Study of Mortality

[clarionreef]

Kalk,
Perhaps more scientists should listen to Rush Limbaugh when driving around, no?
Then they could hear your views expressed from the source.
Heres another thread in the "coral-list" dialogue.
This time from Dr. Mark H Tupper, Senior Scientist
Palau International Coral Reef Center
PO Box 7086, Koror, Palau 96940

Steve


Hi listers,

I think James, Jeff and Alina are right on the money when they talk about
vehicle emissions and today's "bigger is better" SUV mindset. I doubt that
the public has any realization of the degree to which vehicle emissions
contribute to greenhouse gases. A quote from the California Cars Initiative:
"In California, transportation accounts for over 40% of greenhouse gas
emissions. Nationally the number is around 33%. Globally it's 20% and rising
fast, especially as car-starved China, India and Russia add to their
fleets." So, if we can agree that global warming and climate change are
adversely affecting coral reefs, then vehicle emissions are one of the major
culprits. But have governments or the auto industry made any attempt to
educate the public on this issue? If so, I must have missed it...

This is one of the most challenging problems our environment faces, given
the long history of our deep-rooted "car culture" lifestyle in North
America. It's amazing to me that with sky-high gas prices unlikely to change
while there is continuing war in the Middle East, people still want to buy
the biggest, most expensive SUV they can. For example, in the last decade,
Hummer went from a cottage industry aimed at producing exclusive (and
enormous) vehicles for celebrities, to a major automaker producing over
100,000 SUVs per year. And as Jeff said, how many of those are ever taken
off-road? And while DaimlerChrysler has been touting their advances in PHEV
technology (plug-in hybrid electric vehicles that can get 100+ mpg), they
were busy reviving the 425 horsepower Hemi engine and stuffing it into
4-door family sedans, and then developing a 500 horsepower V-10 for their
SUVs and pickup trucks. Do soccer moms really need to go 0-60 in under 5
seconds and cruise the highway at over 170 mph, which just 10 years ago
could only be done with a $200,000 exotic sports car? No. It would be
illegal anyway. Has DaimlerChrysler sold any mass-produced PHEVs yet? No.
Why not? Because hybrids are for nerdy enviro-geeks like us. Nobody else
would pay the premium price charged for them when they could get a "real"
car for less. In North America's car culture, big and powerful is sexy;
small and efficient is lame.

Sorry if this post seems too much about vehicles and not enough about coral
reefs, but I'm trying to address one of the root causes of coral reef
decline. We might say that greenhouse gases and resulting thermal stress are
a root cause of decline but they aren't the ultimate cause. They are a
symptom generated by human activities - a symptom that happens to trigger
its own set of secondary symptoms, including coral bleaching and disease. In
addressing the ultimate cause, the question is, how do we change the mindset
of an entire nation from one of spending all their disposable income on
unnecessary luxuries to one of moderation and conservation?
Cheers,
Mark


Dr. Mark H Tupper, Senior Scientist
Palau International Coral Reef Center
PO Box 7086, Koror, Palau 96940
tel (680) 488-6950; fax (680) 488-6951

and

Adjunct Research Associate
University of Guam Marine Laboratory
UOG Station, Mangilao, Guam 96923, USA
tel (671) 735-2375; fax (671) 734-6767

 

[Anonymous]

Maybe some one from http://www.aquavets.com/ could help on this study

 

[Anonymous]

the (currently very active) coral-list 'reef resiliency' thread is one that all serious hobbyists should be following.

 

[Kalkbreath]

1.)California wildfires produce ten times more Co2 then the Calif automobiles.
2.)The green lush landscapes California residents plant in there yards and Farms , offsets the additional C02 their CAlifornia autos produce. [green is very un native in California] compare the Carbon [co2]locked in California plants to that released by autos]
3.) if the new wetter California weather continues This new Co2 sink (lush growth) of growing bushes and trees will absorb enough C02 to counter the last ten years of Auto emmissions.[that is until it burns during a wild fire]
4.) the gradual increase in Co2 of the earth began long before autos were even around. [1850s]We are adding to it, but even if we switched to 100% non emmissions vehicles, this would only decrease the worlds man made Co2 by 20 percent..........total C02 by 5 percent.
Hardly the cause and effect your being blamed for.

