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

[Anonymous]

LEE,
"CROSS CONTAMINATION VIA RESIDUAL CYANIDE ON HANDNETS?
Did you really say that? ["Thats a good one.]
Steve
PS. Dang, lost another humu-humu! Must've been more of that handnet cyanide residue contamination!

Steve,

Is it totally unreasonable that some collectors might go out and use an array of collection techniques? For instance, since cyanide is expensive mightn't they use netting techniques on the easy to catch species and also use cyanide for the hard to catch, big money species on the same collecting trip? This could result in cyanide contamination of the collector, net, other equipment, etc. which could subsequntly be transferred to a fish net captured fish.

Are you 100% positive that even the so called "100% net collectors" do not occasionally make an exception for the odd big dollar fish"?

-Lee

 

[mkirda]

P.S. the "need I go on" comment was initially made to Mike Kirda. I retracted it.

No need to, Lee. I don't take offense to it.

Personally, I believe that cross-contamination is not a factor here, but I am perfectly willing to accept the need to test it to be sure. IOW, I could be wrong, and am willing to accept proof showing that cross-contamination is an issue.

I also believe that the initial work could be done quite cheaply. Following it up with 30 trials and more than a handful of species is where it starts getting expensive...

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[PeterIMA]

How would I interpret non-cyanide target species as showing up with cyanide? I interpret this to indicate that some were caught with cyanide. While, I have acknowledged the possability of cross contamination of fish held in exporters tanks, this has not been scientically demonstrated.

Fish excrete thiocyanate. So for a fish to take up thiocyanate and then test positive for cyanide ion, there would need to be a mechanism to convert thiocyanate back to cyanide ion. While rhodanese enzyme convertes cyanide ion to thiocyanate, I don't know of any enzyme or other means by which the fish can convert thiocyanate ion to cyanide ion.
Hence, there is no scientific basis to your claim for cross-contamination of the fish in this way.

Another possibility is that mandarines hiding in the coral might take up cyanide squirted on the coral heads while collectors gather other fish. That could be possible.

A few mandarin fish tested positive for cyanide ion in the IMA/BFAR CDT laboratories. How can Steve or anyone else know they were not exposed accidentally in the field or caught by the collectors with cyanide?

Peter Rubec

 

[dizzy]

Another possibility is that mandarines hiding in the coral might take up cyanide squirted on the coral heads while collectors gather other fish. That could be possible.
Peter Rubec

Peter,
That's what I was trying to explain to Mike Kirda. What possible cyanide target fish live in the same rubble area? Also did you say that clownfish tested positive for cyanide? Does anyone think they are squirting cyanide into anemones?

 

[naesco]

Thank you Mr. Brandt for starting this thread and making this shocking information available for all to read.

Thank you Dr. Rubec for your research and your factual confirmation of the sad numbers shown.

 

[mkirda]

Does anyone think they are squirting cyanide into anemones?

Yes, of course.

And lots of fish will inhabit the same zones that mandarins live in.
It's not like the blennies go... hey, did you see that a mandarinfish moved in over there? Op, there goes the neighborhood...

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Anonymous]

How would I interpret non-cyanide target species as showing up with cyanide? I interpret this to indicate that some were caught with cyanide.

Another possibility is that mandarines hiding in the coral might take up cyanide squirted on the coral heads while collectors gather other fish. That could be possible.

A few mandarin fish tested positive for cyanide ion in the IMA/BFAR CDT laboratories. How can Steve or anyone else know they were not exposed accidentally in the field or caught by the collectors with cyanide?

Peter Rubec

Peter,

I just wanted your clarification and your thoughts for the benifits of the crowd here, mostly. Short of any additional data that's the final word for me.

23% of Dragonets tested positive for cyanide.

Thanks,
Lee

 

[clarionreef]

re:
Dragonettes
Although mandarins are not juiced, [and since a direct hit doesn't get them, residual traces sure wouldn't] scooters may often be. Not nearly the same mechanics at work in these.
Scooters starve and drop dead in amazing numbers.
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

Another hypothesis just came to mind: "the analytical data is correct and a whole lot of fish for which cyanide is not particularly advantagous to collection are somehow exposed to it."

 

[John_Brandt]

Let me also make something clear here:
I think the numbers Peter has given are probably too high to be an average. I have always understood them to be upper estimates when applied across the board, especially given the known variability in physiological responses to cyanide exposure and the differences in species composition in various areas of the Philippines.

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_Brandt]

John Brandt claims that my work was not peer reviewed. My paper Cyanide-Free Net-Caught fish was peer reviewed by Dr. George Dixon Head of the Department of Biology at the University of Waterloo. He also reviewed the flawed review by the MAC of the CDT Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) and concluded that Paul Holthus was wrong in the faulty conclusions reached (similar to Lee's false accusations). The studies by Hall and Bellwood 1995) and Hanawa et al. (1998) also were in peer reviewed scientific journals.

Finally, John go back to school and learn how to calculate mortalities. If 1000 fish are exposed to cyanide and 500 die that leaves 500 fish. Take 30% of 500, then take 30% of the remainder again. Don't use fish that died previously in your subsequent calcuations of cumulative total mortality.

