Study of Mortality

[Kalkbreath]

Kalk, How does a 6 CDT laboratories with qualified chemists and biologists working for IMA under contract to BFAR become "assumptions" about cyanide use? Please explain how you dismiss 48,000 cyanide tests over 8 years conducted in PI?

As far as Indonesia, there are numerous reports of cyanide use by respected scientists (like Narikome Bentely's report to WWF) that confirm the widespread use of cyanide in Indonesia in both the live food fish and the live marine aquarium fish trades. The IMA also had operatives that collected information directly from the collectors. So, I agree with Steve, Indonesia is now the cyanide capital of the world.

Peter Rubec

You dont find anything odd about testing 48,000 times and only finding 8 percent cyanide one year 11 the next. Then continuing to chant that cyanide fishing is rampant in PI even when your tests showed it wasnt true?
8 fish in a 100 are dirty and you think thats rampant?
What do you demand from PI? 100 percent? Thats abit of a stretch coming from a thirdworld county.
Would you have still have spoken out if the instance was only 7 , 6, 5, 4 ..percent?
Or would 4% still fall under the category of "rampant".
Have you ever thought it might very well be that the people still crying "rampant" even after the majority of fishermen in PI stopped using cyanide in 1998 nobody gave any praise and the lack thereof is the reason many went back to bottles/
Perhaps the lack of positive reinforcement when a 68% dropped to 8% caused the collectors to say what the he** If lousy 4% percent is still rampant, then why even humor these American Ba**rds?
If my child was to go from getting 68 out of a hundred questions wrong in amath test .........then did his best to improve to only missing 8 out of a hundred. What effect would it have if all I could say is was that he still is an idiot, what do you think his response would be?
Now look at it through the perspective of "it takes a village"
What if 68 percent of the collectors in a village were juicing , but then most of them got it together and next times only 8% were juicing.
The 60 out of the 68 reeformers stopped using cyanide , yet the All powerful American "Reeformers" still called them all "dirty PI fishermen"
No wonder they lost the drive to stay clean or to care what we say.

 

[Kalkbreath]

double post

 

[Terry B]

I think it is great that people are willing to look into this. Change begins with knowledge. A better understanding of what happens to fish before, during and after transport and handling may spawn some changes in the way we do things.

Some of the effects of transport, handling, confinement, capture and air exposure on fish include:

• The release of stress hormones such as catecholamines and
corticosteroids
• Impaired immune function related to elevated stress hormone levels
• Elevated levels of plasma and muscle lactate acid
• Muscle fatigue as the result of exhaustive exercise leading up to capture
• Gill collapse from air exposure
• Reductions in energy fuels such as phosphocreatine (PCr), adenosine
riphosphate (ATP) and muscle glycogen
• Elevated hematocrit, red blood cell swelling, spleen transfusion, and
fluid shifts
• Osmotic, electrolyte and acid base disturbances caused by fluid shifts
and the accumulation of metabolic wastes.

The largest portions of mortalities that occur post shipment, related to the stress of transport and handling, are due to osmotic dysfunction, impaired immune function and stress mediated disease (Noga, 2000. Stoskopf, 1993). Wounds and compromises to the mucus/scale/skin barrier caused by handling and exposure to cyanide only serve to make matters worse.

Survival to the retail level and even to the end consumer cannot be measured as success since an undetermined number of fish suffer from Delayed Mortality Syndrome 2 to 14 days after a stressful event. I think the critical period extents to several weeks.

Four goals that are crucial to the recovery of fish are:

Reducing stress with the subsequent release of stress hormones
Regaining normal homeostasis including ion, osmotic, and acid-base balance
Recovery of full immune system function
Return of feeding behaviors

Terry B

 

[PeterIMA]

Terry, Your points are well stated. They are mostly derived from research on salmon and trout rather than on marine aquarium fishes shipped in sealed plastic bags. But, the physiology related to stress should be the same.

As stated earlier, we (Ferdinand Cruz, myself, and collaborators) are evaluating the use of chemical additives that can help alleviate stress, neutralize ammonia, and deal with other deletrious conditions that occur with the water quality during shipping. In short, it is not focused on measuring the effects, but is focused on reducing the response (high mortalities). We believe we are succeeding in this.

The trade (some LA importers) have now shown some interest in doing their own study. I wish them luck with obtaining funding from PIJAC. Personally, I find it strange that they have refused to acknowledge there was (or is) a problem for over 20 years.

