Fish Mortality In Trade

[PeterIMA]

The SPC Live Reef Fish Information Bulletin No. 13 is now available on line. In it are two articles concerning the mortality of marine aquarium fishes in the trade. The first article is by myself and Ferdinand Cruz, the second article is by Christiane Smidt and Andreas Kunsmann.

Rubec, P.J. and F.P. Cruz. 2005. Monitoring the chain of custody to reduce delayed mortality of net-caught fish in the aquarium trade.
SPC Live Reef Fish Information Bulletin 13:13-23.

Schmidt, C. and A. Kunzmann. 2005. Post-harvest mortality in the marine aquarium trade: A case study of an Indonesian export facility.
SPC Live Reef Fish Information Bulletin 13:3-12.

The URL is the following:
http://www.spc.int/coastfish/LRF/13/index.htm

 

[Anonymous]

Thank you for the information, Peter.

I think the current link is: http://www.spc.int/coastfish/News/LRF/13/index.htm , however.

 

[Anonymous]

Dead fish are a major preoccupation of people involved in live fish fisheries (or they ought to be), as this issue demonstrates, particularly with respect to the marine aquarium trade. Christiane Schmidt and Andreas Kunzmann share their findings about post-harvest mortality rates and the causes of mortality from their intensive look at an aquarium fish export operation in Indonesia. Peter Rubec and Ferdinand Cruz provide an historical and industry-wide review of the same topic and outline their plans to conduct research aimed at reducing the mortality of marine aquarium fish during collection and transport.

As you read these articles and consider the double-digit per cent mortality rates that appear to be typical in the marine aquarium trade, it is useful to keep in mind the acceptable mortality limits in the standards established by the Marine Aquarium Council (MAC). These limits are basically 1% dead on arrival and 1% dead after arrival per species and per shipment for each link in the chain of custody. See the MAC web site (http://www.aquariumcouncil.org) for more details, including the “MAC Certification Mortality Allowance Information Sheet”, which describes certain mortality allowances being made during the “development phase” of the standards.

Hmm, that makes it sound like Peter and Ferdie are validating MAC's 1% stance.



Hey Peter, I dare you to NOT cite any of your past "work" in your next piece. Something smells under that pile BTW, no duh Canada and Tampa would experience high mortalities, that doesn't take a rocket scientist, or a Cat fish expert to figure out.

 

[naesco]

Thank you for your post and your article Dr. Rubec.
Reeformists truly appreciate your bringing these things to light and attempting to set in motion steps that decrease the unacceptable mortality rates.

But expect to see the same denials by those in industry intent on changing nothing and continuing with perpetuating industrys 'dirty little secrets'.

A massive change in attitude on the part of industry is required and that can only be done by immediatge government intervention.
UNCLE SAM WHERE ARE YOU?

 

[Kalkbreath]

I enjoyed the paper ............BUT LETS get real

Even ORA cant boast 1% ........its silly and people that preach it risk having their true motives exposed.

Can you think of a scenario in which wild collected fish could be less stressed or have less travel time then tank raised from Florida?

If ORA or C-Quest cant achieve a 1% pipe dream, then that says something.
What is the deal with that 1% slogan? Why not four percent or ten percent?
Even clams and coral are no where near 1% Is cyanide testing the solution for DOA Clams?
The reason animals die in transit is that shippers cant afford to charter a plane for each single fish .
Its a space thing . tight holding vessles on the boat , cramp quarters at the exporters ,
expensive costs to ride in a 35 million dollar jet plane.
Ninety percent of all the Kings and Queens that ever lived on the face of the earth , never even dreamed of flying on a multi million dollar jumbo jet air craft .....
Yet the 4 dollar damsel in my aquarium has!
But tight packing during 747 hops across the Pacific is only part of the equation
One fish per per box ..... and you still are not going to reach 1% with damsels Species ....... which are fifty percent of the total fish landed each week . Certain species over exert themselves irrespective of precautions
Furthermore whats wrong with ten percent? So what?
. Killing ten percent out right is no greater evel the enslaving the remaining 90%
I actually think that those people whom question the keeping fish as pets as a whole ....are less silly the those individuals who feel that there is somehow a moralistic quality involved with the magic 1% DOA

Yes in a perfect world every fish would reach a ripe long age ,free of disease and of trigger fish eating it.
But this is far from a perfect world........ Stop pretending and get a grip.

