Improving the survival rates of transported fish.

[MaryHM]

I can't seem to be able to find any of the freshwater statistics, and it's time to go to work now. We need some idea of freshwater exports from the Philippines and Indonesia. I don't deal in freshwater, but I have seen very extensive freshwater lists from two of my Indonesian suppliers. I haven't seen any freshwater lists from the Philippines. Keep in mind that this statistic would include any aquacultured freshwater fish as well as wild caught. Without this data, I can only base my opinion that the Philippines exports more fish to the US than does Indonesia on my personal observations in the Los Angeles marine industry for about 8 years. Without the freshwater data, the statistics Jaime posted are basically worthless for trying to determine which country exports more marine ornamentals.

All of that said, I could frankly care less which country exports more. The point here is that this forum is turning into a battle of statistics coupled with half truths. I really think that needs to be changed. People making definitive statements based on vague statistics is not helping anything- especially their credibility.

 

[Terry B]

I am not taking anyone’s side here, but I would like to see this thread get back on subject. I got this from:

Lim, L.C. Dhert, P & Sorgeloos, P. “Recent Developments and Improvements in Ornamental Fish Packaging Systems for Air Transport.” Aquaculture Research, 34, 11, pp. 923-935, 2003

“Singapore is the top ornamental fish exporting country in the world, with a 26% share in the global export market in 1998 (Anonymous 2000).”

Now could we possibly get back to the subject at hand?
Terry B

 

[hdtran]

Terry,

I'm not a biologist anymore, but in the days when I was taking organic chemistry, we used phosphate and borate as pH buffers. Unlike Tris, neither of these should interfere with Amquel, but I don't know (a) how toxic they are with marine fish, and (b) how much buffering capacity you get compared to Tris (phosphate, if I remember, was better at buffering than borate because there were more O-'s hanging out).

Hy

 

[Terry B]

Hi hdtran,
Thanks for joining our discusion. The inventor of Amquel suggested that a combination of 80% Soduim Bicarbonate and 20% 5-mole (sp?) Borate should be used with Amquel. He wasn't particulary enthusiatic about Amquel+.
Terry B

 

[hdtran]

Terry,

That's almost a good recipe The 80% sodium bicarb and 20% 5 molar borate is a very strong solution, and needs to be diluted out.

A 1 mole solution, if I recall my organic chemistry, is the molecular weight of the compound, dissolved into 1 liter of water. So, a 1 mole solution of salt is equal to the MW of salt (NaCl, or 23+35=58 ) in grams, or 58 grams of salt into 1 liter of water. This gives you Avogadro's number molecules of salt in 1 L of water. Did he (she) tell you what kind of borate? Sodium borate? Lithium borate (hey! make your bipolar depressive fish happy at the same time! ?

So, the recipe given you tells you the proportion of sodium bicarb and borate, but that's very concentrated. Now, you need to know how much of that to add to Amquel, and how much Amquel to add to 1 liter of shipping water. Doesn't Lim, Dhert, & Sorgeloos tell you?

I'm afraid you need a real organic chemist or biologist to help you, not an out-of-date expired one like me...

Hy

edit added ps: Thank you for the Cryptocarion series in Advanced Aquarist Online! Also, I'd be willing to chip in for helping someone do a controlled experiment.

Hy

 

[Terry B]

Hdtran,
I think I will just mention those two buffers used in combination and leave finding out the amount to the exporters. I can't cover every apsect of shipping in fine detail. My manuscript is already going to be a long read. With references it is already over 4,100 words long now.
Terry B

 

[Jaime Baquero]

Wow Jaime. The fact that you can't even apologize for misspeaking definitely makes me lose respect for you. Apparently you are pushing an agenda rather than trying to get to the truth of things. Geez, you don't even KNOW if importers prefer to import fish from the Philippines or Indonesia, yet make a statement that Indonesia is shipping more fish than the Philippines?? C'mon, you can do better than that. Want numbers to back my statements? I don't have exact statistics, but even if I did you've shown you can twist them to push any agenda you want. I prefer to use COMMON SENSE. And here is my common sense on why Indonesia ships "tiny amounts" of fish when compared to the Philippines.

