A review and discussion on the research of Dr. Peter Rubec

[MaryHM]

John,

I really wanted to keep my mouth shut about this, but can't. What in the world does all of what you just posted have to do with Peter's study?? Absolutely NOTHING. And all it will serve to do is cause even more aggravation and frustration- something we definitely do not need. We all have a hard enough time discussing the issues we basically agree on. We don't need to venture down the "God vs. evolution" path. If you want to discuss creationism, take it to the sump. It has no place in the industry forum.

 

[PeterIMA]

John, I agree that all alternatives should be considered. I guess that is why the MAC does not support using the CDT for law enforcement associated with testing done by BFAR? It is just to "greenwash" MAC certified exporters.

Right?

 

[mkirda]

Peter Rubec said: My estimates for the mortality are rough averages at each step of the chain.

I think you and Peter need to "talk" before you go and characterize what he says. He is a research scientist and his words in print and on this forum are supposed to mean things. They are supposed to correlate to the real world.

Average means average, not "upper estimates".

John,

With all due respect, I think I can characterize what I was told in private telephone conversations. It is due to our 'talking' that I had input into this thread at all.

Peter,

You can easily clarify this issue here. It is possible that I did not understand you properly, or that I recall things differently. Was my characterization wrong in any way? I would much rather be wrong and corrected than let this doubt hang in the air.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[John_Brandt]

John,

I really wanted to keep my mouth shut about this, but can't. What in the world does all of what you just posted have to do with Peter's study?? Absolutely NOTHING. And all it will serve to do is cause even more aggravation and frustration- something we definitely do not need. We all have a hard enough time discussing the issues we basically agree on. We don't need to venture down the "God vs. evolution" path. If you want to discuss creationism, take it to the sump. It has no place in the industry forum.

Mary, it's non-trivial background information about the scientific mindsets of those who would do critical reviews.

Peter thought I had screwed up my math and recommended I go back to school. I told a story about how I did quite well in school. If it bored you I'm sorry. I'm not here for your entertainment. We are human beings in this forum, and no matter how serious we may be about a topic humans relate to other humans on a range of issues. Evolution vs. creationism has nothing to do with Peter's data or conclusions, but it has everything to do with a certain way of relating to another mind. I wonder if bonding is lost on you.

 

[PeterIMA]

Mike, You were wrong if you thought that the 30% figures or the 60% east coast figures were upper bounds. John Brandt is right when he states that an average is the middle of a statistical distribution. In this case, you are right that the data used to derive these "averages" is anecdotal (personal communications from those in the trade in the mid-1980s), rather than a rigorous quantitative study. A more detailed quantitative study is needed.

John, I agree that revealing something about yourself does help me understand where you are coming from. I see a human being who does not agree with everything that the MAC has been doing or not doing.

PS What aspects of evolution interest you. I am interested in human evolution (e.g., the fossil record).

Peter

 

[mkirda]

Mike, You were wrong if you thought that the 30% figures or the 60% east coast figures were upper bounds. John Brandt is right when he states that an average is the middle of a statistical distribution. In this case, you are right that the data used to derive these "averages" is anecdotal (personal communications from those in the trade in the mid-1980s), rather than a rigorous quantitative study. A more detailed quantitative study is needed.

Then I stand corrected. My misunderstanding that these were upper bounds rather than averages.

I hope that you are able to gather additional data, at least on the US side, to enable you to do this rigorous quantitative study.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[PeterIMA]

Mike, Thanks for your suggestions/support. Yes, I would be willing to work with anyone in the trade and hobby to gather more up-to-date data.

It is not my intention to make the trade look bad. I do wish to gather and publish accurate data concerning mortality in the trade (as I stated in my Net-Caught Cyanide-Free paper).

 

[Anonymous]

John,

Mike Kirda made reference earlier in this thread to comments that Dave Voseller made at IMAC about the MAC CDT program. Mike relayed that Dave said that MAC is going to implement the IMA ISE CDT "as is". Based on the MAC second quarter news (reproduced below) it appears that the CDT will not be exactly the same test that the IMA developed. I based this assumption due to the CDT implementation rate and the fact that BFAR is working with Merck to test "potential methods". Seems to me that if the IMA proceedure was going to be implemented as in the past these things would not need to be done.

