would be used in a study involving humans. It is going to be similar to how pain studies and the like are done. In humans, the researchers would ask the people to rate their soothedness or rate their pain on a scale from 1 to 10. In a study, the researchers would also take great care to explain as fully as possible what they mean by "soothe" so that the respondents could answer as accurately as possible. This is almost exactly how anti-depressant drugs make it to the market -- the researchers ask the people how more or less depressed they are.
The argument is not inane, and bringing it up is pretty much an attack on this entire section. I never said that there was research-level papers on everything, but that doesn't mean that skepticism isn't completely justified. I am also actually very skeptical about Melafix and Pimafix and similar products. Almond leaves and peat moss have evidence behind them that they in fact do do something, so I am not as skeptical about them. The bigger point is that just because it says it does something on the side of the box, doesn't mean that it does anything.
This entire section exists so that there is a place to ask tougher questions and seek out answers to some of the harder questions. This section exists so that there is a place to say things like "I am skeptical about that claim" and not have it attacked in the very way that you did. This section exists to question these things that "everyone knows" deeper and see what ideas can and cannot be supported by objective evidence.
Lastly, about the claim itself, I have already accepted that aloe does have mild antimicrobial properties. I'm the one who posted that 1st, well before you joined the conversation! The bigger point is that I don't think that they necessarily help or do anything for fish in a fishtank. The antimicrobial power is already weak, and then you want to dilute it a large volume of water -- you are going to weaken the properties even more. Plus, what kind of microbes does it destroy? If it kills off filter bacteria that is probably worse than killing most harmful microbes in the tank.
You know what else has anti-microbial activity? Honey. Maybe we should all be putting honey into our tanks, too. And garlic. And copper. And oregano. And cumin. And chili peppers. All of these also have anti-microbial properties.
Just because adding aloe or any of these may "do no harm" certainly doesn't mean that they will do any good! And that's what this section is about, to find out the actual facts and not just accept what has been said before as truth. So, once again, I am skeptical that aloe does anything for a fishtank. If someone could provide some objective evidence, I'd like to see it.
In science, words take on very specific meaning separate from normal everyday use. The most significant example is science's use of the word "theory" versus common usage. Other examples would be how people casually toss about the word energy or momentum and the like, when they have very specific definitions. No physicist would accidentally use the word momentum when they meant energy because the two words have very different meanings.
Similarly, the word sooth has to have a very specific meaning. I already alluded to how the word would be used in a study involving humans. It is going to be similar to how pain studies and the like are done. In humans, the researchers would ask the people to rate their soothedness or rate their pain on a scale from 1 to 10. In a study, the researchers would also take great care to explain as fully as possible what they mean by "soothe" so that the respondents could answer as accurately as possible. This is almost exactly how anti-depressant drugs make it to the market -- the researchers ask the people how more or less depressed they are.
The argument is not inane, and bringing it up is pretty much an attack on this entire section. I never said that there was research-level papers on everything, but that doesn't mean that skepticism isn't completely justified. I am also actually very skeptical about Melafix and Pimafix and similar products. Almond leaves and peat moss have evidence behind them that they in fact do do something, so I am not as skeptical about them. The bigger point is that just because it says it does something on the side of the box, doesn't mean that it does anything.
This entire section exists so that there is a place to ask tougher questions and seek out answers to some of the harder questions. This section exists so that there is a place to say things like "I am skeptical about that claim" and not have it attacked in the very way that you did. This section exists to question these things that "everyone knows" deeper and see what ideas can and cannot be supported by objective evidence.
Lastly, about the claim itself, I have already accepted that aloe does have mild antimicrobial properties. I'm the one who posted that 1st, well before you joined the conversation! The bigger point is that I don't think that they necessarily help or do anything for fish in a fishtank. The antimicrobial power is already weak, and then you want to dilute it a large volume of water -- you are going to weaken the properties even more. Plus, what kind of microbes does it destroy? If it kills off filter bacteria that is probably worse than killing most harmful microbes in the tank.
You know what else has anti-microbial activity? Honey. Maybe we should all be putting honey into our tanks, too. And garlic. And copper. And oregano. And cumin. And chili peppers. All of these also have anti-microbial properties.
