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

[MaryHM]

Mortality at the retail level of marine fish was on average: 60% on the east coast,

This number makes absolutely no sense to me. Retailers participating in the survey would not know which fish were caught with cyanide and which weren't, and probably not even know the country of origin for most of their species. So we can assume they were saying 60% across the board. Here's why that makes NO sense.

A retailer in NC places a $1000 order from a wholesaler in LA. His freight charges will be about $140.

60% of $1000 is $600, so we can assume the retailer ends up with $400 worth of saleable fish. Let's assume he uses a 3x markup (about average for the industry). He now has $1200 worth of sales on that $400 worth of fish.
$1200 gross profit-$1140 cog+freight= $60 net profit. That wouldn't even cover the electricity, space, water, food, employees, etc... So in effect, every retailer on the east coast would be LOSING money on every shipment of fish. I just can't believe that is true. Even when we have airline delays, leaving the fish in the bags for 50-60 hours, we rarely have 60% DOA on fish. [/quote]

 

[John_Brandt]

It is of interest that for the past 20 years, no one in the trade has attempted to contradict this by providing other data or claimed that I was wrong.

Although you may find this interesting it says nothing about why nobody has contradicted or challenged your figures.

A lack of peer review does not imply that a peer review would be fruitless or futile.

 

[clarionreef]

You better change that subtitle!
Are you crazy John? How childish can you get?
How dare you make a subtitle like that!
Time to blow the whistle on John B. Paul H. or Dave V. or whatever would be welcome then.
I can see that someone came to their senses in the last 4 minutes...Thankyou!
Steve Robinson, AMDA president

 

[John_Brandt]

It kills me when I read about clownfish testing positive for cyanide exposure: There is absolutely no need for it! Even I, a city boy with limited diving experience and absolutely zero fish collection experience, could collect clownfish with my bare hands, no net required. My understanding of mandarin fish habitat and life history leads me to the same conclusion: There is no reason why they should be caught with cyanide either...

Mike,

In the enterprise of science one is not supposed to assume anything.... including getting positive results from a CDT administered on a fish that was not caught with cyanide.

 

[dizzy]

It kills me when I read about clownfish testing positive for cyanide exposure: There is absolutely no need for it! Even I, a city boy with limited diving experience and absolutely zero fish collection experience, could collect clownfish with my bare hands, no net required. My understanding of mandarin fish habitat and life history leads me to the same conclusion: There is no reason why they should be caught with cyanide either...
Regards.
Mike Kirda

Mike if you had been paying attention( to Steve) we have been told that mandarins can not tolerate cyanide and they are never captured that way. I also doubt that catching clownfish with the barehand would be as easy as you suggest. Finally I have heard that cyanide was very expensive and to suggest that clownfish are captured this way seems foolhardy. Nets yes, barehands doubtful, cyanide very doubtful. The numbers on the DOA information are so far out there it is mindboggling. It seems like a lack of common sense allows a lot of total BS to get entered into the literature.

 

[John_Brandt]

You better change that subtitle!
Are you crazy John? How childish can you get?
How dare you make a subtitle like that!
Time to blow the whistle on John B. Paul H. or Dave V. or whatever would be welcome then.
I can see that someone came to their senses in the last 4 minutes...Thankyou!
Steve Robinson, AMDA president

Steve, I used "whistle-blowing" as a synonym for peer review.

 

[John_Brandt]

It seems like a lack of common sense allows a lot of total BS to get entered into the literature.

Mitch, this problem extends to all aspects of science. The most unfortunate outcome of hundreds of thousands of scientific papers being published annually is that there is often no time or motivation for proper peer review. Research goes straight to press.

 

[clarionreef]

Guys,
To be fair to Dr. Rubec,
I saw for myself a field report in the Philippines done by a biologist named Vic Albaladejo for the Bureau of Fisheries that indicated a full and mindboggling 50% mortality from initial catch to exporter sales!
I couldn't belive how anyone could remain viable doing work that poorly. Then I lived and trained in the village of Albaladejos study for 2 years and came to know the truth of this. In our group we cut our mortalities to 2-3% and the rejected fish in Manila to another 4-5%.
This was from the mid 80's.

