Cyanide: What it does to the reefs

[devils advocate]

Agenda...Order of Canada as was suggested in some long ago post.

Let's also take a look at where his son works, I believe a LFS in Canada. Is that store "clean"? It would be a great shame if his own blood was contributing to the destruction of the reefs.

 

[Anonymous]

Do you think numbers from a study done in 1986 and 1991 are still accurate today?

 

[nanocat]

Using the above examples, Wayne's version works out to starting with 100 fish, with 50 surviving on the reef, 25 still alive on the shore, and only 12 alive at the LFS/hobbiest tank.

Peter's version works out to starting with 100 fish, with 50 surviving on the reef, and 35 alive at the importer/LFS.

Either way it's dismal, but I suspect there are more than 12 surviving fish out of every 100 initially squirted with cyanide on the reef.

Just out of curiousity, does anyone want to hazard some educated guesses about net caught mortality from reef to LFS? IIRC, Mary said they were surviving the netting, but still dying in droves from shipping.

 

[naesco]

Using the above examples, Wayne's version works out to starting with 100 fish, with 50 surviving on the reef, 25 still alive on the shore, and only 12 alive at the LFS/hobbiest tank.

Peter's version works out to starting with 100 fish, with 50 surviving on the reef, and 35 alive at the importer/LFS.

Either way it's dismal, but I suspect there are more than 12 surviving fish out of every 100 initially squirted with cyanide on the reef.

Just out of curiousity, does anyone want to hazard some educated guesses about net caught mortality from reef to LFS? IIRC, Mary said they were surviving the netting, but still dying in droves from shipping.

Dr. Rubec in the same reply says
The cumulative delayed mortality through the chain of custody was estimated to be 80% if one excludes the acute mortality on the reef. Including mortalities on the reef, the cumulative mortality was estimated to exceed 90%.

How do you read that vs what I had posted.
I agree that not only must the deaths due to cyanide stop but deaths due to improper holding, transport and unsuitable species must stop as well.
This is why the BILL deals with all of these issues which have been totally ignored by industry.

 

[naesco]

Do you think numbers from a study done in 1986 and 1991 are still accurate today?

I am not sure of the timeframe but statistics gathered by Dr. Rubec showed an increase in cyanide caught fish percentage wise.
I will leave it to him to reference the dates and the increase.

 

[Anonymous]

Using the above examples, Wayne's version works out to starting with 100 fish, with 50 surviving on the reef, 25 still alive on the shore, and only 12 alive at the LFS/hobbiest tank.

Peter's version works out to starting with 100 fish, with 50 surviving on the reef, and 35 alive at the importer/LFS.

Either way it's dismal, but I suspect there are more than 12 surviving fish out of every 100 initially squirted with cyanide on the reef.

Just out of curiousity, does anyone want to hazard some educated guesses about net caught mortality from reef to LFS? IIRC, Mary said they were surviving the netting, but still dying in droves from shipping.

Dr. Rubec in the same reply says
The cumulative delayed mortality through the chain of custody was estimated to be 80% if one excludes the acute mortality on the reef. Including mortalities on the reef, the cumulative mortality was estimated to exceed 90%.

How do you read that vs what I had posted.
I agree that not only must the deaths due to cyanide stop but deaths due to improper holding, transport and unsuitable species must stop as well.
This is why the BILL deals with all of these issues which have been totally ignored by industry.

http://www.reefs.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=46084

(and there are many more)

this is 'the industry forum' yes?

wrong again! muwaaahaaaaahahahahaha


you really are clueless about the industry, what concerns it, and what it does to address those concerns

 

[naesco]

Vitz this is a serious thread about a serious topic which has led to the BILL under discussion.
Instead of behaving like a fool you might tell me where I was wrong.

Like I said I have read everything I can get my hands on about cyanide and I recall a paper possibly by Dr. Rubec that showed an increase in positive cyanide tests over a period of time.
I am certain that Dr. Rubec and point to the time period and verify the increase when you give him a chance to.

 

[Anonymous]

i've often told you, and others have, where i or they think you're wrong

i know you're not interested in being corrected :wink:

i don't take it personally, it's a phenomenon i see often in the reefing chat channels in irc i daily frequent as well

a noob enters the channel and keeps asking the same question in the hopes the answer will change to the one only he wants to hear

when everyone makes it quite clear they can't give them the answer they want, even if it's the wrong one, they get all bent and stuff

i've come to be entertained by them, nowadays

 

[PeterIMA]

Vitz,
Instead of attacking Naesco, why don't you question me? All Naesco is trying to do is to quote my published papers. So, it is not he who you must question. The key papers that have the data on mortality rates due to cyanide are in peer reviewed scientific symposia.