Just because adding aloe or any of these may "do no harm" certainly doesn't mean that they will do any good! And that's what this section is about, to find out the actual facts and not just accept what has been said before as truth. So, once again, I am skeptical that aloe does anything for a fishtank. If someone could provide some objective evidence, I'd like to see it.
Jonathangerous
Fish Fanatic
Here’s the deal—it is ridiculous to start policing everyone on this forum, requiring them to post in a scientifically sound manner. Most posters here aren’t scientists, and if you maintain the somewhat elitist disposition that you’ve been working with, then, well, you’re just going to drive everyone off.
Simply put, you know what she meant when she said what she said, yet you nitpick about word choice. Right now you’re arguing about the word “soothe” on a forum supposedly dedicated to scientific discussion. Think about how preposterous that sounds.
“Similarly, the word sooth has to have a very specific meaning.”
Nah, there is no actual “scientific” terminology that expressly fleshes out the meaning of the word in the first place, meaning you have no argumentative leg to stand on when you assert that she is misusing the word in an “unscientific” manner—the English language is malleable. You cannot bring unspecified word choice into scientific question because there is no science involved.
But if you really want to play that game—soothe, in the English language (not in scientific literatura) refers to mitigating, assuaging, or allaying some unspecified generally negative perception. As none was specified, we can insert just about anything in here---pain, suffering, sorrow, doubt, etc. Let’s say suffering. While this is, admittedly, a subjective term (just like anything that isn’t specifically designated by your so called science), it seems pithy enough to say that a fish that is currently harboring some form of illness is suffering. By aiding in recovery insofar as to destroy secondarily colonizing microbes (and subsequently speeding up the recovery process), we can say that, theoretically, aloe vera COULD have the potential to reduce the amount of time in which the fish was ill, thereby reducing its suffering, or soothing it, as it were.
“I am also actually very skeptical about Melafix and Pimafix and similar products. Almond leaves and peat moss have evidence behind them that they in fact do do something, so I am not as skeptical about them.”
But by your logic, how can you be? There is no literature backing up your claim. At least not one pertaining specifically to tropical ornamental fish. If you can’t practice what you preach, how can you expect everyone else to follow your guidelines? Fun tidbit—during one of my less productive days in the lab during the dog days of one summer, I applied melafix to 2% Ag complete media plates chock full of actinos (it was said somewhere, I recalled reading, that it wiped out myco, but I don’t really work with those, so something similar was the best I could come up with)—I forget which genera, but it pretty much wiped them out. So, at the very least, it is quite a potent antibacterial agent…which is just about the most that can be said for either peat moss or almond leaves themselves
“The bigger point is that I don't think that they necessarily help or do anything for fish in a fishtank.”
That’s fine. The problem is here not the fact that you challenged the statement, but rather that you refuted it based on semantic nitpicking, as well as the lack of published material on the subject. All I am saying is that this is bad science—that is perfectly within the grounds of this forum, which purportedly cultivates scientific discussion. Also, I should be noted that the good thing about AOB/NOB genera found in freshwater aquariums is that they are surprisingly resilient to antibiotics and the like.
“You know what else has anti-microbial activity? Honey. Maybe we should all be putting honey into our tanks, too. And garlic. And copper. And oregano. And cumin. And chili peppers. All of these also have anti-microbial properties.”
Who’s to say we shouldn’t? Just because there is nothing published on the material doesn’t mean it doesn’t work. That’s a logical fallacy on your part. You can discount these things, but if you’re going to do so, let it be something more substantial and less petty than what you posted.
“Just because adding aloe or any of these may "do no harm" certainly doesn't mean that they will do any good!”
I agree. In fact, in all likelihood, I believe you are probably right in that aloe extract does nothing for her setup. But the way you broadcasted this (in terms of bad science) was hypocritical enough that there was reason to point it out.
“And that's what this section is about, to find out the actual facts and not just accept what has been said before as truth.”