I learned that one LA-based importer felt was OK to use cyanide, provided the exporters screened out the damaged fish, so that it did not affect his import mortality (and bottom line economically) in LA. There still was no concern for protecting the coral reefs (by stopping cyanide use) or to improving the economic situation of the collectors. These problems need to be dealt with along with implementation of better collection methods (net-collection), and implementation of better acclimation, conditioning, and shipping protocols.

Gaining more data to prove that fish die from a litany of potential causes is not my goal. Dr. Jerry Heidel of Oregon State University has gone that route and has been doing post-mortems of fishes with LA importers (mostly Sea Dwellling Creatures). He has not got down to measuring corticosteroids or other stress related hormones that I know off. I don't believe that it is necessary to do this.

What is necessary is the following:
1) Come up with measures to stop cyanide fishing (both food fish and aquarium fishes) in the Philippines and Indonesia.

2) Train the collectors to use nets.

3) Train the collectors in better handling and acclimation procedures.

4) Convince exporters that the present system of distributing cyanide to the collectors, low-balling them on the prices paid to the collectors, and then cheating them on the screening has to change.

5) Convince the exporters that better MAF that survive in their facilities merit paying collectors more for their fish.

6) Track the fish and determine whether the use of chemical additives can improve the quality of the fish being shipped to US and European buyers. Use adaptive management to correct the problems identified.

That is what we are presently doing. We hope that the rest of the trade is willing to do the same.

Peter Rubec

 

[naesco]

AND when all else fails, take such steps as are necessary to preserve the reefs and the creatures that live therein and prosecute to the end those who ignore the law.

 

[sdcfish]

Peter wrote:

I learned that one LA-based importer felt was OK to use cyanide, provided the exporters screened out the damaged fish, so that it did not affect his import mortality (and bottom line economically) in LA. There still was no concern for protecting the coral reefs (by stopping cyanide use) or to improving the economic situation of the collectors. These problems need to be dealt with along with implementation of better collection methods (net-collection), and implementation of better acclimation, conditioning, and shipping protocols

Peter,

If I can refresh your memory, the question was, "why is thier such a large descrepancy in doa's arriving in Los Angeles to Sea Dwelling Creatures, and other importers than are being reported compared to the high doa's that are being reported by Peter and other's here today"?

I then replied, "One of the possibilities are that the screening process at the exporting facilities is being done at a higher and more effective level, only sending the best quality fish to the importers".

That comment had nothing to do with cyanide and I really must say that it's very offensive to be misquoted as such. I find it also very interesting that Peter would "hear" his version of my comment so differently than I presented it? Anybody else find that interesting? Why does this happen so frequently now?

Peter also stated in public in implying "Wholesalers" should be putting their money where their mouths are, and I must say that our dollars being spent on netting donations, and more substantially the money being spent on research with Oregon State should be enough proof that we are putting the money into research, higher qualified staff, and travel expenses where we go and help our exporters improve and develop our test studies.

Peter's study of fish that are packed and shipped with ammonia neutralizers is an interesting study that we also have been testing for months now, and although we have seen lower ammonia levels in arriving bags of fish, the study is not yet showing any clear advantage to long term survivability at this point, although it's definately not hurting the fish. We are testing two or three different shipping methods every week and tracking the success very diligently. Combining sodium bicarb along with the neutralizer seems to be the best combo (oops...did I let a secret out)?

Unlike others, we are not afraid to show our advances to the industry and we will be very open with any advances we make if it means we can make a difference in the industry as a whole. This is one area we do not feel that we should capitalize on and try to hold any secrets to make profits on. This information will be freely given to anyone and everyone who wants to improve and take advantage of it.

Peters tests are commendable and I applaud him, and thank him for being at the doorstep of our industry where most of the problems occur, and taking on the biggest challenge that is obvious the region he is working in.

Many good comments are being made here....let's please just try and keep the information accurate and not exaggerated.

Best regards

Eric

 

[PeterIMA]

Eric, What I "heard" came from another source than yourself. Perhaps you are the one who is over reacting. I think you are connecting the wrong dots.

I have no doubt that your mortality at SDC is low most of the time. But, Dr. Heidel did report that it ranged as high 66% in his presentation at MO06 (that is assuming he was referring to SDC).

