Anyone know an estimate of the percentage of fish in the trade that are juiced as it stands now? I was under the impression is was a majority...started a discussion on another board about it and forargument's sake said 50/50...but someone came back saying only about 5% are juiced? that would be great! but need to hear it from somewhere else....eager to be wrong on this one..lol.
Percentage of Fish That Are Juiced Currently?
- Thread starter Piero
- Start date
- Status
it suddenly occurred to me that this is a question that people might wantt o avoid answering...i'm sure it's a hot topic.
just wondering....generally....is %5 realistic or is %50 closer to realistic? Minority of fish or majority?
I know there's maybe no way to really tell...but I'm wondering how bad it is currently...I was under the impression it was rampant. Also include other chemical juicers in a guess.
just wondering....generally....is %5 realistic or is %50 closer to realistic? Minority of fish or majority?
I know there's maybe no way to really tell...but I'm wondering how bad it is currently...I was under the impression it was rampant. Also include other chemical juicers in a guess.
The impression I get from what little I can gather plopping my fat butt down at a computer is that its probably at around 30%..
I'd love to hear what others more active in the field think though, thanks for bringing it up!
.. And ditto exactly what Rascal said about Peter and tagging both!
I'd love to hear what others more active in the field think though, thanks for bringing it up!
.. And ditto exactly what Rascal said about Peter and tagging both!
I think a blanket estimate of what percentage of fish are caught with cyanide is difficult at best. I would agree with Grateful Diver's estimate of 30%. I have come to understand however that many species are almost ALWAYS caught with cyanide.... Generally it is the more valuable fish of course caught at greater depths....
So, here's a different perspective on the same question: Which fish are generally caught with cyanide? and What is the annual market value of cyanide caught fish?
I was disappointed when told that most shrimp goby pairs caught in PHils and INdo are caught using cyanide.....
Mark
So, here's a different perspective on the same question: Which fish are generally caught with cyanide? and What is the annual market value of cyanide caught fish?
I was disappointed when told that most shrimp goby pairs caught in PHils and INdo are caught using cyanide.....
Mark
Gee, the last CDT test results found 21% in PP.(2001) even less the three years prior (about 10%.)
thats before MAC. You really think its even higher now that MAC is involved?
The "over all" industry picture is hardly not net friendly.
of the twenty or so countries which make up the 12 million fish. market..
No cyanide in Tonga, Vanuatu, Fiji, Solomons, Marshals, Srilanka, Hawaii, Florida, Mexico, Brazil, Christmas Island, Cortez, ORA,
Reports of cyanide use in Indonesia , Hatai and PI.
But then again .....20 percent of Americans think the US government hid explosives in the trade towers? (waiting for some one to fly a plan into them!)<todays news>
Even if cyanide us is up from the 1990s.......you need to factor in the remaining other clean fish sources.
Then compensate for fifty percent of the fish from PI being Damsels and clownfish (which are not cyanide collected)
If only fifty percent of the fish in Pi are species potentaly collected with cyanide , and of those fish 30% are collected with juice.
Then its 30% of 50%---- or 15 percent .
PI represents about 40 percent of the trade in fish , so its 15 % of the 40% -----which is 6% of the total 12 million pet fish.
But its so much easier just to repeat a number you over heard at some Mac meeting....... or just pick any ole number now isnt it.
:wink:
thats before MAC. You really think its even higher now that MAC is involved?
The "over all" industry picture is hardly not net friendly.
of the twenty or so countries which make up the 12 million fish. market..
No cyanide in Tonga, Vanuatu, Fiji, Solomons, Marshals, Srilanka, Hawaii, Florida, Mexico, Brazil, Christmas Island, Cortez, ORA,
Reports of cyanide use in Indonesia , Hatai and PI.
But then again .....20 percent of Americans think the US government hid explosives in the trade towers? (waiting for some one to fly a plan into them!)<todays news>
Even if cyanide us is up from the 1990s.......you need to factor in the remaining other clean fish sources.
Then compensate for fifty percent of the fish from PI being Damsels and clownfish (which are not cyanide collected)
If only fifty percent of the fish in Pi are species potentaly collected with cyanide , and of those fish 30% are collected with juice.
Then its 30% of 50%---- or 15 percent .
PI represents about 40 percent of the trade in fish , so its 15 % of the 40% -----which is 6% of the total 12 million pet fish.