Peter Rubec

Peter,

It seems that your work was not reviewed by someone familiar with the real world situation at wholesalers and retailers. An average 30% mortality (and then 60% at the East Coast) is just not what is commonly experienced across the board. Then to propose a cumulative mortality average of over 80 or 90% is really tough to accept as realistic.

Peter, I'd love to go back to school but it's just not practical right now. I was recognized as "gifted" in 6th grade and was put into an array of advanced classes from that point on. Mathematical aptitude is easy to quantify and I went through most of their tests like popcorn. In 7th grade the teachers for "gifteds" had me making my own assignments. I produced reports on probability theory. I never really liked math but excelled at it. My real interest was always biology and it was easy to meet or exceed the capacity of the teachers. But life sciences are never given the attention that the "hard sciences" get. With a special interest in evolutionary theory you tend to glaze the eyes of many biology teachers. To make matters worse, my most influencial science teacher was a Creationist high school biology teacher. We could talk endlessly about anything except where everything came from; which I quickly recognized was the really important thing to understand biology :wink:

Anyway, where did my calculations go wrong? I don't think I confused dead fish with live ones and I think my numbers work out. I dropped fractions because you can't have part of a fish running around. I'm willing to think I messed up, but where?

 

[PeterIMA]

Dizzy, Yes about 20% of the clownfish species were found to contain cyanide. Cyanide has been used on anemones. I visited a New York importer in 1988 who complained about the how the large anemones died in his facility. Steve Robinson wrote an article about how these large clown fish anemones (forget the genus) were disappearing. Steve can confirm that cyanide use and overcollecting has caused them to disappear in many areas in the Philippines.

Peter Rubec

 

[PeterIMA]

John, I see that you and several others have a hard time believing my cumulative mortality estimates. I gathered the data over a considerable period of time from a variety of people in the trade, from aquarium magazines, from the scientific literature. I believe the estimates accurately portray the true situation. It would be easier to gather data if exporters, importers and others in the trade were more cooperative with providing accurate data.

I reread your posting with your figures about the cumulative mortality to the export level. In my original publication I did not mention middlemen, so the answer to your question was that the cumulative mortality estimate (>80%) was made including 30% mortality at each step of the chain from collector, exporter, importer, wholesaler, and retailer. You seem to have been doing the calculation correctly.

Sorry about your deprived childhood. You obviously are an intelligent person. However, I wouldn't listen to any more creationists if I were you.

Peter

 

[PeterIMA]

I reviewed the CDT data summarized by species ( the entire database has not yet been fully analyzed) to determine the percentage of mandarin fish (Synchiropus splendidus) found to be positive for cyanide. The data analyzed indicated that 78 specimens were tested n the CDT laboratories. There were 64 specimens (82.1%) which did not contain cyanide and there were 14 specimen (17.9%) in which cyanide was found to be present.

Peter Rubec

 

[clarionreef]

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

 

[Jaime Baquero]

John,

I find this thread very interesting, the issue here, gives us a good idea of how well the problem, specially at community level, is known.

The industry, and others, have been talking about one importan issue as is the unnecessary mortality at collector level based on anecdotical information or guesstimates. For those with scientific background, you know what is the value of that kind of information. No ONE study has been done on this issue. It must be known the % of fish dying because of poor handling and holding at community level.

Today, hundreds of fish collectors in the Philippines, Indonesia and most of developing countries where collection for the trade is taking place, are using the old and unexpensive technique of the plastic bag to keep their fish until the middlemen/women go to the community to pick up the fish.
This link, the middlemen/women, can not be ignored, as stated by Monet from Brem in Manila, they (middlemen/women) are the culprit of the trade, good net caught fish have to wait many days in plastic bags(without water changes) until the number of collected fish justifies renting a truck.

The ordeal of net caught fish starts when it is removed from the reef. But this is only the start of its miseries. Once ashore, there are no holding facilities and submerged cages are not widespread because of the lack of protected areas, the tides and theft. Thus the fish are dumped from the plastic bags in to a bucket with up to 30 fish at once. The fish are then transferred abruptly into used and dirty bags filled with new water from the shoreline. Depending on the species, they are bagged individually if they are expensive, or by pairs in smaller bags, or several in larger bags . I saw a large bag with 10 Lion fish, the water was that cloudy (because NH3) that you couldn't see the fish. The bagged fish remain on the floor or on wooden structures from 5 to 7 days before they are shipped. During this time, water is changed once a day. Expensive fish get two water changes a day. The water changes are always abrupt. Small inexpensive fish do not get water changes for 5-7 days. I saw 15 fragil butterflyfish per bag and more than 70 damselfish in the same bag. It is common to see fish dying fro ammonia poisoning in the bag. This is ONLY one step of the trade. It is not a nightmare is reality

I find that water quality criteria is one of the most important aspects when keeping fish in captivity. However, this aspect has been forgotten, I'd say neglected, at the most important level of the trade, the collection stations or fishers communitiies.

It is a fact that less cyanide is being used by collectors, but the damage inflicted to the daily catch at community level could be as bad or even worse.