 

[clarionreef]

Kalks right...but only because he knows what hes talking about thru experience :lol:
[ I mean as opposed to the selective culling of only information that fits pre-determined dogma intended to establish a narrower result ]

Only amatuers imagine the 1% gold standard..."as if" they could achieve it themselves. I assure you that none of them can do it themselves.

Experts of decades experience know how difficult it is to work your will across the ocean from the village to the exporter and engineer perfection....[ [1% is very , very near 0% and is virtually the same as perfection]
Kalk clearly has more importing and fish handling experience then all the MAC staff put together and reveals this wether he knows it or not. In fact, I guarantee you that if Kalk were to replace "5 office-field wannabies'' in MAC, they would start shipping more and better fish w/in a week or two.
But commercial experts of day in and day out hands on experience are not listened to as the truth doesn't fit pre-formed schemes already sold to funders as a viable mission. Honest expertise tends NOT to kiss butt and play along for personal gain and brownie points.
So...Refusing to re-set the game plan and unable to back-track and admit their folley to funders...the 1% 'standard of perfection' stays on the paper as the poor field work is squandering their 5th year and budget in an incompetence that borders on willfull malfeasence..
The interests of the trades better side are not served by this non starting campaign that spends treasure to no measure ....
money for no honey...
all fluff and no stuff...
a wish but no fish and ...
goodwill to no result.
[The last part didn't rhyme...but its just so true.]
Commercial field methodology cannot be faked by non commercial non fish people. This is why the 'reforms' many have been hoping for have not materialized. This is why they will not materialize!
These consultants to fix the trade have only fixed themselves...and left the trade undefended...unreformed and exposed to the dangers of yellow journalism, pseudo eco-hysteria and bogus science in seach of grant money at our expense.
Remember...The expose of poisoning tropical fishes and killing corals to collect fishes came from the trade. Not from outsiders!


The no-go... er...NGO groups are using the trade to garner funding for their own perpetuation and as they fail, we are the ones left out in the cold as they return to the other non tropical fish oriented pursuits.
If it all gets shut down... fisherman and fishdealers are the ones to lose out....If we are betting the farm on them, we need to create an exit strategy cause these folks ain't it.
If they could be more inclusive...beyond rhetoric of inclusion...
if they could use field people instead of office people in the field,
if they would listen more instead of stick to fixed doctrine...
if they could reform their mission instead of alienating reformers
and if they would not frontload the cyanide trade over the responsible part of the trade....
All this they could do any given week....but the errors of the past [ admitted at times] are set in stone and become the current ...steadfast policy.
There are lots of good, netcaught fish around....non certified or tainted by outside...bureaucratic, non fish people influences... Thank goodness.

Steve

 

[PeterIMA]

Several points about the mortality research being initiated described in the paper by Rubec and Cruz.

1. It is not funded by the MAC. Funding has been obtained by the East
Asian Seas Initiative (EASI) from other sources.

2. It seeks to reduce fish mortality in the trade, but it is not related to
the artificial (and so far unattainable) 1% MAC Standard.

3. We hope that the findings will benefit the entire marine aquarium fish
trade (not just those who become MAC Certified).

4. We expect to reduce mortality rates of fish exported from the
Philippines and Indonesia over the next year. The first beneficiaries
will be members of the trade who participate in study. None of the
companies participating are associated with the MAC.

Peter Rubec

 

[clarionreef]

Good to hear Peter!
I thought one could still be a good Christian without belonging to a particular sect.
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

That may be so, but the danger in those papers is who uses them, not who writes them or who they wrote them for. No matter what your intentions were/are, this will still be used by MAC to further MAC agendas. They'll do a much better job utilizing your work, then you can ever imagine. Now if they could just erase your name and Ferdies I'm sure one is working on that

 

[naesco]

That may be so, but the danger in those papers is who uses them, not who writes them or who they wrote them for. No matter what your intentions were/are, this will still be used by MAC to further MAC agendas. They'll do a much better job utilizing your work, then you can ever imagine. Now if they could just erase your name and Ferdies I'm sure one is working on that

So what is wrong with outing the truth? Why are you and others in industry afraid of someone using these papers to let the world know that there is a much better way of handling this industy/hobby than what is presently going on.
Whether the 1% goal is achievable or not is not the issue. The issue is to stop the carnage.