What evidence do you or anyone else have that I am wrong? Do you have evidence that would convince Representative Ed Case or the USCRTF that there is not a cyanide problem, that it does not contribute to delayed mortalities in the trade, or that the mortality rates that are being questioned are wrong? So, far all I see are some industry types hiding behind web pseudonyms attacking Naesco without having anything to back up their assertions.

Naesco is right. The writing is on the wall. Either the industry gets its act together or it will be shut down. Although I am against shutting down the trade, the evidence that cyanide destroys coral reefs and contributes to delayed mortality has been substantiated in scientific papers. The issues have been discussed extensively over the past two years on this forum. John Brandt admits that what the conservationists have asserted is true. The issues will not go away and neither will true reformists (such as Steve Robinson advocating net training) or the more radical REEFORMISTs (advocating punishment and prosecution of those in the trade breaking US and foreign laws).

My advice is get off your *** and do something constructive to solve these problems before it is too late.

 

[Kalkbreath]

I ll question you. Do you really still think that collectors kill 50% of blue face angles or that they average fifty percent instant death at the reef during regal tang collection? And If so why do the few Regal tangs that make it to the USA seem so healthy? I have yet to see a box of blue tangs come in sickly from PI. {In the last two years since I started importing . } You have yet to explain how it is possible to make a profit as a collector, exporter , importer or retailer using that data you and Frank speak of? The idea that only ten percent of the fish make it to market sounds great in a paper.....but neither you nor anyone else has been able to explain how these numbers could be true and companiesor or native collectors still stay in business. I can only think of one explanation in which a fisherman would care less if only half the fish hiding in the coral head float out alive Only if the total number of fish out swimming within the reef were so abundant that killing seventy-five to sell thirty-five would be no big deal. But you yourself have stated many times that there are only 500 fish per square mile in most of the fishing areas! That five hundred fish of all species! Pet fish collectors only collect 2% of those 500 assorted fish! Second, Just how many fish does the average collector travel with , when traveling back to Manila? And how many of those fish are cyanide exposed? How many of the fish do you suggest die along the road as the collector makes his way to town? I think you suggested one-third die at this stage? If this were true and a collector knew that on average only 2/3 s of the fish in the jeep would be sold .....do you think that sooner or later the collector would respect that having healthier fish to start the journey back to town wit would yeild more profit at the end of the day? Squirting such a high dose of cyanide that half of the fish die instantly would also place the remaining fifty percent of the fish at a extremely high risk of dying later that day or the next. It would seem to reason that if fifty percent die instantly , that more deaths will soon follow shortly after. How can you support a notion which suggests that a collector only sells 25 percent of the fish at hand ......{at less the one dollar per fish!} and still has enough money to pay off the so called cyanide pusher and fish another day ?

 

[Anonymous]

Either the industry gets its act together or it will be shut down. Although I am against shutting down the trade, the evidence that cyanide destroys coral reefs and contributes to delayed mortality has been substantiated in scientific papers.

Peter,

What percentage of cyanide damage is the MO industry as opposed to the food industry? If we get shut down, will it really make a difference?

Peace,

Chip

 

[PeterIMA]

Kalk,

The conclusion I came to after viewing the discussions when Frank Lallo made his postings is that the importers make their profit by marking up the price of those fish that are still alive. The retailers in most cases do not make money on marine fish but do make money on dry goods such as aquaria, filters etc. One finding by Frank that I found interesting was that 7 out of 10 retailers were incompetent with regard to maintenance of marine fish and inverts (infrequent maintenance of filters, poor water quality etc). I have already stated that much of the mortality at the importing end of the chain appears to be due factors like stress and ammonia, although I am sure that cyanide also plays a part in the mortality.

Food fish versus aquarium fish caught with cyanide? I don't know exactly since such an analysis remains to be conducted. The CDT database does prove that more cyanide on a percent occurrence basis is present in food fish. There is also evidence that fishes consumed in PI have a higher %presence of cyanide. Hence, there is both a dead fish food fish trade (local consumption) and a live fish food fish trade (export to Hong Kong restraurants) associated with cyanide fishing. I would agree with Kalk that if the food fish trade by numbers or weight exceeds the aquarium fish fishery that it is potentially more serious and that would be a good reason for the hobby and aquarium trade to push for controls of cyanide fishing on the food fishery in foreign countries. The US legislation does not fully address this need.

Peter Rubec

 

[PeterIMA]

Kalk,

The 500 fish per square kilometer number you have been using is not the average density for even those reefs in poor condition. It does reprent the density monitored off of Santiago Island. It may represent the density of aquarium fishes in a degraded area (with other food fish also being present). I asked you to calculate densities based on numbers on the web site for the Philippine Council for Sustainable Developement. The densities in degraded (poor coral reef habitats) were higher than 500 fish per square kilometer. For example the density determined at the village of Tay tay off Palawan (corals classed as poor) was
3,795 fish per hectare. Densities ranged from 1,488 to 5,318 fish per hectare at 10 villages with coral reefs classed in Fair condition, 1,999 to 4252 fish per hectare in 4 villages with coral reefs scored in Good condition, and the one reef (Tubbataha) scored in excellent condition had a density of 11,140 fish per hectare. This is based on underwater surveys that were conducted (visual surveys).