 

[Anonymous]

1.)California wildfires produce ten times more Co2 then the Calif automobiles.
2.)The green lush landscapes California residents plant in there yards and Farms , offsets the additional C02 their CAlifornia autos produce. [green is very un native in California] compare the Carbon [co2]locked in California plants to that released by autos]
3.) if the new wetter California weather continues This new Co2 sink (lush growth) of growing bushes and trees will absorb enough C02 to counter the last ten years of Auto emmissions.[that is until it burns during a wild fire]
4.) the gradual increase in Co2 of the earth began long before autos were even around. [1850s]We are adding to it, but even if we switched to 100% non emmissions vehicles, this would only decrease the worlds man made Co2 by 20 percent..........total C02 by 5 percent.
Hardly the cause and effect your being blamed for.

please provide a link,either scientific or science fiction-ic backing up each of those statements

 

[Kalkbreath]

Even Steves link states that Autos are only 20 % of the total man made CO2.
The Ocean , terestrial plants, forrest fires , volcanos etc.....produce three times more Co2 then man made sources.
Even just using the Steves link , shutting off all Autos would only decrease the output by 20 percent.

The records of the CO2 rise and the rise in fossil fuel emission, how closely do they match? It presents a surprisingly poor correlation. Prior to 1800, CO2 levels in the Earth’s atmosphere had stabilized at approximately 280 ppm for a period of at least 10,000 years. The current increase began at the turn of the nineteenth century, 60 years before the beginning of the industrial revolution (1860), in fact a substantial rise was recorded well before that time.

“The North American land surface appears to be absorbing possibly as much as between 1 and 2 billion tons of carbon annually, or a sizeable fraction of global emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil-fuel burning.” The research team obtained its data from 63 atmospheric sampling stations of the GLOBALVIEW database. GLOBALVIEW-CO2 is a compilation of high-quality atmospheric measurements of gases made by different laboratories, and is a product of the Cooperative Atmospheric Data Integration Project, coordinated by NOAA-CMDL. The researchers developed a three-dimensional grid of Earth to model the flow of carbon dioxide, and applied the GLOBALVIEW data to it. They expected to see the amount of atmospheric CO2 increase over North America, caused by the gas produced by the burning of fossil fuels. Instead, the model showed that for the period of time studied, carbon dioxide declined in the atmosphere across North America as the model’s winds moved from west to east. The decline of atmospheric CO2 indicates that the gas is being absorbed into the land mass.

The scientists are not sure what is causing the decline of carbon dioxide. They theorize that it is partly due to the regrowth of plants and vegetation on abandoned farmland and previously logged forests in North America. It may even be enhanced by human-induced nitrogen deposition, a diluted form of acid rain. Although the actual cause is unknown at the moment, the researchers believe that plants and soils are a major factor in CO2 absorption and will continue to exert considerable influence on atmospheric carbon dioxide in the future.

Pieter Tans emphasizes that even when researchers can account for most of the carbon dioxide that has been emitted globally, the future remains uncertain. “The current uptake of carbon by terrestrial ecosystems is helping to slow down the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere, but we need to know why this is happening,” he says. “Only then may we be able to project for how long into the future this process may continue.” “This finding will assist us in better understanding the global fate of carbon dioxide,” Tans says. Jerry Mahlman, director of NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory and a co- author of the Oct. 16 paper, says that the North American sink may prove important in worldwide management of atmospheric carbon absorption. Its value, he adds, will be at a global, rather than a regional level." (reported online at http://inet2.agiweb.org/agi/geotimes/de ... notes.html )

Biomass burning is now recognized as a significant global source of emissions, contributing as much as 40% of gross carbon dioxide and 38% of tropospheric ozone. Most of the world's burned biomass matter is from the savannas, and because two-thirds of the Earth's savannas are located in Africa, that continent is now recognized as the "burn center" of the planet.

 

[clarionreef]

"In California, transportation accounts for over 40% of greenhouse gas
emissions.
Nationally the number is around 33%.

Globally it's 20% and rising fast, especially as car-starved China, India and Russia add to their
fleets."
Its 40% here Kalk....where we live and breathe.
and obviously not as great in Chad or Tibet.
But the fact that you took the 20% out of context [including the "rising fast" part ] and purported it to be the norm says something.

..."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.