You are just as guilty of doing the latter as anyone here, though. Remember your spiel about almond leaves and peat moss? There’s no actual experimentation done on the organism subset in question (or so I assume. I could be wrong)---thus, by your reasoning, one could argue that there are no factual bases behind your claims, hence, that you’re in direct violation of the nonfactual treason clause you claim others to have perpetuated.
Also, you’re deluded if you think that a fish forum chock full of hobbyists is going to get down to the facts of everything posted here---and in a “scientific” manner, no less. Unless of course you have the means for biochemical analyses of aloe vera extract such that you’ll be able to isolate the aforementioned antimicrobial compounds in these leaves and subsequently publish said data. Just, idk, chill out a bit--this subforum is more for discussing the more technical aspects of the hobby. Not all at what you posted.
Simply put, you know what she meant when she said what she said, yet you nitpick about word choice. Right now you’re arguing about the word “soothe” on a forum supposedly dedicated to scientific discussion. Think about how preposterous that sounds.
“Similarly, the word sooth has to have a very specific meaning.”
Nah, there is no actual “scientific” terminology that expressly fleshes out the meaning of the word in the first place, meaning you have no argumentative leg to stand on when you assert that she is misusing the word in an “unscientific” manner—the English language is malleable. You cannot bring unspecified word choice into scientific question because there is no science involved.
But if you really want to play that game—soothe, in the English language (not in scientific literatura) refers to mitigating, assuaging, or allaying some unspecified generally negative perception. As none was specified, we can insert just about anything in here---pain, suffering, sorrow, doubt, etc. Let’s say suffering. While this is, admittedly, a subjective term (just like anything that isn’t specifically designated by your so called science), it seems pithy enough to say that a fish that is currently harboring some form of illness is suffering. By aiding in recovery insofar as to destroy secondarily colonizing microbes (and subsequently speeding up the recovery process), we can say that, theoretically, aloe vera COULD have the potential to reduce the amount of time in which the fish was ill, thereby reducing its suffering, or soothing it, as it were.
“I am also actually very skeptical about Melafix and Pimafix and similar products. Almond leaves and peat moss have evidence behind them that they in fact do do something, so I am not as skeptical about them.”
But by your logic, how can you be? There is no literature backing up your claim. At least not one pertaining specifically to tropical ornamental fish. If you can’t practice what you preach, how can you expect everyone else to follow your guidelines? Fun tidbit—during one of my less productive days in the lab during the dog days of one summer, I applied melafix to 2% Ag complete media plates chock full of actinos (it was said somewhere, I recalled reading, that it wiped out myco, but I don’t really work with those, so something similar was the best I could come up with)—I forget which genera, but it pretty much wiped them out. So, at the very least, it is quite a potent antibacterial agent…which is just about the most that can be said for either peat moss or almond leaves themselves
“The bigger point is that I don't think that they necessarily help or do anything for fish in a fishtank.”
That’s fine. The problem is here not the fact that you challenged the statement, but rather that you refuted it based on semantic nitpicking, as well as the lack of published material on the subject. All I am saying is that this is bad science—that is perfectly within the grounds of this forum, which purportedly cultivates scientific discussion. Also, I should be noted that the good thing about AOB/NOB genera found in freshwater aquariums is that they are surprisingly resilient to antibiotics and the like.
“You know what else has anti-microbial activity? Honey. Maybe we should all be putting honey into our tanks, too. And garlic. And copper. And oregano. And cumin. And chili peppers. All of these also have anti-microbial properties.”
Who’s to say we shouldn’t? Just because there is nothing published on the material doesn’t mean it doesn’t work. That’s a logical fallacy on your part. You can discount these things, but if you’re going to do so, let it be something more substantial and less petty than what you posted.
“Just because adding aloe or any of these may "do no harm" certainly doesn't mean that they will do any good!”
I agree. In fact, in all likelihood, I believe you are probably right in that aloe extract does nothing for her setup. But the way you broadcasted this (in terms of bad science) was hypocritical enough that there was reason to point it out.
“And that's what this section is about, to find out the actual facts and not just accept what has been said before as truth.”