Peter Rubec

 

[Anonymous]

Vitz,
Instead of attacking Naesco, why don't you question me? All Naesco is trying to do is to quote my published papers. So, it is not he who you must question. The key papers that have the data on mortality rates due to cyanide are in peer reviewed scientific symposia.

What evidence do you or anyone else have that I am wrong? Do you have evidence that would convince Representative Ed Case or the USCRTF that there is not a cyanide problem, that it does not contribute to delayed mortalities in the trade, or that the mortality rates that are being questioned are wrong? So, far all I see are some industry types hiding behind web pseudonyms attacking Naesco without having anything to back up their assertions.

Naesco is right, the writing is on the wall. Either the industry gets its act together or it will be shut down. Although I am against shutting down the trade, the evidence that cyanide destroys coral reefs and contributes to delayed mortality has been substantiated in scientific papers. The issues have been discussed extensively over the past two years on this forum. John Brandt admits that what the conservationists have asserted is true. The issues will not go away and neither will true reformists (such as Steve Robinson advocating net training) or the more radical REEFORMISTs (advocating punishment and prosecution of those in the trade breaking US and foreign laws).

My advice is get off your *** and do something constructive to solve these problems before it is too late.

I had a question about your research above. I wanted to know if you believed the numbers that you observed in 1986 and 1991 to still be an accurate number today.

 

[PeterIMA]

Chris,

I have a paper that is still unpublished that summarizes more recent information. A study was recently been conducted at a Bali export facility by Christina Schmidt who presently works for a French company (Amblard). Her paper is still unpublished. Dr. Jerry Heidler a verterinarian at Oregon Stage University has also been conducting a study of west coast import facilities. I am not at liberty to release their results. They gave talks at the 3rd MO Conference held in Honolulu in March 2004. The ranges of mortality documented by recent studies are much higher than the 1% that the MAC has proposed for its Certification Standards. The new data tend to support earlier estimates that mortality rates are too high.

Peter Rubec

 

[PeterIMA]

Kalk, With regard to your use of the 500 fish per square kilometer, I think that the original number presented (by myself) was 500 fish per hectare. I need to check the original publication by Dr. John McManus done off of Santiago Island near Bolinao in the Philippines. There is a big difference between numbers per square kilometer (1000 X 1000 meters) and numbers per hectare (100 X 100 meters). I will check on this and post later.

Peter Rubec

 

[Kalkbreath]

Again, what type of data was gathered to form these notions? When you speak of fifty percent of the fish dying in the first moments of cyanide exposure.....what actual events were monitored and recorded in order to form this stereotypical conclusion? One weekend , one diver , one week in Bali ? There were many instances in the CDT tests results which only one or two actual fish were used to determine that species overall frequency of cyanide present. One or two fish over a five year test period translates into some years there being no fish from that species being tested? In a test gauging the frequency of cyanide exposer of some 60 million fish . One would think that more individuals then one or two fish per year would be in needed to come up with an accurate finding.With 4000 so called MO collectors in PI, how many different collectors would need to be monitored in order to find the average percentage of those 4000 ? How many collection events were monitored in order to form the opinion which states fifty percent of the targeted fish are killed instantly? And further more did anyone ask the squirter why he did not reduce the concentration of poison he was fishing with ? ...... The findings are only as good as the data. I have yet to learn how much of the data this industry relies upon to gauge its impact on the reefs .....was gathered? Why is that? Its seems again that we have the researchers keeping the tests details hidden away from peer review? Until after the findings are released. Why? Frank published a 68% DOA finding for east coast retailers ....Yet to this day has never been able to show data that supports this now highly heeded belief that 68% of the fish imported die in route . Now, Congress is supposed to form an opinion on an issue in which there is no bases to conclude much of anything ....... other then what a limited number of secretive researcher hand them behind closed doors? Again I ask what limited events were monitored and in what frequency to which you formed the reputation of the entire industry?

 

[Anonymous]

Vitz,
Instead of attacking Naesco, why don't you question me?

i was questioning naesco, much in the same way he questions others.you had nothing to do w/it

All Naesco is trying to do is to quote my published papers. So, it is not he who you must question.

then he should quote them, and properly, instead of claiming to have already done so

The key papers that have the data on mortality rates due to cyanide are in peer reviewed scientific symposia.

i have no doubts about that

What evidence do you or anyone else have that I am wrong?

what led you to believe i think you're wrong, and where did you see me challenge your data ? :?