But its so much easier just to repeat a number you over heard at some Mac meeting....... or just pick any ole number now isnt it.
:wink:
The International Marinlife Alliance (IMA) conducted cyanide detection testing (CDT) under contract with the Philippine Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) from 1993 to 2001. I published a paper that describes the sampling and testing conducted by the IMA (Rubec et al. 2003). I can send the paper to those who request it (send me a PM). About 48,689 specimens of food fish and aquarium fish were tested. I reported on the results of testing 7,703 aquarium fish and 12,854 food fish from 1996 to 2000. Over all years, the percentage of aquarium fishes found to have cyanide was 25%. The overall percentage for food fish was 44%. For both food fish and aquarium fishes, the mean was 37%. These data support the fact that live food fish (groupers for export to Hong Kong and mainland China), dead food fish, and aquarium fish are frequently caught by cyanide fishing.
The percentage of aquarium fishes found to have cyanide present declined from 43% in 1996 to 8% in 1999, then increased to 29% in 2000. The percentages of food fishes found to have cyanide present declined from 73% in 1996 to 8% in 1999, and then increased to 30% in 2000. Since, BFAR took over running the six CDT laboratories created by the IMA, four laboratories have closed. Of the two remaining, one is situated in Puerto Princesa, Palawan and the other in Quezon City, Metro Manila (which recently moved to a new building). Since, BFAR does not conduct random sampling from collectors, middlemen and exporters there are no data to summarize the present situation concerning cyanide use. It is not likely that accurate trends can be obtained, since exporters have the option of "voluntarily" submitting samples for testing and paying a fee to BFAR.
More recent CDT testing of about 300 fishes in 2003-04 done by the Philippine Council for Sustainable Development found that 49% of the fish tested from Palawan had cyanide present. So, it appears that the incidence of cyanide use may have increased, since the CDT ceased to be used to support law enforcement.
The cyanide fishing situation in Indonesia appears to be similar, although we do not have CDT testing conducted in that country. This is confirmed by several sources, who have interviewed collectors there, including WWF, the IMA, and several other papers and reports. Most Indonesian exporters buy and sell cyanide-caught fish. The only exception is the collectors in the village of Les on the Island of Bali. About 100 collectors from Les in the cooperative Bahtera LEStari use nets exclusively to capture marine aquarium fishes.
Overall, I would say that the cyanide situation is getting worse not better. Cyanide fishing must be stopped. James Cervino (2003) demonstrated that cyanide use kills corals. Hence, cyanide fishing is destroying the coral reef habitats necessary to sustain the aquarium fish and food fish fisheries.
Sincerely,
Peter Rubec. Ph.D.
Cervino, J. M., R. L. Hayes, M. Honovitch, T. J. Goreau, S. Jones, and P. J. Rubec. 2003. Changes in zooxanthellae density, morphology, and mitotic index in hermatypic corals and anemones exposed to cyanide. Marine Pollution Bulletin 46: 573-586.
Rubec, P.J., V.R. Pratt, B. McCullough, B. Manipula, J. Alban, T. Espero, and E.R. Suplido. 2003.Trends determined by cyanide testing on marine aquarium fish in the Philippines. Pages 327-340, In: J.C. Cato and C.L. Brown (eds.), Marine Ornamental Species: Collection, Culture & Cultivation, Iowa State Press, Ames, Iowa.
The percentage of aquarium fishes found to have cyanide present declined from 43% in 1996 to 8% in 1999, then increased to 29% in 2000. The percentages of food fishes found to have cyanide present declined from 73% in 1996 to 8% in 1999, and then increased to 30% in 2000. Since, BFAR took over running the six CDT laboratories created by the IMA, four laboratories have closed. Of the two remaining, one is situated in Puerto Princesa, Palawan and the other in Quezon City, Metro Manila (which recently moved to a new building). Since, BFAR does not conduct random sampling from collectors, middlemen and exporters there are no data to summarize the present situation concerning cyanide use. It is not likely that accurate trends can be obtained, since exporters have the option of "voluntarily" submitting samples for testing and paying a fee to BFAR.
More recent CDT testing of about 300 fishes in 2003-04 done by the Philippine Council for Sustainable Development found that 49% of the fish tested from Palawan had cyanide present. So, it appears that the incidence of cyanide use may have increased, since the CDT ceased to be used to support law enforcement.