I was wondering whether Dave has an intement knowledge of the MAC CDT program or whether his IMA CDT comment was an off-hand remark?

Sincerely,
Lee

Cyanide Detection Test Plan Completed; Lab Work to Begin

Implementation of a workable and reliable cyanide detection test (CDT) system is a very high priority for MAC, and an Action Plan for achieving this goal was developed in the first part of 2003. The CDT Action Plan follows months of consultations with government agencies and universities in several countries, involves several partners and is moving forward as the capacity of the partners allows. A Letter of Intent was signed with the Philippines Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) to undertake testing of potential methods, and laboratory work is scheduled to commence in July 2003.

"MAC is grateful for the full cooperation and participation of BFAR including use of their test laboratory and staff and of Merck Philippines for their loan of staff, test equipment and reagents for this first phase of the project," notes MAC Certification Systems Director Peter Scott.

 

[John_Brandt]

MAC made the announcement back in May that it would be running in six weeks. The deadline came, then they said two more weeks, and that the delay was at BFAR's request. No one has bothered asking them yet what is up, even though that two week time window was surpassed maybe two weeks ago...

Mike, the delay was at BFAR and Merck's request. That is stated in the MAC CDT Update posted in this forum.

MAC's involvement in this is primarily to facilitate a working relationship between BFAR and Merck (the manufacturer of the test and reagents). A comprehensive series of tests and experiments involving more than one method are part of what Merck is doing at the BFAR Quezon City Lab.

These procedures may or may not be completed by now. I have had no email contact with Manila for some time now. A series of typhoons have passed through over the past few weeks. A super typhoon hit the Philippines earlier this week with at least 21 dead, some were near and at Luzon and some were in Mindanao. MAC has no interest in stalling or delaying the progress towards a good CDT test for BFAR to administer.

Once again I will state that the dates in the MAC CDT Memos are not so much deadlines as they are goals. Why so many people on this board wish to call those dates deadlines is beyond me. They are internally set goals, and intelligent people realize that not everything works according to plans. Sometimes goals are missed by considerable lengths of time especially when much is out of the hands of MAC.

It is critical that Merck take the initiative of establishing the functionality and feasibility of a reliable CDT test. MAC Staff are not scientists qualified to administer these tests, and any direct involvement by MAC would surely be grounds for anyone to make whatever claims they might wish about propriety.

My questions and comments in this thread that are related to CDT reliability have nothing to do with MAC and everything to do with my extreme surprise at Rubec's positive results on fishes that I assume are not caught with cyanide. It's worth questioning - and that's what I'm doing.

 

[John_Brandt]

Cyaniding clownfish,
Illogical you say? Easy to catch by hand? Can't imagine doing it?
It is illogical to apply foreign logic here. Many clownfish are collected by younger divers and those not after better and deeper fish. Many kids are given cyanide to collect whatever they chance upon. Clowns, cowfish, damsels, gobies etc. Although these fishes are also collected without cyanide in places, its not always the case.
More damaging however to the clownfish population is the wipeout of anenomes whereever they occur. Carpets, sebaes, bubbles, ritteris have been decimated in many areas. The market for them is high as people want them to go with their tank-raised clownfish, allowing pretense to environmentalism.
Many amenomes are old ie 20 years and more. Their removal denies generation after generation of wild clownfishes rendering the aquaculture of clownfish a dubious 'environmental' achievement.
Sincerely, Steve

It has been found that if clownfish are removed from an anemone the anemone becomes highly vulnerable to predation. Many butterflyfish specialize in eating anemones and the resident clownfish are the only protection the anemone has against these opportunistic feeders.

I seem to recall Daphne Fautin in a lecture saying that within 15 minutes of removing the resident clowns, a large symbiotic anemone was totally decimated by butterflyfish.

 

[John_Brandt]

John, I agree that all alternatives should be considered. I guess that is why the MAC does not support using the CDT for law enforcement associated with testing done by BFAR? It is just to "greenwash" MAC certified exporters.

Right?

