naesco":3it8ts0p said:Kalkbreath":3it8ts0p said:Your Data suggests that 66 percent of fish die when you net them and transfer them to another tank without feedng them. Its propaganda and you look silly standing in front of your peers preaching this stuff. Why is it that the data you like to preach like at MAC is something quite different from what you fall back on . If twenty percent is what you feel is accurate........then whats the purpose for preaching that 66 percent of these damsels died when someone looked at them funny! Or that some stores in the eighties reported 68% DOA DAA when they continually ordered huge amounts of fish like ribbon eels.......
Kalk Dr. Rubec has data. You have nothing.
Dr. Rubec has a doctorate and you have ?
Dr. Rubec is an author on numerous topics on the subject of cyanide and you have authored what?
Naeso........do you feel that a study in which 25 percent of the fish died simply from being moved from one tank to another is worthy of deep thought?
You have the right to disagree with him but please treat the gentleman with respect.
Terry's paper Advanced Aquarist
- Thread starter PeterIMA
- Start date
Kalk, We went around these issues six months ago (for about 3 months).
The first point is that the data presented are from a scientific paper published by Hall and Bellwood in 1995 in the Journal of Fish Biology. Hence, it is peer reviewed scientific information. It is not a study that I conducted.
Secondly, the study did not involve shipping fish anywhere in plastic bags. Indeed, the conditions that occur in shipping bags were not simulated (fish were not placed in sealed containers). Hence, it is like apples and oranges to compare their study to the situation where fish are shipped in plastic bags.
Third, Between the vindictive rhetoric you actually made some good points. I think you believe that cyanide may actually serve to reduce stress in fish shipped in plastic bags. Something like that may actually occur, but more scientific studies are needed to get a handle on it. As a scientist, I tend to rely on published data or at least data from informed sources in the industry. You import fishes (or buy them from importers?), but so far you have not provided real data to support any of your assertions. You are entitled to your opinions, but even your colleages in the trade don't seem to take them seriously.
Peter
The first point is that the data presented are from a scientific paper published by Hall and Bellwood in 1995 in the Journal of Fish Biology. Hence, it is peer reviewed scientific information. It is not a study that I conducted.
Secondly, the study did not involve shipping fish anywhere in plastic bags. Indeed, the conditions that occur in shipping bags were not simulated (fish were not placed in sealed containers). Hence, it is like apples and oranges to compare their study to the situation where fish are shipped in plastic bags.
Third, Between the vindictive rhetoric you actually made some good points. I think you believe that cyanide may actually serve to reduce stress in fish shipped in plastic bags. Something like that may actually occur, but more scientific studies are needed to get a handle on it. As a scientist, I tend to rely on published data or at least data from informed sources in the industry. You import fishes (or buy them from importers?), but so far you have not provided real data to support any of your assertions. You are entitled to your opinions, but even your colleages in the trade don't seem to take them seriously.
Peter
There lies the problem.......I relay on logic and personal accounts with personal eyewitness.................some relay on the silly hack jobs by people without even the tiniest shred of real world experience. Plastic containers are death traps...........there is no exchange of gasses like with the shipping bags we use. Whats the point of conducting test that dont simulate any real world event and then attempt to juxtapose them to actual activities? Why not test the fish simulating actual shipping conditions?Why not test the threshold of cyanide exposer in the wild. Why not include fish in cyanide exposure on corals tests? There is a reason these hack job studies never seem to want to directly study the Marine Industry as it really happens. Why is that? Is it because these scientists are idiots? No . There real world tests have been conducted. Its the fact that the results of these accurate tests did not bring the desired results the testers wanted. So the scientist concocted silly tests in which the desired results are found {even though the simulated conditions are silly and pointless] Then well meaning people like Peter pick up on these results and inadvertently use the data .
Kalkbreath":2vj9qida said:
Wow. Crazy claim, after crazy claim, without ever a shred of evidence or proof or anything to back your claims up. Now this? So you are saying now that scientific studies of fish mortality rates using cyanide as a capture method have been done and that cyanide was harmless, but the results were suppressed by some eco-fruitcakes, who then redid the studies in a scientifically rigorous way that came out the way they wanted them too? And that the peer-review process failed to weed this manufactured data out?