 

[Anonymous]

Outing the truth? I live this every day Wayne, it's not the truth I live and breath. We don't have such high numbers, one shipment out 100 maybe, but thats only due to inproper labelling (went to wrong airport). This cross section of people seems to only represent only the worst offenders. 30% you kidding me, I'd walk away and call it quits if I saw constant 30% DOA because that would mean I'd have anopther 30% in DAA (we've seen DAA figures typically equal DOA). I think many shippers can improve, but only with the help of the importers. We work directly with our exporters to improve every shipment Wayne, it's what we do. Our business is to sell live fish, not dead or dying. We can't turn and burn, it doesn't work, and it's simply wrong. There's more to the issue, you just don't see it. Yes, save lives, do it all ready. OK, so you write a paper that part of it is: a new exporter that has a VERY hard time shipping from Bali, shipping the a Canadian maintance company. What do you think will happen? Big DOA. I've seen more of those Bali shipments from that exporter, then anyone Wayne. They're having a real hard time learning disease controll, packing protocol, holding, shipping, but they're net caught and twice as expsenive.

The problem I have is, the picking and choosing of data (worst offenders only cited, hence high %), the constant citing of ones self to give creadance to the new work even if the old work is flawed (Lalo) and what the dark side of statistics ("Double digit DOA") can do for money hungry NGO that won't produce, only consume. With papers like this, it's no wonder that millions have been squanderred and millions more are on the slate to be squanderred. line them up, and knock them down, gotta love the grant game.

 

[Kalkbreath]

There is no secrete. Thats the point.
The industry has understood that live healthy fish are in the best interests of all involved.........
Profits are directly attached to the number of fish reaching their destination alive.
The only thing thats unclear is how do we determine whats the correct balance between respecting the fish in our custody and making a living doing so ..........?

One issue is what is an acceptable DOA rate and how does that compare to the current rate of fish expiring during transport.
Perhaps we have already achieved it?
.Do Damsels count the same as Angels fish? .......do feeders guppies count the same as Tetras ? Why?

Who decides what is appropriate we look at how the environment is effected or how God would view our actions?

Is paramount what affect our collection of fish has on the health of the reefs?........ the reef only looks at how many fish we remove , not what happens to the fish after they leave the ocean .

If the reef cares less what happens to the fish we remove , then who determines whats fair in regard to the number of fish that croak on their way to become our pets?

The current industry rate of DOA is around seven percent....... then seven percent DAA. Thats 14 percent . Is this a reasonable amount?
Who determins what is ?

Is it Peter , is it Kalk ,is it The Reefs?

 

[DBM]

The double digit DOA must be attributed to the airlines. Nobody can run a viable importing business with consistant high DOA when the good Philippine exporters have got the packing down to a fine art.

Wow, where are these DOA numbers coming from? East Coast obviously. I know I'm pissed if I see a 2% number here on the west coast (airlines not withstanding).

Working with the exporter on packing weights and handling is key but requiring a maximum 1% DOA will require heavier packing, you're still at the mercy of the airlines, and is unattainable for any flights other than those direct from country of origin.

 

[clarionreef]

Doug,
Your experience is getting in the way.
I knew there must be somebody up there that knew what he was talking about and had more then knee-jerk contributions to make.
Airlines kill more for us in one missed flight connection then the next 6 months. Twice we had a Northwest flight breakdown in Tokyo this year and those DOAs were the only that even approached double figures.
Airline DOAS simply dwarf the rest...hands down.

Steve

 

[dizzy]

I think DOA needs to be studied on a species by species basis. I tend to think actual DOA numbers for retailers are closer to Mr. Koutnik's estimates of around 7%. I wouldn't be surprised if DAA is higher than that if the fish are held in poor holding systems for any length of time. The longer you hold them the more things that can go wrong. I would sure like to hear from someone who is doing 2% DOA on black saddle clowns (Amphiprion polymnus) or true A. sebae or A chrysopterus. How about royal grammas. These should be easy, but is anyone doing 2% with these? Damsels?