I also find it of interest that you are experimenting with "additives". I would guess that there are similarities, but that there are also differences. We are not working together. We are using different chemical formulations, so our results do not have to be the same. We should eventually compare notes and formulations, if you are willing.

I applaud Eric Cohen and Sea Dwelling Creatures for being proactive in seeking solutions to the problems of shiipping and acclimation. Likewise, my team is dedicated to seeking solutions to these problems.

 

[sdcfish]

Peter,

I agree and appologize for the wrong conclusion. I did not hear anyone comment on cyanide use as being acceptable.

Dr. Hiedel's comments of 66% mortality were relating to one specie with high doa's....not overall shipments.

Let's get together and discuss our progress with shipping techniques.

Best regards

Eric

 

[clarionreef]

I did not hear anyone comment on cyanide use as being acceptable.
No one is that dim witted...ie. to say it in public.
I have heard it in private from an Indo shipper and from from MAC folks who explained to upset exporters in Manila that they "never said thay had to convert overnite."
Another big one in that group told a certified exporter that "If you can't beat em, join em."
Granted, the latter two are merely de-facto support of the current reality. But it was taken with a sigh of relief that the issue need not be taken that seriously anymore.
This is the proverbial "they blinked first" thing and after that, the shippers knew this thing was ...er...."flexible"
Steve

 

[clarionreef]

Defacto support and belief for the cyanide system has always been near universal thruout Indo and the Philippines and assumed to be a neccessary part of getting angels and clown trggers, blue tangs etc.

When I learned however, how city-bound the exporters were and how little they actually knew about the sea, the coral reefs, the and fisherman....it was clearer how they arrived at their conclusions.
Their own fisheries depeartment certainly aided and abetted them and allowed the perversion of fishery policy to evolve and thrive.
The mounting damages the exporters heard of in passing was explained away as follows;
By the collapse of stocks, I'll be rich enough as to not be affected. This is used on the dealer side as well. Consumers are still almost wholly oblivious to the question.
I suspect that most non profit groups don't care to see this thing thru either and will have other safety nets and will bail out as the issue is no longer useful to them.
The myth of sustainability assumes no human population increases and that we can fish at the same level in perpetuity despite rising demand.
By simple Websters dictionary definition, this is incredibly inaccurate. This sustainability term has been claimed by all seeking fig leaves and fancy sounding talk to justify themselves as if pronouncing it was equal to practicing it.
Its 2006 and very, very late for the luke warm discussions.
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

On a whim I went to a new LFS over the weekend. They said that cyanide use ended in the '70's.

Have a nice day overcoming the lies.

 

[clarionreef]

Cool...
I must add that achievement to the resume.
and MAC ..and others need to give the money back.
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

I'd like to see a study of how LFS employees answer the question: "have any of these fish been collected with poisons like cyanide?"

From my very limited experience, cyanide use is being denied at the LFS level. If most hobbyists are inducted and educated at the LFS level; and cyanide use is being denied at the LFS level how can inroads into ethical change be pushed from a hobbyist level? BTW, my local fish club was educated that there might be a cyanide problem by use of MAC literature.

 

[Anonymous]

heh i used to walk down the rows after being asked that, pointing to almost each tank saying 'most likely this, and this, and this, and also this, and that too'

 

[Anonymous]

I'd like to see a study of how LFS employees answer the question: "have any of these fish been collected with poisons like cyanide?"

From my very limited experience, cyanide use is being denied at the LFS level. If most hobbyists are inducted and educated at the LFS level; and cyanide use is being denied at the LFS level how can inroads into ethical change be pushed from a hobbyist level? BTW, my local fish club was educated that there might be a cyanide problem by use of MAC literature.

 

[Kalkbreath]