Heat trapping gases and thermal pollutants...and not just carbon dioxide....
Whats next? Dinosaur methane emmisions being worse then a billion cars??
I sure don't want any of this to be true...but I find James Cervino more convincing.
Steve

 

[clarionreef]

Cervinos independance lead him to skewer another sacred cow;

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 ?

My goodness. He seems not vested in any particular dogma. He projects no career serving mantras and no cash-cow determined mindset.
And that ...is in fact the role of a true independant scientist.

Steve

 

[clarionreef]

Just in today on AOL news;

According to the National Academy of Sciences, Earth's surface temperature has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the last century, with accelerated warming during the last two decades. Most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities through the buildup of greenhouse gases — primarily carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.
Although the heat-trapping property of these gases is undisputed, ...uncertainties exist about exactly how Earth's climate responds to them.

Steve

 

[Kalkbreath]

Next we could get into a disscussion about the high number of Solar Flares during the past twenty years and how that directly correlates with the record temps , but It too would most likely get blamed on SUVS and the gravitational pull an H2 hummer has on the Sun.:lol:
So I will return this thread back to "Mortality".
Peter?
Does your 60% mortality of fish shipped to the east coast , take into account the 30 percent lost when these same fish were shipped to the west coast?Prior to the next leg out east? Wouldnt this suppose that 90 percent of the fish originaly bound for fish stores in the eastern US die enroute?
Explain how any one other then the airlines could make a profit if this were even remotely true? (PS I got 118 fish in this week from BAli, transhipped and only one wrasse was DOA. Even four Leopard wrasses made it through fine! Five maroon clowns and two Foxface died DAA. )

 

[PeterIMA]

Kalk, I already acknowledged that the 60% mortality figure on the East Coast was a "Lallo estimate". It may be high for an average. However, I have spoken with several dealers on the east coast who told me their mortalities were over 50%. I still believe that fish shipped for longer distances for longer time periods experience higher mortalities in wholesalers' or retailers' tanks. Transshipping to the east coast from PI or Indo does not work for this reason.

I am not interested in debating this issue further (we did that for the past two years). I am more interested in research to alleviate the problem, that some in the trade refuse to acknowledge exists,

Point in case, Erik of SDC states his DOA (and presumably his DAA) is low. Yet, he is working with a team of veterinarians (headed by Dr. Jerry Heidel) to study the factors affecting fish mortalty and to find solutions. But, why is SDC supporting research on fish mortalities, if they don't have a problem?

PS-This is not a criticism of SDC. They at least are supporting positive actions to rectify the "problem".

I think the "problem" for the trade in the future will be that coral reef scientists will push to ban all types of fishing (including fish collecting) because reefs are declining due to global warming and other anthropogenic effects. Without action to reform fish-collection practices (away from cyanide-fishing to net-collecting), the reef scientific community will push to ban collecting (because cyanide fishing destroys coral reefs).

But, as long as they have the money most Americans will continue to insist on driving an SUV.

Peter Rubec

 

[Anonymous]

Even a small percent is a problem when talking $$$ Peter. Most big companies look for areas to cut the fat, even when they're doing great. Dead fish are the most expensive ones, even a few. No return, and a freight bill to boot

 

[Kalkbreath]

There is no problem in shipping with DOAs, " in house" research is actually driven by the desire to find how to ship fish in even smaller amounts of water. (spoon fulls)

These stores you like to site to the public as industry examples, Can you provide the reader with additional info about these "yardstick' LFS ?
I mean if the public is to use you accounts as a measurement of the remaining 4995 fish stores in the US , perhaps a background check on weather your personal store choices fit the typical LFS profile is in order.
Do the stores change wholesalers often to try and lessen this 50% DOA?How often?
Are the store owners telling you, that every wholesaler in America sends them boxes of 50% dead fish?
Or
Are these stores landing the fish themselves straight out of PI?
Are the fish coming in from East coast wholesalers or East Germany?
Are these stores big box outlets?
Lets see if [like the Frank data] we can let the eels out of the bag on this position as well,.

 

[clarionreef]

Peter writes;

I think the "problem" for the trade in the future will be that coral reef scientists will push to ban all types of fishing (including fish collecting) because reefs are declining due to global warming and other anthropogenic effects. Without action to reform fish-collection practices (away from cyanide-fishing to net-collecting), the reef scientific community will push to ban collecting (because cyanide fishing destroys coral reefs).