Peter,

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. MAC is taking the initiative to have BFAR evaluate and adopt a reliable test in conjunction with Merck. BFAR is obviously the Philippine government agency that would do the enforcing and prosecuting, not MAC. It would therefore seem that if any "greenwashing" were to occur it would have to be perpetuated by BFAR. Are you ultimately suggesting that BFAR would want to "greenwash"?

 

[John_Brandt]

Mike, You were wrong if you thought that the 30% figures or the 60% east coast figures were upper bounds. John Brandt is right when he states that an average is the middle of a statistical distribution. In this case, you are right that the data used to derive these "averages" is anecdotal (personal communications from those in the trade in the mid-1980s), rather than a rigorous quantitative study. A more detailed quantitative study is needed.

John, I agree that revealing something about yourself does help me understand where you are coming from. I see a human being who does not agree with everything that the MAC has been doing or not doing.

Peter,

I think that you are dealing with the criticisms in this thread in a professional manner. It's worth mentioning that not all of the data was compiled by yourself. In the end, a realistic picture of the world can only be attained by the kind of process that is happening in this thread. Gather information and data, present it in an understandable and meaningful manner, allow for dissemination and critique working collectively towards a more accurate understanding of the world.

You have been willing to admit to errors and the inclusion of anecdotal evidence when better information was not readily available. I doubt that very many reports that deal in complex statistical analyses are perfect right from the start. The aquarium industry is primarily a commercial one, not a scientific one. Most people have more profitable things to do than spend much time looking for errors or inconsistencies in reports like yours. And that is not meant to be an offense to anyone.

 

[John_Brandt]

John,

Mike Kirda made reference earlier in this thread to comments that Dave Voseller made at IMAC about the MAC CDT program. Mike relayed that Dave said that MAC is going to implement the IMA ISE CDT "as is". Based on the MAC second quarter news (reproduced below) it appears that the CDT will not be exactly the same test that the IMA developed. I based this assumption due to the CDT implementation rate and the fact that BFAR is working with Merck to test "potential methods". Seems to me that if the IMA proceedure was going to be implemented as in the past these things would not need to be done.

I was wondering whether Dave has an intement knowledge of the MAC CDT program or whether his IMA CDT comment was an off-hand remark?

Sincerely,
Lee

Cyanide Detection Test Plan Completed; Lab Work to Begin

Implementation of a workable and reliable cyanide detection test (CDT) system is a very high priority for MAC, and an Action Plan for achieving this goal was developed in the first part of 2003. The CDT Action Plan follows months of consultations with government agencies and universities in several countries, involves several partners and is moving forward as the capacity of the partners allows. A Letter of Intent was signed with the Philippines Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) to undertake testing of potential methods, and laboratory work is scheduled to commence in July 2003.

"MAC is grateful for the full cooperation and participation of BFAR including use of their test laboratory and staff and of Merck Philippines for their loan of staff, test equipment and reagents for this first phase of the project," notes MAC Certification Systems Director Peter Scott.

Lee,

The conversation that Mike spoke of was between David Vosseler, Mike Kirda, Steve Robinson and myself having lunch at IMAC. We are all non-specialists when it comes to things like CDTs. I can't remember exactly what David said, but it doesn't much matter now. That was almost 3 months ago. I'll just comment on what you have suggested and what I know.

The 2 MAC CDT memos that I posted in this forum are the most accurate narrative of what is going on. Merck and BFAR are (or did) working together to evaluate a number of CDT methodologies. One of these is the "IMA ISE CDT" that you speak of and that Peter is most familiar with. Whatever methodology turns out to be the best to use is up to Merck and BFAR. We should expect objective analysis by the scientists who actually make and work with the test itself, namely Merck staff scientists.

A memo or report on their findings and conclusions should be expected next. That report may possibly come directly from Merck. That there is more than one phase to this process may mean that any initial report is preliminary or subject to further analysis. Would you agree that it is better to do this correctly regardless of how long it takes, rather than to do it quickly with disregard to thorough analysis?

All of this is my characterization of what is going on. I am not privy to the day-to-day details of these evaluation procedures as they are (or have been) occuring.