The cyanide fishing situation in Indonesia appears to be similar, although we do not have CDT testing conducted in that country. This is confirmed by several sources, who have interviewed collectors there, including WWF, the IMA, and several other papers and reports. Most Indonesian exporters buy and sell cyanide-caught fish. The only exception is the collectors in the village of Les on the Island of Bali. About 100 collectors from Les in the cooperative Bahtera LEStari use nets exclusively to capture marine aquarium fishes.
Overall, I would say that the cyanide situation is getting worse not better. Cyanide fishing must be stopped. James Cervino (2003) demonstrated that cyanide use kills corals. Hence, cyanide fishing is destroying the coral reef habitats necessary to sustain the aquarium fish and food fish fisheries.
Sincerely,
Peter Rubec. Ph.D.
Cervino, J. M., R. L. Hayes, M. Honovitch, T. J. Goreau, S. Jones, and P. J. Rubec. 2003. Changes in zooxanthellae density, morphology, and mitotic index in hermatypic corals and anemones exposed to cyanide. Marine Pollution Bulletin 46: 573-586.
Rubec, P.J., V.R. Pratt, B. McCullough, B. Manipula, J. Alban, T. Espero, and E.R. Suplido. 2003.Trends determined by cyanide testing on marine aquarium fish in the Philippines. Pages 327-340, In: J.C. Cato and C.L. Brown (eds.), Marine Ornamental Species: Collection, Culture & Cultivation, Iowa State Press, Ames, Iowa.
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
Most Indonesian exporters buy and sell cyanide-caught fish. The only exception is the collectors in the village of Les on the Island of Bali. About 100 collectors from Les in the cooperative Bahtera LEStari use nets exclusively to capture marine aquarium fishes.
And heres the answer...the way out...the solution.
How is it not as exciting as the bad news?
How can anyone interested in the question not rally to the beachhead already established in the worst cyanide region in the world?
This achievement in the Les Village area is the most significant breakthru in years!
Steve
And heres the answer...the way out...the solution.
How is it not as exciting as the bad news?
How can anyone interested in the question not rally to the beachhead already established in the worst cyanide region in the world?
This achievement in the Les Village area is the most significant breakthru in years!
Steve
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
Chip,
Thanks for the question.
Inherent in it is a huge indictment against us as demand side buyers.
The clean alternative must be as varied, as cheap and better for the same money as the evil doers for it to gain favor.
But yes....they are pretty good though and getting better.
They do not however, send out huge boats carrying drums of cyanide on board like the rest of everyones favorite and most popular Bali suppliers..
Steve
Thanks for the question.
Inherent in it is a huge indictment against us as demand side buyers.
The clean alternative must be as varied, as cheap and better for the same money as the evil doers for it to gain favor.
But yes....they are pretty good though and getting better.
They do not however, send out huge boats carrying drums of cyanide on board like the rest of everyones favorite and most popular Bali suppliers..
Steve
Actually, Les is more. The price list that I have obtained from Les village shows a broad range of species of fish. They also have soft corals and other invertebrates. Ruwi tells me that they will soon begin exporting SPS corals under their new CITES permit. Steve knows more about the quality of the fish from Les and can provide you with further information (send him a PM).
Net-caught fish are a better buy provided they are properly decompressed, handled etc. prior to their arrival at the export facility in Densapar. They live longer, eat almost as soon as they come out of the bags (at their US destinations). So, if you want fish that live buy net-caught fish from Les.
I will be getting more Les fish soon.
Sincerely,
Peter Rubec
Net-caught fish are a better buy provided they are properly decompressed, handled etc. prior to their arrival at the export facility in Densapar. They live longer, eat almost as soon as they come out of the bags (at their US destinations). So, if you want fish that live buy net-caught fish from Les.
I will be getting more Les fish soon.
Sincerely,
Peter Rubec
Wow, then your claiming that MAC made things in PI worse.
But not so fast, why should we believe this newest report?
How about some data Peter? ( or peer review of the data)
(I remember FRANK) I better not see Frank in any of the CDT year book photos!
You have never released the sample ratios.even from 1990s (did the fish included in each years test results differer from year to year ) The collection areas? The Divers?
Was the change in cyanide present year to year due to a changing fish species ratio. ( ie more blue tangs one year less another)
Its hard to determine why the results changed without examining how the input chaged.