Do you have evidence that would convince Representative Ed Case or the USCRTF that there is not a cyanide problem, that it does not contribute to delayed mortalities in the trade, or that the mortality rates that are being questioned are wrong?

no, and i never said i have-see above

i also find your insinuation here that i'm possibly less anti cyanide than i am offensive (but i'll get over it) :wink:

So, far all I see are some industry types hiding behind web pseudonyms attacking Naesco without having anything to back up their assertions.

my name is a matter of public record here on the bb, i've posted it here freely on ocassion, and it's on the corl site, too :wink:

Naesco is right. The writing is on the wall. Either the industry gets its act together or it will be shut down.

i personally think it's still very debatable whether or not the mo ind will be shut down. in fact, i'm personally convinced it WON'T be. at the worst, (for the u.s.hobby/trade side) ,severely limited for awhile, then back to abit better than now (as far as cyanide/blasting goes)

Although I am against shutting down the trade, the evidence that cyanide destroys coral reefs and contributes to delayed mortality has been substantiated in scientific papers. The issues have been discussed extensively over the past two years on this forum. John Brandt admits that what the conservationists have asserted is true. The issues will not go away and neither will true reformists (such as Steve Robinson advocating net training) or the more radical REEFORMISTs (advocating punishment and prosecution of those in the trade breaking US and foreign laws).

My advice is get off your *** and do something constructive to solve these problems before it is too late.

you would be better served telling that to naesco, not me-radical politics never accomplish anything positive for anyone, in the long term, imo

bear in mind that this whole deal can be torpedoed right quick if enough capitalist minded consumers just yell enough

not that that makes me particularly happy, but it's possibly the way it'll pan out

i wonder how many trade committee meetings the bill's been through so far, or how many more it may be in the future

it ain't over 'till the fat lady sings, and either side of the coin asserting what WILL happen is still abit premature, imo

 

[MaryHM]

Just out of curiousity, does anyone want to hazard some educated guesses about net caught mortality from reef to LFS? IIRC, Mary said they were surviving the netting, but still dying in droves from shipping.

Nanocat,

I've been thinking about your question and wanted to post my experiences. I don't keep detailed DOA/DAA records, but can tell you that net caught shipments ran anywhere from great (<3% DOA) to horrible (>60% DOA). Mediocre was the most common, running about 20% DOA.

I am at the warehouse now and just finished putting away a Philippine shipment from a supplier that does not guarantee net caught. This is the same supplier we have been using for a couple of years now- first only net caught fish like gobies, etc..., but now we buy everything they offer. They are extremely consistent. I was the only one cutting bags today, and kept track of exactly what was dead so I could tell you.

Fish- A total of 258 animals. DOA= 1 3 stripe damsel, 1 yellow watchman, 1 foxface, 1 ?? (badly decomposed), 1 orange spot goby
DOA Percentage= 1.9%
Inverts- A total of 83 animals. DOA= 6 Fromia stars (out of 10, so something was up with that batch)
DOA Percentage= 7.2%

Overall DOA= 3.2%


Now for DOA between me and the retail pet shop. Obviously I'm not there unpacking orders, but my Quickbooks program shows that between January of 2003 and now, we paid out less than 1% in DOA credits to our customers (.7% to be exact). Granted, our customers have to cover the first 5% of their total invoice before DOA credits kick in, but that is still next to nothing. And anyone here that buys from me will tell you that I don't play around with credits. If someone is due a credit, they get it. So it's not like I'm having customers reporting DOA's and I'm just convienently "forgetting" to give them credit on the next invoice. And actually, that .7% figure is a little high, because there are lots of times when I stick the DNR (did not receive) credits in with the DOA credits just for simplicity's sake.

This is very consistent. This is why I laugh and argue when people who aren't in the industry (Peter, Wayne, Frank) inform me that I should be seeing huge DOAs and DAAs every week. It just doesn't happen on a regular basis, and if it did I'd be out of business. Does it happen sometimes? Yep. There are occasional disasters. But since I've stopped dealing in net caught we haven't had a single major disaster. That's been about 8 months now I think.

So there are the DOA experiences of an importer. Now I want to see someone post that they have huge DOA on a regular basis. According to the "research" there should be hundreds of industry professionals experiencing this on a weekly basis. Let's hear about it.

 

[Kalkbreath]

My DOA is slightly higher then Marys . Although I am on the East coast . I land about 300 fish every two weeks from PI . My records show that over the last year I average 6.5 DOA fish per 100 . The Highest DOAs are Six lines ,green chromis, med lionfish and foxfaces.{ I dont do damsels } Some of my lowest DOAs are huma triggers, and Blue face /majestic angels and regal tangs .{I get boxes of regals} The direct opposite of what should be true with the cyanide prone fish. And from a nation that packs half the amount of water that other islands ship!