Your numbers:
Indonesia imports= $7,547,000CDN
Philippine imports= $4,371,000CDN

The average cost of a coral from Indonesia is approximately $4. That is strictly the coral cost- no freight or additional charges added in. The average cost of a fish from the Philippines is about $2 (and that may be a little on the high side). Now you have to figure in that Indonesia is the LARGEST exporter of corals. This is where probably 85% or more of the corals for this trade come from. You also have to know that the Philippines has NO coral exports, strictly fish and a few miscellaneous invertebrates. Knowing these FACTS and knowing the cost of the fish vs. corals, you can easily see that the Philippines exports an enormous amount of fish in comparison to Indonesia.

Honestly, any one who knows anything about the industry knows this. It's not like it's some big mystery. I am so sick of people taking statistics and twisting them around to fit their agenda. "Get your stats straight or shut up" should be the rule of this forum. There are enough things that are truthful that need to be discussed and solved without you coming up with something completely false and ridiculous. Please salvage your integrity here and state that you were incorrect. I think everyone would have more respect for you.

Waiting for Jaime to see the error of his ways on this topic. Not holding my breath. Expecting one of the following: An excuse, completely ignoring the facts, continued twisting of the facts even though the truth is obvious, or more likely all of the above.

Mary,

Yes, I do not know if importers in the U.S prefer to get fish from Indonesia or the Philippines. I do not see anything wrong with that. I haven't said anywhere in this forum that I know everything about the trade of MO. I know, because I read, that the Philippines and Indonesia are the main suppliers of MO. I also read that a considerable amount of fish is getting out of the Philippines and Indonesia to international markets VIA Singapore. This to avoid the cyanide issue.

Since you know about the importing business more than many of the readers here, including me,I would like to know from you, or anybody else the following important aspect. Do you know the % of fish, from the Philippines and Indonesia, coming to the U.S. VIA Singapore.

The numbers that I got, as GreshamH said are not real, you should also know that many importers in the U.S. and Exporters in the Phil. and Indo. are ripping off the tax sytem by making false declarations about the value of the marine ornamentals imported.

Mary, the exercise that you did with the different prices of corals and units can not be considered as real. You know very well that the total values given by the U.S . Bureau of Commerce are not the real ones. Some, exporters/importers are NOT declaring the real value of the goods to the tax man.

I wonder.... why it is a concern the use of cyanide in Indonesia?

Mary, is possible that there are some aspects that no one knows. Those knowing it, do not want to jeopardize their business operations.

I found your reaction.....let's say ... a bit exagerated. But I know you are a good person who wants to improve things. If you said something that is not 100% true, I wouldn't exagerate things saying that it make me lose respect of you. That sounds... how would you say it.... I guess is childish.

One subject that I know for sure is what is happening with collectors in the Philippines, and how fish are handled and held at community level. Poor fish!

 

[Jaime Baquero]

Terry B.

I'm sorry. This is a subject of another thread.

 

[Terry B]

Kalkbreath,
You asked if bacteria that perform nitrification are the same in both fresh and saltwater. I just recieved this in an email.

This was presented earlier this week at Marine Ornamentals Conference 2004 in Honolulu, Hawaii...