 

[PeterIMA]

John, I have a problem with the MAC suggesting there was something wrong with the CDT work done by IMA. The MAC expert panel was mostly made up of sincere persons asked to review an SOP. However, one individual who tried to repeat the procedure made serious errors and reached wrong conclusions. Consequently, the document created by Paul Holthus had serious flaws and wrongly concluded that the CDT/ISE method was flawed. He was provided with a formal rebuttal that he never acknowledged. He has not publicly admitted he was wrong.

The repercussions were serious. The IMA lost its contract with BFAR and over 50 IMA chemists and biologists associated with the 6 CDT laboratories and 4 Marine Inspection Sampling offices lost their jobs. Since the SOP was reliable (as testified by 3 experts that reviewed all the documentation-including two experts from the MAC panel), I have right to be bitter about this. The MAC helped to destroy the CDT network.

Now the MAC says they are working with Merck to develop a new cyanide testing procedure. It remains to be seen wheather this will meet with approval through "Peer" review. I would like that panel to be more impartial that the one created by MAC, and above scientific reproach.

You wrongly stated that BFAR being the government agency doing CDT would use it for law enforcement. Actually, BFAR has no law enforcement arm. The law enforcement officials like the Philippine Constabulary, Navy, and municipal officials are upset that IMA chemists are no longer available to help support enforcement of Philippine laws against destructive fishing (including the illegal use of cyanide). They are not satisfied with the present CDT work being conducted by BFAR.

BFAR's Director Malcolm Sarmiento has admitted to me that they don't have sufficient funds to run CDT laboratories. Coming up with another test proceedure will not change that fact.

Peter Rubec

 

[dizzy]

Mike, Thanks for your suggestions/support. Yes, I would be willing to work with anyone in the trade and hobby to gather more up-to-date data.

It is not my intention to make the trade look bad. I do wish to gather and publish accurate data concerning mortality in the trade (as I stated in my Net-Caught Cyanide-Free paper).

Peter,
I am going to list three reasons why the trade may not want to give you the data that you seek.
1. Some stores may not keep accurate records on DOA/DAA statisics. They can't give it to you if they don't have it, and may not want to admit it.
2. Some stores may use false DOAs or DAAs as a method to cheat the sales tax and also income tax. A cash sale on an expensive fish can be made to look like a DOA or DAA, and the money can be pocketed. While I think this practice would be more commonplace at small stores like Jenn's or Judy's that don't have many employees, this may well explain the 60% "reported" on the East Coast. :wink: :lol:
3. I think a lot of stores, myself included, feel this information could get into the wrong hands. Groups like PETA come to mind. Wayne also seems to be keenly interested in this type of data.

It is worth noting that John did not get back with a report on DOA/DAA stats of the early MAC fish after it was requested by myself and seconded by Jenn. It is also worth noting that MAC is not requiring MAC certified dealers to compile data on non-MAC fish. That revelation surprised the heck out of me. It would seem that MAC realizes that this sensitive information does have the potential to be used to make the industry look bad. Good luck in getting accurate data.

 

[mkirda]

It is also worth noting that MAC is not requiring MAC certified dealers to compile data on non-MAC fish. That revelation surprised the heck out of me. It would seem that MAC realizes that this sensitive information does have the potential to be used to make the industry look bad. Good luck in getting accurate data.

Mitch,

Realize that it could also be used to make MAC-certified fish look bad.
Imagine for a second that the MAC-certified fish experience a higher DOA/DAA rate than non-MAC certified fish... How would they explain it?

Of course, without the statistics, there is no way to compare them.
So they can avoid looking bad. Therein lies the rub. It also avoids them looking good...

I'm still trying to understand who will examine the statistics that the MAC-certified exporters/importers and stores are supposed to be compiling. Based on conversations with some of the exporters, it doesn't appear that anyone does... I'm hoping that this will change. It is sort of meaningless if statistics are gathered and never looked at again.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[mkirda]

Greetings, all.

I talked to Peter about this thread last night.

One thing that needs to be said: The statistics presented, while anecdotal, were not particularly bad.