Jaime

[/b]

 

[PeterIMA]

Yesterday many questions/assertions were made concerning the accuracy/reliability of the CDT procedure (ISE method) that I did not have time to answer. I was focusing on the questions pertaining to delayed mortality. I did not feel it was timely or appropriate to discuss the testing yesterday. I am willing to more fully discuss it today. I also will discuss the "Peer Review" conducted by a panel of experts for the MAC and the flawed conclusions reached by Paul Holthus.

Ask one question at a time and you will get one answer at a time.

Peter Rubec

 

[John_Brandt]

John, I see that you and several others have a hard time believing my cumulative mortality estimates. I gathered the data over a considerable period of time from a variety of people in the trade, from aquarium magazines, from the scientific literature. I believe the estimates accurately portray the true situation. It would be easier to gather data if exporters, importers and others in the trade were more cooperative with providing accurate data.

I reread your posting with your figures about the cumulative mortality to the export level. In my original publication I did not mention middlemen, so the answer to your question was that the cumulative mortality estimate (>80%) was made including 30% mortality at each step of the chain from collector, exporter, importer, wholesaler, and retailer. You seem to have been doing the calculation correctly.

Sorry about your deprived childhood. You obviously are an intelligent person. However, I wouldn't listen to any more creationists if I were you.

Peter

Peter, I may have been misunderstood. My childhood really wasn't deprived. Guisto Patinella, my high school biology teacher never forced creationism on me or any student. He was raised strict Roman Catholic in the Bronx and ended up teaching science in Illinois. The nuns had drilled into him the idea that God had created everything just the way it is. He could remain completely neutral on the issue unless he was questioned about it specifically. I did just that. He knew the evolution theory and could speak openly about it - to a point. I think he always had a nagging worry that he would have too much explaining to do to St. Peter if he ditched the Book of Genesis. Besides that, he was an excellent teacher who could really encourage a student to think.

If evolution were used as a foundation for teaching elementary school life sciences we would have legions of bright biologists. Biology must not be taught as a stack of facts about what organ does what and how many legs arthropods have. It must be taught as a story with facts interlaced. Creationism deprives young minds of the true wonder of life.

 

[Jaime Baquero]

Since we are talking about the mortality issue, I do consider relevant to bring to your attention the finding number 7 of the Pet Industry Cyanide Fact Finding Mission to the Philippines back in 1986.

Finding 7

"A significant problem in the industry has been high mortality rates of fishes being exported. The mortalities occur at various points including capture, holding by collectors and middlemen, at the exporters facilities and upon receipt by the importers. One problem that could play a role in stress on fish at this point is the type of water used by exporters in their holding facilities. The water used is coming from adjacent areas where pollution is known. One other important factor in the overall health and survival of marine fish is the holding and transportation to Manila. In outlying areas, fish are kept in plastic bags for a period of up to two or three weeks with water changes one or maximum twice a day."

I should add that the water used to bag fish for exporting comes from places where pollution is known. While in Manila I learnt that some exporters use water coming very close to Manila Bay.

Following some important recommendations from the mission

9. Urge improvement holding facilities (including community level) to reduce stress and ensure better survival.

10. In a effort to aid in the restoration of certain species on the reefs, and to reduce the needless mortalities of certain fish species brought into captivity, the industry should voluntary develop a list of fishes that should not be sold due to poor survivability in captivity.

How the industry has responded to these real concerns in the last 17 years?

Jaime

 

[John_Brandt]

Yesterday many questions/assertions were made concerning the accuracy/reliability of the CDT procedure (ISE method) that I did not have time to answer. I was focusing on the questions pertaining to delayed mortality. I did not feel it was timely or appropriate to discuss the testing yesterday. I am willing to more fully discuss it today. I also will discuss the "Peer Review" conducted by a panel of experts for the MAC and the flawed conclusions reached by Paul Holthus.

Ask one question at a time and you will get one answer at a time.

Peter Rubec

Peter,

Speaking for myself, I can only go so far in being critical of CDT methodology and results. I remain skeptical of figures for species which ought not to have been caught with cyanide, but that's about as far as I can go with it. Red flags went up for me when I saw mention of clownfishes testing positive, and then again for Mandarinfish.

I can imagine lots of factors which would confound and interfere with getting reliable results. And I suppose none of that would matter so much if these results weren't used to put people in jail.

It is quite clear that if a CDT were to be used to buttress the enforcement of The Lacey Act then that CDT better be bulletproof evidence of a fish having been caught with cyanide. If a positive result cannot be directly linked to a fish being caught with cyanide then any two-bit defense lawyer could easily make mincemeat out of a prosecution.

Interestingly, I can imagine you being called by the prosecution as an expert witness in a Lacey Act trial. I can also imagine a defense lawyer using this very thread as evidence to discredit data integrity and overall meaningfulness. Assumptions can never be allowed as surrogates for facts when people are put behind bars.

A good lawyer would point out that testing positive for cyanide or thiocyanate is not enough evidence that the fish was caught with cyanide. All possible alternative hypotheses must be proven false before the verdict becomes sound.