IDENTIFICATION, CULTURE AND USE OF NEW SPECIES OF NITRIFYING BACTERIA IN SEAWATER SYSTEMS

Timothy A. Hovanec, Jennifer L. Coshland, Linnea K. Herbertson, Elena L. Toy, Jason Niemans, and Carol M. Phalen

Aquatic Research Laboratory
Marineland
6100 Condor Drive
Moorpark, CA 93021 USA
[email protected]

Nitrifying bacteria or more specifically ammonia and nitrite-oxidizing bacteria, AOB and NOB, respectively, are an integral part of the bio-filtration system necessary to maintain good water quality in saltwater recirculating systems. A review of the literature shows that it is generally assumed that Nitrosomonas europaea and Nitrobacter winogradskyi are the species of AOB and NOB, respectively, in saltwater systems. Furthermore, no distinction is made between species of freshwater and saltwater nitrifying bacteria. In this study, biomasses taken from actively nitrifying saltwater systems were enriched, under various conditions, for saltwater AOB and NOB. Clone library analysis of the saltwater nitrifying enrichments demonstrated that there were at least three distinct groups of AOB. The majority of AOB were found to be phylogenetically distinct from, but most closely related, to Nitrosomonas aestuarii. In addition, novel saltwater NOB were determined to be most closely related to Nitrospira marina and Nitrococcus mobilis while no Nitrobacter species were found. AOB and NOB specific oligonucleotide probes and PCR primer sets were designed for the major groups of AOB and NOB. The specificity of these probes and primers was determined and tested, using PCR, DGGE and FISH analysis, to confirm the presence of the putative saltwater AOB and NOB in the enriched biomasses. Seeding of newly set-up saltwater aquaria with enrichments of the AOB and NOB demonstrated their ability to accelerate the establishment of nitrification in saltwater aquaria compared to non-seeded aquaria (Figure 1). Commercially available mixtures of nitrifying bacteria were tested with these new probe and primer sets. The results were negative for the presence of the AOB and NOB detailed in this study which may explain why these products generally give poor results. In summary, our results show that 1) novel AOB and NOB are responsible for nitrification in saltwater aquaria; 2) they are phylogenetically distinct from their counterparts in freshwater aquaria; and 3) these AOB and NOB are not in commercial mixtures currently available to the culturist.

© Timothy A. Hovanec, Jennifer L. Coshland, Linnea K. Herbertson, Elena L. Toy, Jason Niemans, and Carol M. Phalen.

 

[Anonymous]

didn't hovaneck make a big deal about cetrain types of bacteria being better for sw tanks in conjunction w/a marineland marketing campaign for a product ?

he claimed there that nitrosomonas were eventually gone in a well established tank, iirc

 

[Kalkbreath]

Thank you, Can I ask from whom or what type of source you Email originated?It does not seem to be the average random junk email .......... Due to the timing.....that the sender is following this discussion?

 

[Terry B]

Kalk,
I edited my post to include the copyrights and who did the study. John Brandt was kind enough to send me this info in an email.
Terry B

 

[PeterIMA]

Terry, In your posting you discussed the buffer and then said the developer of Amquel (John Farrel Kuhns) was not enthousiastic about Amquel+. Do you mean he was not enthousiastic about using Amquel with a buffer or are you implying that there is another form of Amquel?
Peter Rubec

 

[Terry B]

Hi Peter,
John was not enthusiastic about Amquel+ and had reservations about whether it would do everything that Kordon suggests that it will. I think that basically Kordon changed John's formula by adding a buffer to Amquel. John suggested that a mixture of 80%sodium bicarb and 20% 5 molar borate could be used with Amquel for transporting fish.
How was Hawaii?
Terry B

 

[PeterIMA]

Terry, Hawaii was OK. There were no big breakthroughs and the attendance was down from the previous two MO Conferences. The MO Conference was held with the World Aquaculture Society Conference. So, it had a good trade show and two evening receptions. Overall, it was worthwhile.

I helped to create a panel on the evening of March 1st. The purpose of the panel was to identify weaknesses in the existing collection-transport process and suggest solutions. Members of the panel were myself (IMA), Steve Robinson (AMDA), Ferdinand Cruz (EASI), Ambrosius Ruwindrijarto(Telapak-Indonesia), Vaughan Pratt (IMA) and Paul Holthus(MAC). Each panelist spoke for about 12 minutes and then there was a question/answer session with the audiance for about another hour (2 hours total).