You did release the fish species data in the past and we learned some interesting facts about which fish types were tested overall , but not year to year.
Your last test results showed there were many fish species you only sampled one fish for the intire species.(that singel fish represented tens of thousands ) what made that particular fish so special?
How many fish were included in the 2003 sample/ ( hopefully more then 60 per month)
The 1996 to 2000 sampled only 700 fish per year. ( sixty fish per month)
Who picked the 2003 location to sample? why only one area?
But most importantly, how many divers did you include in your data?
Who picked the divers to sample.
and did the divers change year to year ?
See its not the fish which determine if cyanide is present. its the collector.
Its kinda like testing random automobiles for alcohol, not the individual drivers behind the wheel.
if a sizable portion of the data was from a single collector , then the data would represent that collector, not the 4000 collectors.
But not so fast, why should we believe this newest report?
How about some data Peter? ( or peer review of the data)
(I remember FRANK) I better not see Frank in any of the CDT year book photos!
You have never released the sample ratios.even from 1990s (did the fish included in each years test results differer from year to year ) The collection areas? The Divers?
Was the change in cyanide present year to year due to a changing fish species ratio. ( ie more blue tangs one year less another)
Its hard to determine why the results changed without examining how the input chaged.
You did release the fish species data in the past and we learned some interesting facts about which fish types were tested overall , but not year to year.
Your last test results showed there were many fish species you only sampled one fish for the intire species.(that singel fish represented tens of thousands ) what made that particular fish so special?
How many fish were included in the 2003 sample/ ( hopefully more then 60 per month)
The 1996 to 2000 sampled only 700 fish per year. ( sixty fish per month)
Who picked the 2003 location to sample? why only one area?
But most importantly, how many divers did you include in your data?
Who picked the divers to sample.
and did the divers change year to year ?
See its not the fish which determine if cyanide is present. its the collector.
Its kinda like testing random automobiles for alcohol, not the individual drivers behind the wheel.
if a sizable portion of the data was from a single collector , then the data would represent that collector, not the 4000 collectors.
My estimate is not based on what I learned in any MAC meetings, it is based on my experience and knowledge gained from working directly with fishers and fishing communities who use (or don't use) cyanide for both MAF and LRFF.
I would however redifine my estimate: I believe, on average, 30% of fish collected by MAF and LRFF collectors in Phils and Indo, (which are often the same fishers) are collected with cyanide.
cheers,
Mark
I would however redifine my estimate: I believe, on average, 30% of fish collected by MAF and LRFF collectors in Phils and Indo, (which are often the same fishers) are collected with cyanide.
cheers,
Mark
Thirty percent of all fish ? Like clownfish ,Damsels, green chromis, mandarins, dart fish, yellow watchmen, etc.
When you come up with 30% is that based on 100% of blue tangs with cyanide and zero percent of Perc clowns averaging between the two at fifty percent?
With so many of the fish coming out of PI not realy collected with cyanide (like Mandarins) are you claiming 30% of all 5 million fish or 30% of each species . (90% blue face angels to 10 percent clownfish)
It would require nearly 100 percent collectionwith cyanide of certain fish to off set a 20 percent rate in Damsels. Due to the shear volume of Damsels.
If i test five fish : one damsel, one blue tang, one Huma trigger, one clownfish, one blue face angel. This might yeild a positive reading on three out of the five fish. averaging 60%.
But in the real world: its 2000 damsels , 30 blue tangs, 10 huma , one blueface, and 200 clowns.
That would yeild a 1% positive for cyanide average .
When you come up with 30% is that based on 100% of blue tangs with cyanide and zero percent of Perc clowns averaging between the two at fifty percent?
With so many of the fish coming out of PI not realy collected with cyanide (like Mandarins) are you claiming 30% of all 5 million fish or 30% of each species . (90% blue face angels to 10 percent clownfish)
It would require nearly 100 percent collectionwith cyanide of certain fish to off set a 20 percent rate in Damsels. Due to the shear volume of Damsels.
If i test five fish : one damsel, one blue tang, one Huma trigger, one clownfish, one blue face angel. This might yeild a positive reading on three out of the five fish. averaging 60%.
But in the real world: its 2000 damsels , 30 blue tangs, 10 huma , one blueface, and 200 clowns.
That would yeild a 1% positive for cyanide average .
- Status
Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