Imagine the damage to fish caused by holding pen abrasion, lack of decompression, ammonia poisoning, low oxygen and heat in the bags.
Those issues became the focus of our experience and the challenges of our lives to solve.
However, I cannot imagine first poisoning the fish with cyanide and then subjecting it to all those other assaults on its life.
That made the 50% mortality figure quite real.
It was precisely our dramatic improvements in mortality reduction that won over other divers and caused them to join us and convert.
I know this stuff better than anything else in the world and can't wait to get back into training again.
Steve

 

[clarionreef]

Peer review in lieu of whistle blowing??

But when you wipe away the mud you still can't make out the word 'peer review.'
Steve
.

 

[John_Brandt]

Scientific peer review is not for the squeamish.

Steve, did you want to hand out barf bags to anyone reading this thread?

 

[clarionreef]

Dear Kalk,
Ooops, I mean John. [ that last witty retort threw me]
Peer review is something you do not want at MAC right now.
You do not want it in Camotes Island or Buhol. We can let amatuerish, incompetent and unprofessional activity to go forth there for the sake of peace but thats all it is.
Peer review, by professionals? Give me a break! The non productivity of the enterprise of non important and unremarkable fish in both quantity, quality and variety has been symbolic. Yes, after 20 years, its 'a start'.
The same effort and expenditure in professional hands would've trained 10 times more by now and then the certified stores wouldn't have to keep selling cyanide fish to keep their variety up while waiting for more areas to come on line.
Peer review? You guys do not want peer review believe me.
Steve

 

[John_Brandt]

Steve, why are you obviously trying to deflect the focus of the issue?

This has nothing to do with MAC. This is about the review of research of Rubec by John Brandt. Half of the MAC staff are out in Fiji, Indonesia and New York right now. The few in the offices in Hawaii are still asleep. I haven't had real conversation with any of them in days. For all I know, they don't give a hoot about what Rubec writes.

My argument and Kalkbreath's are entirely different. His motivation seems to be to downplay the harm of cyanide. My motivation is to more accurately define it. I have no problem with the underlying thesis - that cyanide harms reefs and the fish that it is used to capture. I only have a problem with the ways that Peter uses to quantify and characterize it.

 

[mkirda]

In the enterprise of science one is not supposed to assume anything.... including getting positive results from a CDT administered on a fish that was not caught with cyanide.

In that case, why use a CDT at all, John?
This isn't going to degenerate further, is it?

The only other plausible alternative hypothesis is that the CDT doesn't work.

If this is true, why would MAC support a CDT that doesn't work?

I really don't think that this thread has a direction. It just sort of meanders from asking why Peter's numbers have changed over time, to insinuating that the MAC-supported CDT doesn't work. What gives?
Is there a point to this? Forgive me if I don't see the connection.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[clarionreef]

Off topic?
I took it to be one of a serious topic: Peer review.
If the notion of professional peer review is to be applied to Dr. Rubecs findings of high mortality in Philippine fishes, I think the notion of peer review is very relevant in general to his detractors.
Steve

 

[John_Brandt]

Guys,
To be fair to Dr. Rubec,
I saw for myself a field report in the Philippines done by a biologist named Vic Albaladejo for the Bureau of Fisheries that indicated a full and mindboggling 50% mortality from initial catch to exporter sales!
I couldn't belive how anyone could remain viable doing work that poorly. Then I lived and trained in the village of Albaladejos study for 2 years and came to know the truth of this. In our group we cut our mortalities to 2-3% and the rejected fish in Manila to another 4-5%.
This was from the mid 80's.