And what would be the correct answer?
1.)"Well sir,the most recent testing showed about twenty percent of the fish from The Philippines were found to have been collected with cyanide."
"but most fish there are not even collected from within live coral so its not like every fish represents a dead coral"
Even when cyanide is squirted near a coral , most of the time the coral doesn't totally die. Its just spotted a bit.
"So if twenty percent are collected with cyanide,only perhaps 5 percent would involve harming coral. net fishermen using crowbars to get at the same fish would damage the reef even more there are always going to be Some fishermen who are going to resort to take short cuts to save time. I bet most of the customers here in this store broke the law today driving around in order to save a few minutes of their time. Why? Well thats just human nature. To think ALL fishermen in a third world county are going to play by the rules is a stretch."
2.)"there are some pretty crazy anti pet fish people out there"
3.)Some of these same people even claim pet fish are collected with blast fishing. Bombs that are thrown over board and they scoop up the fish"
4.)" Im sorry to have to tell you all of this , but the new Fairnessand Truth in Pet fish IndustryLaw requires that I tell each new customer the truth about our industry.
5.)But these are corals sir, Even though some claim even corals are collected with cyanide.....its not true. And these are Farmed corals, I doubt that the farmers would juice there own crops........but Im sure you will still find certain reeformer types that were told from a friends uncle that even mariculture corals are collected with poison and that the trade should be shut down ...........so its kind hard to know what to believe now isnt it sir?"
That will be $178.50 sir and thanks for stopping by."

 

[clarionreef]

KALK,
IT IS TRUE THAT THERE ARE FOLKS WHO HOPE THE ISSUE IS TRUE AND HOPE THAT THE NEWS IS BAD.
The psychological reason for this hope is an odd one.
The need to be a Pollyanna is as old as can be....and the truth often suffers for it.
Exagerrations and scare tactics hurt the cause of truth and so do the sky is falling crowd. With that said...the earth is warming crowd has a lot to say about our extra pressure on already pressured eco-systems.
However, letting the people work the reefs and eat is a counterbalance to comfortable drive-by environmentalists who cry look but don't touch from their SUVs.
In this debate, I always wanted to seperate pressure on the reef from extraction... from pressure on the reefs thru damaging the coral structure.
Without clean, all netcaught control groups...its hard to know how resilient the reefs are and how well they can actually stand fair and balanced harvesting.
I have a 20 year baseline in Baja Mexico to refer to on this and the news is excellent. The shorthand is that the divers never need to keep traveling futher afield because all they need always returns annually within a 'day-trip' radius from their homes.
The other 99% of the Sea of Cortez is safe from them and they need not take from it.
Habitat destruction however....mandates ever increasing plunder futher and futher from home.
Soon, the damage is so general that divers seek employment beyond their borders.
I think clean collecting is as possible in S.E.Asia as it is proven to be in so many other places.
Tonga fish collecting is virtually run by net catching Filipinos now as is Vanuatu, Saudi, Belize....etc.
Obviously they can do this...always could.
The tragedy is that the Asian question has been shadowed, monitored, exploited and used by one outfit after another who discaded it after it had run its course w/ them.
Since when can commercial people ever be fixed by city folks? They never could...and weren't. So here we are. Still stung by serious and legitamite criticism by people who are looking beyond the next shipment and the next grant.
The trade and it NGO cohorts should be able to refer to all the good work and the progress achieved thru the years instead of debating this stuff endlessly as if it were new.
There should have been by now the proverbial "wow factor".
Field results coming in should be exciting news by now and the good news should be told everywhere by now.
Lord knows enough money has been spent to expect more results.

Nothing speaks like success and the lack of success on this stuff is telling and obvious.
Didn't have to be...but it was.
Meanwhile...its 2006 and half the country drives SUVs and the oceans are heating up while we fiddle-faddle with whose on first.
Steve

 

[bookfish]

Well said Steve.

 

[clarionreef]

Have a look at what real reef scientists think;

[Coral-List] Resilience? After Heat Stroke?
James M Cervino cnidaria at earthlink.net
Sun Feb 26 12:34:28 EST 2006



Dear Coral Reef Scientists,


Alina's post states the truth as it address our cultural behavior in
the USA and how this may be having a negative impact on the reefs
throughout the world. We all agree that thermal stress is the number
one cause of coral mortality coupled with localized deforestation and
anthropogenic nutrient enrichment. However, it was not long ago that
there were people out there (marine scientists) that refused to admit
that global warming induced thermal heat shock is the number one
threat reefs are facing today.
Reef Resilience! Are we fooling
ourselves? With the growing population and the types of vehicles we
use to transport our kiddies to soccer practice we will continue to
produce more heat trapping gasses into the atmosphere that are
directly correlated with higher sea surface temperatures. This will
have a serious effect on tropical corals that are sensitive and
already threatened. The major reef builders of the Pacific are not
resilient, and will not be resistant to thermal stress and coral
disease.
We can say good-by to the diversity of corals I am looking
at in Jen Veron's book that is sitting in front of me on my desk,
especially if we all are not vocal about the Energy Policy produced
by the Whitehouse this year. Were there any atmospheric and marine
scientists acting as advisors quoted in this Energy Policy brief? We
as marine scientists should be outraged as we all know now that reefs
will not be resilient to the changing oceanographic conditions in the
next decade.
So the question is, how will we address this as marine
scientists? Create more MPAs? I don't care how many MPAs we create
throughout the world, if we are not going to get serious about global
warming and anthropogenic nutrient enrichment we are wasting time.
Will MPAs protect corals from heat stroke or nutrient enrichment? Are
corals protected from global warming and nutrient pollution and is
this addressed in MPAs ? Below are some vital statistics regarding
how the USA is addressing global warming induced climate change:

In 2004, China consumed 6.5 million barrels of oil per day. The
United States consumed 20.4 million barrels, and demand is rising as
a result of economic growth and American cars. It has been estimated
that the bulk of the imports are going directly to SUVs. SUVs made
up 5% of the American arsenal of cars in 1990; currently they make up
54%.
U.S. oil imports are at the highest ever, 55%. Department of Energy
projections show imports rising to 70 percent by 2025. Interpreting
this to a global scale the United States transportation sector
produces about 8% of world global warming pollution and accounts for
18 percent of an increasingly tight world oil market each year
according to the Energy Foundation and the Association for Peak
Oil&Gas (http://www.peakoil.net/).

If American cars averaged 40 miles per gallon, we would soon reduce
consumption by 2 million to 3 million barrels of oil a day. That
could translate into a sustained price drop of more than $20 a
barrel. And getting cars to be that efficient is easy. This was not
addressed in the recent energy bill recently passed by Congress.

Global oil use = 31.5 billion barrels per year
One barrel oil = 42 U.S. gallons
One cubic foot = 7.48 U.S. gallons
One cubic mile = 147.2 billion cubic feet

Country Barrels of oil per person annually
United States 25
Japan 14.0
Spain 13.8
Mexico 6.0
Brazil 3.5
China 1.5
India 0.8
Source: Goldman Sachs, Energy Weekly, August 11, 1999


Consumption
(Millions of barrels per day): Source DOE
------------------------------------------------------------------------

United States: 19.993
Japan: 5.423
China: 4.854
Germany: 2.814
Russia: 2.531
South Korea: 2.126
Brazil: 2.123
Canada: 2.048
France: 2.040
India: 2.011
Mexico: 1.932
Italy: 1.881
United Kingdom: 1.699
Spain: 1.465
SaudiArabia: 1.415
Iran: 1.109
Indonesia: 1.063
Netherlands: .881
Australia: .879
Taiwan: .846

--
ouch!
I feel the damage we have caused is just adding to an already critical situation and that at least we should not contribute to it.
Clean collecting without habitat and structure damage is vital and is needed as soon as possible....everywhere.
If global warming is indeed the greatest threat there is...then we are in fact the greatest enemy of all by virtue of our very lifestyle.
Steve

 

[Kalkbreath]

Lets do some needed Kalkulas......,
one needs to account for productivity of American industry when considering how much oil the USA consumes per day.
The above data states that the average American uses over three gallons per day. [ Thats sixty miles of travel based on average MPG of American cars.][ 20 barrels times 42 gallons per barrel div by 365 days]
The reader is to believe that the average US commuter travels 21,000 miles a year. But its actually only about 12,000 miles per day.{and thats of people who drive not babies and Octogenerians.
Furthermore only 8.2 million barrels a day go toward our American automobiles. The remaining 17 million barrels is used by American industry.
America uses only 8.2 mbd compared to 50 million used by the rest of the world. [and they create more emissions per gallon by far(five times per barrel)] So a side by side comparison in emissions produced by US autos compared to the rest of the world is a staggering 1 to 50 in favor of the other sources of oil based CO2!
An SUV gets 29 percent less MPG then the average US car , but it also holds 400+ percent more passages when in use.[an SUV is almost five times more likely to have more then one occupant when in use.]
An SUV is more fuel efficient not by design , but by the way it is used.
LAstly , CO2 levels are actually higher over the Pacific ocean then readings taken in the center of America! Its difficult to explain this if the CO2 is coming from US autos?
I love Kalkulas