Steve was the first to speak. He emphasized past net-trainings and the need for the AMDA net-trainings in both PI and Indo. Basically, the message was there can be no certification program without a supply of net-caught fish.

Ferdinand talked about the need for more holistic community-based coastal resources management programs (CB-CRM) to support CAMPs and to create alternative livelihoods for MO collectors. The coral reefs in PI and Indo are heavily degraded. So, there needs to be limitation of collection in degraded areas. Ferdinand showed economic analyses with images in Powerpoint to demonstrate that in degraded areas, it was not possible for the collectors to increase their income to get above the poverty threshold.

Ruwi took a novel approach and did not use a powerpoint. He typed an outline of the chain-of-custody from collectors, exporter, importer, wholesaler to retailers. He then asked for information on how many exporters or importers sold exclusively net-caught fish. The audiance response indicated there only two net-caught exporters in PI (possibly one in Indo) and only about two net-caught importers in the USA. The main message to me was that we need to focus more on educating consumers to demand net-caught fish and create a market for them. Otherwise, focusing on training collectors will not succeed. There is a need for reform at all steps of the chain-of-custody of the MO trade.

Dr. Vaughan Pratt spoke about the CDT laboratories run by IMA for BFAR. He was very pessimistic and stated that the reform movement had failed and that he did not want to see certification of cyanide-caught MO fish. He blamed the Philippine Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) for the failure. He stated that BFAR did not care about the MO trade. The situation to him appears hopeless. After devoting the past 15 years to reform the trade, the situation is spiraling down out of control. He expects that a Philippine ban on MO exports will occur (confirming rumors that Phillippine government officials will choose to ban the trade now that the MAC programs apparently have failed to produce results).

I spoke briefly about the results of the mortality study conducted by Hall and Bellwood in 1995, which showed that damelfish under controlled conditions died within 13 days from cyanide (37.5%), stress (25%), and starvation (0%). Mortalities were higher with these factors in combination. The highest mortality occurred with stress plus starvation (66.7%). I mentioned the paper being prepared by Terry and the research conducted by scientists in Singapore for shipping aquarium fishes that have used various chemicals to reduce stress, ammonia, and bacterial outbreaks in plastic bags during shipment overseas. The reduction in mortality can only work if cyanide fishing is stopped. I showed a graph based on my papers indicating that the cumulative mortality through the chain of custody is over 80% from reef to retailers if one excludes the acute mortality from cyanide on the reefs (it is over 90% if the acute mortality at the time of collection is included). The certification process needs to reduce the mortality throughout the chain.

Paul Holthus gave his usual talk about the components of the MAC Certification process. He did make some key statements about the fact that the MAC was creating a Chemicals Detection Committee to review the environmental impacts of all potential chemicals used in fish collection. He also stated that in future the MAC would sub-contract work rather than attempting to do it itself. I interpret this to mean that in future they will sub-contract net-training and possibly CDT testing. Paul was not clear what was meant by these statements.

Some of the questions from the audiance were interesting. John Brandt suggested that a certain area that was allegedly depleted (which he had visited in PI) actually had large numbers of gobies and blennies which could be harvested for the MO trade. Some panelists went along with this (did not argue against this claim). Several retailers (notably Morgan Lidster) claimed they would buy MAC-certified gobies and blennies if they become available (even drab colorless ones).

Elwin Seagrest confronted me by stating that I must be wrong about my claims about the cumulative mortality through the chain of custody. I disagreed.

John Parks (the moderator) cautioned one panelists who used profanity and me for being too confrontational (I did apologized to Elwin). But, overall the panel discussion was constructive and did not get out of hand. About half of the audiance were MAC staff/supporters. So, I applaud the reformists on the panel for exercising restraint.