Even though this trade may dispute the reason for any move to ban it...it also disputes any reason to reform it beyond token gestures.
Out of touch and out to lunch"eco-sci-fi" types may well try and make a name for themselves by pushing to ban this trade.
They have already done it largely in Mexico...and permits are harder and harder to get in every country now.
ONE MORNING YOU WAKE UP...AND THE TRADE WILL NEVER AGAIN BE THE SAME.

Like this morning in California; Salmon fishing...as we have known it for 100 years is on the edge.
Things do get banned. Salmon fishing may in fact be banned soon in California for the entire season. First time ever!

See the fishermans group newsletter excerpt below;

Coastsiders and the Fishing Community
We have a crises that potentially will change your fishing for the rest of your life, and cause economic disaster at an unprecedented level to a fishing industry, and we are the target.

I ask you in the strongest language to stand up and be counted, I need everyone on this not just the same guys. There are 12000 members and I want everyone of you, this is that important. If you choose to sit on the sidelines on this, that will tell me and the rest of the political team we are just wasting our time, because you could care less whether there is a salmon season or not. We have have many things going on a lawsuit over MLPA funding etc. We are working full time for you please stand up and be counted on this one.

I grew up fishing here for Salmon and rockfish. Both are now changed forever and its not going back to the way it was....
Our trade is clearly following this path...deserved or not...
Steve

 

[dizzy]

These stores you like to site to the public as industry examples, Can you provide the reader with additional info about these "yardstick' LFS ?
Are the store owners telling you, that every wholesaler in America sends them boxes of 50% dead fish?

Kalk since you are so interested I will provide information on one of the people who was reporting unusually high mortality. With a little effort you should be able to figure out how to contact him. I think much of his DOA came from airline delays into Maine. In my 20-years as a retailer he is the only one I ever remember saying that he had unusally high DOA. I do remember telling him way back that we did not have the same problem with flights into Nashville. I don't believe that even Rick claimed to have DOA of 60% on a regular basis. I'm pretty sure he still has the maintenance company, so please try and contact him as he may know of others who had similar problems. I too am interested in learning who the other stores were. Since I'm certain Rick was one of the sources for the high figures quoted by Peter, I don't think Rick would mind answering a few questions on the subject.
Mitch


http://www.amdareef.com/news_98sprg.htm "My name is Richard Oellers and my company name is New England Aquarium Services. Until last September I owned and operated a retail store, Aquatic Concepts in Westbrook, Maine. I have been in the aquarium service and sales business since 1983. I sold my store last year so that I could concentrate my time and energy to family and other projects, such as the AMDA. Today I continue to run my company as a service business only. "There is some pretty good information on acclimation and other topics from the pre-MAC days of AMDA.

 

[sdcfish]

Gresham wrote:

Even a small percent is a problem when talking $$$ Peter. Most big companies look for areas to cut the fat, even when they're doing great. Dead fish are the most expensive ones, even a few. No return, and a freight bill to boot

Absolutely correct dear Gresham. When you are talking about the difference between $30K per year in savings for every 1% of mortality saved, at our volume, it's obviously the largest area of savings we can look to. Over the last three years, we have dropped our mortality over 50% and continue to strive for improvement every week.

We consider these areas as the main factors:

1. Purchasing - Don't buy high quantities of difficult species and don't buy from the wrong suppliers.

2. Acclimation - Must keep the acclimation process and 24 hour quarantine in it's best possible methods.

3. Agression - Many fish die due to agression. We added cube space like acrylic was going out of style! Fish must be seperated to lower stress and keep fighting to a minimum.

4. Jumping - Lids on fish are mandatory.....we used to lose alot of fish to suicide!

5. Handling - Less netting....less time taking fish out of the water at any time. Studies have shown physiological damage on fish that are exposed to the air. 30 day recovery on their immune systems.

6. Feeding - Aggressive feedings with enriched foods are a big help in improving the health of a stressed fish.

Etc......what else can you think of?

That's basically the strategy to be the best and improve.......go for it! All it takes is money to make this all happen.....good people and alot of em!