You are just as guilty of doing the latter as anyone here, though. Remember your spiel about almond leaves and peat moss? There’s no actual experimentation done on the organism subset in question (or so I assume. I could be wrong)---thus, by your reasoning, one could argue that there are no factual bases behind your claims, hence, that you’re in direct violation of the nonfactual treason clause you claim others to have perpetuated.
Also, you’re deluded if you think that a fish forum chock full of hobbyists is going to get down to the facts of everything posted here---and in a “scientific” manner, no less. Unless of course you have the means for biochemical analyses of aloe vera extract such that you’ll be able to isolate the aforementioned antimicrobial compounds in these leaves and subsequently publish said data. Just, idk, chill out a bit--this subforum is more for discussing the more technical aspects of the hobby. Not all at what you posted.
Have you read the rules of the scientific section?
I know the answer is "no" based on your most recent post.
http/www.fishforums.net/index.php?showtopic=205832
This forum is 100% about asking people to back up statements. I don't have the time this morning, but I can find evidence for every one of my statements in the near future.
In the meantime, please read the rules of this section, and consider this a mini-warning in that if you can't follow the rules, then please don't post here.
I know the answer is "no" based on your most recent post.
http
/www.fishforums.net/index.php?showtopic=205832This forum is 100% about asking people to back up statements. I don't have the time this morning, but I can find evidence for every one of my statements in the near future.
In the meantime, please read the rules of this section, and consider this a mini-warning in that if you can't follow the rules, then please don't post here.
andywg
Bored into leaving
RTFM! 
More seriously:
That was exactly the reason for my suggesting that a scientific forum be instigated was so that there is a place where the actual science can be discussed in scientific terms without people trying to back up their claims with an english dictionary explanation of a specific term or semantic anecdote when science just does not support them (it was around the time I was bored of continually pointing out that the science available puts a safe level of nitrates at 400ppm and levels of 40-100ppm are all arbitrary).
More seriously:
That was exactly the reason for my suggesting that a scientific forum be instigated was so that there is a place where the actual science can be discussed in scientific terms without people trying to back up their claims with an english dictionary explanation of a specific term or semantic anecdote when science just does not support them (it was around the time I was bored of continually pointing out that the science available puts a safe level of nitrates at 400ppm and levels of 40-100ppm are all arbitrary).
Jonathangerous
Fish Fanatic
"This forum is 100% about asking people to back up statements. I don't have the time this morning, but I can find evidence for every one of my statements in the near future."
I would very much like to see you back up every one of your claims. Especially in the very detailed way you outlined an article as being "acceptable" as proof. I have done a very prelimiary search on the university proxy here via web of sience and pubmed, as well as googledocs, and have found nothing pertaining specifically to ornamental tropical fish. I'm not saying I'm necessarily right. And if there do exist such articles, contrary to being angry, I would be more than happy to admit I'm wrong, because there would be interesting pieces of literature to read. And when this happens, everyone wins.
As I have stated in PM form, if you do infract me, I will appeal. I am merely debating what constitutes good and bad science, which is totally what the "scientific subforum" is about. I am neither disrespecting nor insulting anyone--I am just pinpointing the fallacies within the logic shown here. That's it.
The forum rules also state that you should be able to back up supposed claims with "some semblance of fact". She could, and I did. The problem is that, somewhere down the road, you mistakenly equated "some semblance" to; "find an article in scientific literatura which directly implicates the exact scenarios in question and comes up with the exact same results". These are not two comparable things, and therefore your logic in unsound.
More stringently on topic--more appropriately, if you aim to seek to dispel this assumption, where is the scientifically published evidence to back up your claim that aloe extract does NOT "soothe" fish? Now do you see the inherent ludicrousness in thinking in this manner? Scientific literature should be used as ammo, but not exclusively as the ONLY way to procure a defense--science is not about namedropping. It's about novel discussion. You can't quote a novel idea if it's just that.
"...english dictionary explanation of a specific term or semantic anecdote when science just does not support them (it was around the time I was bored of continually pointing out that the science available puts a safe level of nitrates at 400ppm and levels of 40-100ppm are all arbitrary)."