The full text of the panel were recorded. After editing we hope that the panel recommendations will be added to those derived by voting at the end of the conference. Hopefully, papers and the panel recommendations will be published as a conference proceedings.

Peter Rubec

 

[John_Brandt]

I had forgotten how silly this forum is and accidentally posted here.

 

[mkirda]

Some of the questions from the audiance were interesting. John Brandt suggested that a certain area that was allegedly depleted (which he had visited in PI) actually had large numbers of gobies and blennies which could be harvested for the MO trade. Some panelists went along with this (did not argue against this claim).

If it were economically feasible for the wrasses to be shipped to Manila, then for export, wouldn't it be done already?
Seems to me that we've heard this argument before and that someone (Steve?) had mentioned that they shipped poorly, or required so much water in the bag that the air freight from Cebu to Manila became prohibitively expensive.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Kalkbreath]

You really think collectors kill 9 out of ten fish when they collect? Nine out of ten Blue tangs .......nine out of then blue face angles? Do you realize that this would mean that more then fifty percent of the time the collectors would have to kill 100% of the fish ? Have you ever considered why it is the collectors would not decrease the level of cyanide they are fishing with?{you must really think these guys are dumb} I mean if you as a collector,swam around mile after mile {remember, according to you there are only 500 fish per square kliometer......so a diver must swim twenty kilometers a day to collect :wink: }and almost every time you squirted , all the fish you we targeting died right there before your eyes.......you would never think of decreasing the level you were using? I hope to have the pleasure of meeting you at the next MO get together:wink: {Ill be the one asking the questions out loud}

 

[Anonymous]

You really think collectors kill 9 out of ten fish when they collect? Nine out of ten Blue tangs .......nine out of then blue face angles? Do you realize that this would mean that more then fifty percent of the time the collectors would have to kill 100% of the fish ?

how does 9/10 fish become 9/10 of each species of fish?????

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Have you ever considered why it is the collectors would not decrease the level of cyanide they are fishing with?{you must really think these guys are dumb} I mean if you as a collector,swam around mile after mile {remember, according to you there are only 500 fish per square kliometer......so a diver must swim twenty kilometers a day to collect :wink: }and almost every time you squirted , all the fish you we targeting died right there before your eyes.......you would never think of decreasing the level you were using? I hope to have the pleasure of meeting you at the next MO get together:wink: {Ill be the one asking the questions out loud}

 

[mkirda]

You really think collectors kill 9 out of ten fish when they collect? Nine out of ten Blue tangs .......nine out of then blue face angles? Do you realize that this would mean that more then fifty percent of the time the collectors would have to kill 100% of the fish ? Have you ever considered why it is the collectors would not decrease the level of cyanide they are fishing with?{you must really think these guys are dumb} I mean if you as a collector,swam around mile after mile {remember, according to you there are only 500 fish per square kliometer......so a diver must swim twenty kilometers a day to collect :wink: }and almost every time you squirted , all the fish you we targeting died right there before your eyes.......you would never think of decreasing the level you were using? I hope to have the pleasure of meeting you at the next MO get together:wink: {Ill be the one asking the questions out loud}

Remember, according to YOU, they get 40,000 squirts out of a cyanide bottle too, Kalk. That's 400 squirts per captured fish! Your numbers! Your assertion!
Who is kidding who here?
Oh, wait, was that before or after they got 50 damsels per squirt?
No wonder no one can take you seriously. One extreme to another!
400 squirts per fish, or 50 fish per squirt? Which will you choose this time?

And for the NINTH TIME, 500 fish per square kilometer is a low end number for extremely depleted reef zones, not an average for the entire reef system for the PI! If you have a problem with the 500 fish per square kilometer number, I suggest you take it up with ReefCheck as they are the ones who supply the scientific world with these sorts of numbers, not me.

RE: MO, You can ask the questions all you want: I probably won't be there as aquacultured fish are not my interest.