Best regards

Eric

 

[dizzy]

We consider these areas as the main factors:

1. Purchasing - Don't buy high quantities of difficult species and don't buy from the wrong suppliers.

2. Acclimation - Must keep the acclimation process and 24 hour quarantine in it's best possible methods.

3. Agression - Many fish die due to agression. We added cube space like acrylic was going out of style! Fish must be seperated to lower stress and keep fighting to a minimum.

4. Jumping - Lids on fish are mandatory.....we used to lose alot of fish to suicide!

5. Handling - Less netting....less time taking fish out of the water at any time. Studies have shown physiological damage on fish that are exposed to the air. 30 day recovery on their immune systems.

6. Feeding - Aggressive feedings with enriched foods are a big help in improving the health of a stressed fish.

Etc......what else can you think of?


Best regards

Eric

Wow Eric you didn't even mention diseases. Things like Crytocaryon irritans and Amyloodinium can be serious problems in closed systems. Yellow tangs seem particularly susceptible to bacterial infections. Also some fish are sensitive to copper based medications. Angels often develop eye problems if kept for prolonged periods in copper. And don't forget to mention Brooklynella as a clownfish killer. Some fish just plain refuse to eat too. How can you aggressively feed if you are getting ready to reship?
Mitch

PS I guess you must turn them over too fast to fully understand the longer term problems retailers face.

 

[Terry B]

Eric said:

”We consider these areas as the main factors:”

”1. Purchasing - Don't buy high quantities of difficult species and don't buy from the wrong suppliers.”

The entire hobby needs to cut back on difficult species. If we could just get hobbyists to stop purchasing them until after they experience long-term success with easier to keep species.

”2. Acclimation - Must keep the acclimation process and 24 hour quarantine in it's best possible methods.”

Quarantine is always good, but what about a slower acclimation to changes in pH and temperature? This could help fish recover acid-base balance.

”3. Agression - Many fish die due to agression. We added cube space like acrylic was going out of style! Fish must be seperated to lower stress and keep fighting to a minimum.”

Good idea. Anything that causes stress increases blood levels of stress hormones that cause difficulty in osmoregulation, interrupt feeding behaviors and suppress immune function.

”4. Jumping - Lids on fish are mandatory.....we used to lose alot of fish to suicide!”

Obviously true.

”5. Handling - Less netting....less time taking fish out of the water at any time. Studies have shown physiological damage on fish that are exposed to the air. 30 day recovery on their immune systems.”

True and something that I have been an advocate of for some time. Are you using clear plastic bags or specimen containers for water to water transfer?

”6. Feeding - Aggressive feedings with enriched foods are a big help in improving the health of a stressed fish.”

This will help the fish survive and recover at your facility, but what about the effects on the water quality when the fish are transported again?

”Etc......what else can you think of?”

I would like to see some work done with using hyposaline conditions during transport and acclimation. Osmotic dysfunction is an inherent part of stress in fish. Hyposaline conditions for saltwater fish can alleviate this problem.

Terry B

 

[bookfish]

You are correct Terry re: osmoregulatory stress. Many companies keep their fish and inverts at very different salinities in recognition of this. We tend to run between 1.017 and 1.018 on our fish holding system and pack water while our inverts and coral are on an open system and therefore at ocean salinities.-Jim

 

[sdcfish]

Oops....I did forget to mention disease.....my mistake!

7. Disease control - Acclimate and medicate! That's a term that we use alot around here. We also screen for signs of problems and treat BEFORE the problems get out of control....so we seperate fish that are not acting normally.

Mitch, our agressive feeding in no way is enough to make it dangerous to ship. Other than sharks....we feed fish up to the moment they are selected for an order. I would say our food cart has 5 different selections at any given hour.

It's true we don't have fish hang around our warehouse very long, except for a few here and there that become our pets....the "one-eyed willy's"....or the "lucky" fish.....and we have them around a while. We have had an interruptus angel around for 2 months now....doing great and is now ready to go...so I do think we "could" keep fish long term using our methods and system parameters. Copper is normally about .10, but we do commonly go up to .12 or even .13 with our coopermine 2.

Best regards

Eric

P.S - For the last three years or so, we have found it's not necessary for us to keep the salinity as low as previous years....we are normally about 1.018, but it can vary a bit lower, and a bit higher. We rarely see brookenella any more...and we think most of that success is due to the stringent maintenance schedules we do on our systems every week and medication dosing etc...