Imagine the damage to fish caused by holding pen abrasion, lack of decompression, ammonia poisoning, low oxygen and heat in the bags.
Those issues became the focus of our experience and the challenges of our lives to solve.
However, I cannot imagine first poisoning the fish with cyanide and then subjecting it to all those other assaults on its life.
That made the 50% mortality figure quite real.
It was precisely our dramatic improvements in mortality reduction that won over other divers and caused them to join us and convert.
I know this stuff better than anything else in the world and can't wait to get back into training again.
Steve

Steve, you say that a 50% mortality before delivery to the exporter is astonishing, but it is still lower than what Rubec claims.

He suggests a 50% mortality at the moment of exposure. Then he suggests an additional 30% mortality while in the possession of the collector prior to delivery to the exporter. This is a cumulative mortality of 65% prior to delivery to the exporter.

Rubec has also suggested an additional "wild card" of a middleman, at which he suggests another 30% succumb. This means 50% at moment of exposure, 30% in the possession of the collector, and 30% in the possession of the middleman. This is a cumulative mortality of 76% prior to delivery to the exporter.

Statistical analysis is an important part of scientific research. This must be included in any meaningful peer review.

 

[mkirda]

Mike if you had been paying attention( to Steve) we have been told that mandarins can not tolerate cyanide and they are never captured that way. I also doubt that catching clownfish with the barehand would be as easy as you suggest. Finally I have heard that cyanide was very expensive and to suggest that clownfish are captured this way seems foolhardy. Nets yes, barehands doubtful, cyanide very doubtful. The numbers on the DOA information are so far out there it is mindboggling. It seems like a lack of common sense allows a lot of total BS to get entered into the literature.

Mitch,

If you had been paying attention, you would also have read that a certain percentage of mandarins have tested positive for cyanide. Either you believe the results, or you believe that the test is flawed: There is no other option here.

As for capturing clownfish, yes, I believe I could easily do it with my bare hands. Might get slightly stung, but they are not difficult to capture when inside an anemone. Certainly a net would be easier still, but in absence of a net, hands should work nicely...

As for the numbers, yes, they are mindboggling.
Go out into the islands sometime: You will find that they are not so mindboggling crazy afterwards. Realize that these are upward estimates, not givens on each and every shipment.

Why is this crucial point not recognized already?

If a shipment is coming by ferry, for example, mortality rates from collector to exporter might be typically less than 5%. During times when the seas are rough, they will climb higher. During times when the seas are extremely rough, mortality has been known to approach 100%, with some shipments a total loss... And these were with net-caught fish... Why is this so hard to believe?

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[John_Brandt]

In the enterprise of science one is not supposed to assume anything.... including getting positive results from a CDT administered on a fish that was not caught with cyanide.

In that case, why use a CDT at all, John?
This isn't going to degenerate further, is it?

The only other plausible alternative hypothesis is that the CDT doesn't work.

If this is true, why would MAC support a CDT that doesn't work?

I really don't think that this thread has a direction. It just sort of meanders from asking why Peter's numbers have changed over time, to insinuating that the MAC-supported CDT doesn't work. What gives?
Is there a point to this? Forgive me if I don't see the connection.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

Mike,

Why would you seek to limit the number of alternative hypotheses?

That a CDT test is non-functional or unreliable must always remain as alternative hypotheses. That there may be inconsistencies as to how a CDT is applied must also remain. What does MAC have to do with any of this?

The hallmarks of scientific methodology are reproducibility of results, falsifiability, ability to withstand alternative hypotheses (most importantly being the null hypothesis) and "fitting in" with other generally accepted theories.

 

[Smyerscough]

What does MAC have to do with any of this?

John Brandt

MASNA
MAC
CMAS-Chicago

nuff said ...

 

[John_Brandt]

Scott Meyerscough you have proven to be not worth a nanosecond of my time or attention (though that sentence took more than that) :wink:

 

[Smyerscough]

Scott Meyerscough you have proven to be not worth a nanosecond of my time or attention (though that sentence took more than that) :wink:

Ah John ... still being rude !

We can see that spelling is another thing in which you are lacking.

Keep sucking on the hose John !