IMO given the current holding/selling systems I have seen in most stores it will not be possible for them to hold the large variety of fish that you need to keep customers interested and also achieve 1% DAA. Perhaps the Petco chain and some others will have the resources to put in systems good enough to get close. When we let our systems run low we get wonderful comments like: "When is your next order coming in?" Or: "I'll come back when you get more fish in." Or: "I'm going to Nashville where they have some selection." We also have to compete with the endless variety of the good doctors and such. If you get your stocking levels down to more reasonable numbers (where they belong) it is some sort of psychological turnoff to the buying public. You can have a very fat and healthy flame angel that has been in the store for weeks and it is hard to sell in a half empty system. Throw a bunch more fish in the sytems and out the door it goes. The buying public we are selling this stuff to is far from perfect. Somehow I don't think the wholesalers or stores ever will be either.
Mitch

 

[Anonymous]

That has been my experience as well. As an example, I had a Powder Blue Tang and a Regal Tang (Sm-Med) sit in my system for four months, neither ever had the slightest parasite or health problem and both ate flake food and frozen food like pigs. And I was selling them for 30% less than they do in Atlanta. People have the perception that they are missing out on something if they buy from anything less than an overstocked system.

 

[naesco]

That has been my experience as well. As an example, I had a Powder Blue Tang and a Regal Tang (Sm-Med) sit in my system for four months, neither ever had the slightest parasite or health problem and both ate flake food and frozen food like pigs. And I was selling them for 30% less than they do in Atlanta. People have the perception that they are missing out on something if they buy from anything less than an overstocked system.

Rover hobbyist are not buying these two fish for a few reasons.

1. Both of these fish come from the Philippines and Indonesia where the use of cyanide is rampant. Hobbyists, through the use of internet forums are beginning to learn this.
2. It is well established that tangs require large tanks, a minimum of 6 feet in length. How many of your customers have tanks the size that can accommodate these fish?
3. The powder blue tang is an almost impossible fish to keep alive even by expert hobbyists. Recognized authors do not recommend these fish to hobbyists.
4. The poweder blue fish is a mean aggressive fish and should only be considered if it is the last and smallest tang to be added to a tank.

Faced with your advising a potential buyer of these facts, there is little doubt why they decline to buy them.

 

[naesco]

The double digit DOA must be attributed to the airlines. Nobody can run a viable importing business with consistant high DOA when the good Philippine exporters have got the packing down to a fine art.

Wow, where are these DOA numbers coming from? East Coast obviously. I know I'm pissed if I see a 2% number here on the west coast (airlines not withstanding).

Working with the exporter on packing weights and handling is key but requiring a maximum 1% DOA will require heavier packing, you're still at the mercy of the airlines, and is unattainable for any flights other than those direct from country of origin.

Doug I have a knee jerk contribution to make.
PM me your contact number today and I will meet you at Vancouver airport to inspect your next shipment. I will not post or comment on the results until you do. I live in Richmond, 10 minutes away from the airport. To do a true random sampling, call me today so that we can catch the shipment now enroute.

 

[clarionreef]

GUYS,
YOU ARE PRECHING TREASON.
ALL THE NEW INDUSTRY GROUPS ARE NOW PITCHING TO THE DEMAND SIDE as the key to reforming all things.
From your actual experience you seem to doubt that there will be a born-again rising tide of conscientious consumers :lol: willing to pay any price and bear any burden to secure clean, heathy, environmentally friendly livestock.
RPI and MAC are counting on your experience as being in error.
Steve

 

[naesco]

GUYS,
YOU ARE PRECHING TREASON.
ALL THE NEW INDUSTRY GROUPS ARE NOW PITCHING TO THE DEMAND SIDE as the key to reforming all things.
From your actual experience you seem to doubt that there will be a born-again rising tide of conscientious consumers :lol: willing to pay any price and bear any burden to secure clean, heathy, environmentally friendly livestock.
RPI and MAC are counting on your experience as being in error.
Steve

They will come and they will buy. But only after government regulations are enacted to do what industry has neglected to do and that is inform their customers.
Naturally those fish and coral on the unsuitable species list (USL) will not be allowed to be imported.
The others will be rated as to difficulty and minimum tank size recomendations. This information will marked on the tanks and potential buyers will be given approved data so that they are informed prior to buying livestock.