That's exactly what the aforementioned mod was doing. He was picking apart the post based on semantics, before I had posted anything--even by self admission. As I specifically stated, if I HAD to stoop down to the semantics level, I could still prove him wrong, which I did. Also, if you weren't aware, there was an article linked above implicating aloe extract with antimicrobial activity--in fact, just because science does not mention anything about it, doesn't mean the particular scenario is an implausible one. The only scenario that that precludes is the one where the poster is unequivocally incorrect. Read your own manual, bro.
I would very much like to see you back up every one of your claims. Especially in the very detailed way you outlined an article as being "acceptable" as proof. I have done a very prelimiary search on the university proxy here via web of sience and pubmed, as well as googledocs, and have found nothing pertaining specifically to ornamental tropical fish. I'm not saying I'm necessarily right. And if there do exist such articles, contrary to being angry, I would be more than happy to admit I'm wrong, because there would be interesting pieces of literature to read. And when this happens, everyone wins.
As I have stated in PM form, if you do infract me, I will appeal. I am merely debating what constitutes good and bad science, which is totally what the "scientific subforum" is about. I am neither disrespecting nor insulting anyone--I am just pinpointing the fallacies within the logic shown here. That's it.
The forum rules also state that you should be able to back up supposed claims with "some semblance of fact". She could, and I did. The problem is that, somewhere down the road, you mistakenly equated "some semblance" to; "find an article in scientific literatura which directly implicates the exact scenarios in question and comes up with the exact same results". These are not two comparable things, and therefore your logic in unsound.
More stringently on topic--more appropriately, if you aim to seek to dispel this assumption, where is the scientifically published evidence to back up your claim that aloe extract does NOT "soothe" fish? Now do you see the inherent ludicrousness in thinking in this manner? Scientific literature should be used as ammo, but not exclusively as the ONLY way to procure a defense--science is not about namedropping. It's about novel discussion. You can't quote a novel idea if it's just that.
"...english dictionary explanation of a specific term or semantic anecdote when science just does not support them (it was around the time I was bored of continually pointing out that the science available puts a safe level of nitrates at 400ppm and levels of 40-100ppm are all arbitrary)."
That's exactly what the aforementioned mod was doing. He was picking apart the post based on semantics, before I had posted anything--even by self admission. As I specifically stated, if I HAD to stoop down to the semantics level, I could still prove him wrong, which I did. Also, if you weren't aware, there was an article linked above implicating aloe extract with antimicrobial activity--in fact, just because science does not mention anything about it, doesn't mean the particular scenario is an implausible one. The only scenario that that precludes is the one where the poster is unequivocally incorrect. Read your own manual, bro.
andywg
Bored into leaving
Oh I'm sorry, I must have missed the link to a peer reviewed article supporting your argument.
You made a claim, you back it up. Simple.
There is still no support to the claim that Aloe Vera actually has benefit in the fish tank. It has been established that it probably does no harm, but that was not the claim. There has been some claimed support for the original statement without any real thought for causality.
I'm sorry, but you will have to much further than the above to claim your point is supported.
You made a claim, you back it up. Simple.
There is still no support to the claim that Aloe Vera actually has benefit in the fish tank. It has been established that it probably does no harm, but that was not the claim. There has been some claimed support for the original statement without any real thought for causality.
I'm sorry, but you will have to much further than the above to claim your point is supported.
No, you have this very, very backwards. I do NOT have to provide evidence that aloe does not soothe fish. This is not the way science works. Science does NOT have to accept every claim until it can be conclusively proved wrong.
I can prove this with one simple example: I claim that I have an invisible dancing unicorn that has every versus of the Vulgate memorized living in my backyard. Go ahead, try to dispel this assumption. THIS is the ludicrous point of view, and science rejects claims like this. Science is completely skeptical in that a statement like this had to have supporting evidence before it is believed.
So, once again, I want to see evidence that aloe "soothes" fish. It doesn't have to be a peer-reviewed scientific journal article, there are other levels of evidence. The point is that all we have at this point is a single anecdote. That is not evidence. All I want is evidence. That isn't too much to ask.
Most reactions
-
244 -
218 -
156 -
151 -
120 -
97 -
96 -
85 -
85 -
83 -
80 -
80 -
79 -
76 -
59