What do I mean by this? When you take a poll, the number of people polled has a lot to do with how accurate the data should be. If you ask ten people a question (n=10), your numbers are based on pretty shakey ground.
In this study, 300 retailers were polled. That number is significant, as it represents a significant percentage of the total number of fish stores in the US.

This was not a study where Peter called up five stores and happened to get the five worst ones. :wink:

In all honesty, the numbers do seem high to me as well, for this leg of the supply chain. I would love to see it broken down as Mary suggests, into transhippers vs. wholesalers. I can see how this could potentially affect the data gathered.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[John_Brandt]

It is also worth noting that MAC is not requiring MAC certified dealers to compile data on non-MAC fish. That revelation surprised the heck out of me. It would seem that MAC realizes that this sensitive information does have the potential to be used to make the industry look bad. Good luck in getting accurate data.

Mitch,

Realize that it could also be used to make MAC-certified fish look bad.
Imagine for a second that the MAC-certified fish experience a higher DOA/DAA rate than non-MAC certified fish... How would they explain it?

Of course, without the statistics, there is no way to compare them.
So they can avoid looking bad. Therein lies the rub. It also avoids them looking good...

I'm still trying to understand who will examine the statistics that the MAC-certified exporters/importers and stores are supposed to be compiling. Based on conversations with some of the exporters, it doesn't appear that anyone does... I'm hoping that this will change. It is sort of meaningless if statistics are gathered and never looked at again.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

I might satisfy both Mitch's and Mike's messages with this reply.

I have previously stated the "fate" of the mortality data that MAC Certified facilities must compile here:


Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2003 10:52 am

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think that Kyle is supposed to be keeping detailed records of mortality. These are at some point to be submitted to, compiled and analyzed by the Global Marine Aquarium Database-GMAD.

Look here: http://www.unep-wcmc.org/marine/GMAD/description.html

Because there would be a proprietary element to this data (especially if it is tied to the identity of a facility) it is yet unclear how this may be presented publicly. This data however, is critical to MAC for the purpose of spotting irregularities such as consistent de-Certifications of batches (from mortality) coming from a particular facility.

MAC will not be compiling the data, as you can imagine the enormous amount when there are hundreds (or thousands) of Certified facilities. WCMC/GMAD is equipped and designed to handle this, not MAC.

I can't yet give you GMAD-generated data on MAC Certified mortalities, but I can relay direct testimonials from MAC Certified facilities. Since these facilities are required to keep mortality data (and eventually provide it to GMAD) they could provide the raw data themselves. However, they may not wish to for proprietary reasons.

One thing cannot be kept secret by them....if MAC Certified batches exceed the mortality limits they become de-Certified and cannot be sold (or advertised) as MAC Certified. IOW, if a fish is MAC Certified it tells you about the mortality that its batch experienced.

 

[mkirda]

One thing cannot be kept secret by them....if MAC Certified batches exceed the mortality limits they become de-Certified and cannot be sold (or advertised) as MAC Certified. IOW, if a fish is MAC Certified it tells you about the mortality that its batch experienced.

How would this be enforced, John?

As I understand it, compliance would be voluntary. Sure, MAC can say that you must do it, but I don't quite understand how what MAC says has any 'teeth' here. It certainly is not spelled out anywhere in their standards.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[dizzy]

When you take a poll, the number of people polled has a lot to do with how accurate the data should be. If you ask ten people a question (n=10), your numbers are based on pretty shakey ground.
In this study, 300 retailers were polled. That number is significant, as it represents a significant percentage of the total number of fish stores in the US.

This was not a study where Peter called up five stores and happened to get the five worst ones. :wink:
Mike Kirda

Mike I'm a far cry from the bean counter type personality, but I have a question or two for Peter about the poll. Is he saying that 300 people responded to the poll, or is he saying they were sent questionaires? I have seen the some of the APPMA Surveys that have been published on differrent aspects of the industry. The typical response to such surveys is very low indeed. It could be partly blamed on apathy, or perhaps people in this industry are just plain over worked. I personally don't remember ever responding to such survey questions on DOA/DAA, and I don't really remember being asked either. I would be very surprised if 300 people actually provided good data. 8O Very surprised. 8O 8O