Wow. That's like claiming Saddam was behind 9/11... Or was it the Mossad?
Why do I bother coming back to read this dreck?
"I rely on logic..." That is a laugh and a half.
Either the test have been done, or I am the single most qualified scientist in the world ..........You pick? If you think IM the first person to ever realize that corals are exposed to cyanide by our industry when collecting fish {alive}and that if the fish are not included n the test........How can we speculate on the real world exposers to cyanide unless the fish come out of such recreations alive just like the real world ........... Or that there's something fishy when 65% of the fish in a study die from simply being transferred to anther tank without being fed........or that it takes more then one fish from a species to conclude what the frequency of cyanide use is to collect ten thousand of the same fish and even more important is the number collectors included in such tests not the fish. {fish dont juice themselves} fishermen do , therefor its the collectors that hold the key to cyanide stats. Nor am I the first person to come up with the notion that the most accurate way to gauge MO shipping is to do things that same way as real shippers do {not in Tupperware!|......... Which is it? Either Im the greatest mind the subject has ever known .......and the professional participants are idiots .............Or these qualified scientists are less then forthright? :wink:
Facts? Whats so great about finding out that fish dont live very long if kept in Tupperware? Nobody keeps fish in plastic bowls.......unless they are bringing them back to the LFS to get a livestock credit:wink:
I want to find out what the average DOA DAA is for the trade.
I want people like Peter reporting the findings of a sound and competent studies on Marine industry shipping. So does Peter from what I gather, Peter personally states that he thinks 20% is about right for each stage of shipping. Well, then why the poop cant he find the studies to back himself up?
Because the people that actually carry out these studies dont hand over data which doesn't support own their agendas.
I actually Agree that 20 percent might be right.
I think its a little too high, but 20 percent is not a silly notion.
Seven percent DOA plus seven percent DAA is about average form the people I know....Because one third of the fish landing are Damsels These cheap fish can swing the average quite a bit. {kinda like adding feeder fish to a freshwater study] 7+7= ------thats 14%. Then we must add something for those uncommon events in which heavy DOAs occur. If one BAD shippment comes in every three months that would increase the average up a bit from 14% .......to what? I would say another 4 points. So Peter says 20% and I say 18% But where are the studies that back either of us up ? Some people are content with meaningless FACTS
................. I am not one of those people :wink:
I want to find out what the average DOA DAA is for the trade.
I want people like Peter reporting the findings of a sound and competent studies on Marine industry shipping. So does Peter from what I gather, Peter personally states that he thinks 20% is about right for each stage of shipping. Well, then why the poop cant he find the studies to back himself up?
Because the people that actually carry out these studies dont hand over data which doesn't support own their agendas.
I actually Agree that 20 percent might be right.
I think its a little too high, but 20 percent is not a silly notion.
Seven percent DOA plus seven percent DAA is about average form the people I know....Because one third of the fish landing are Damsels These cheap fish can swing the average quite a bit. {kinda like adding feeder fish to a freshwater study] 7+7= ------thats 14%. Then we must add something for those uncommon events in which heavy DOAs occur. If one BAD shippment comes in every three months that would increase the average up a bit from 14% .......to what? I would say another 4 points. So Peter says 20% and I say 18% But where are the studies that back either of us up ? Some people are content with meaningless FACTS
................. I am not one of those people :wink:
Kalk, I wish to emphasize that the 20% figure posted for average mortality at each step of the chain of custody is a guesstimate based on ranges reported by members in the trade (reported in the paper to be published soon in the Live Reef Fish Information Bulletin).
A scientific study will be conducted to better document mortalities and to evaluate using chemical additives under real world shipping conditions. From this we hope to determine the best means of reducing shipping mortalities through the chain of custody.
Peter
A scientific study will be conducted to better document mortalities and to evaluate using chemical additives under real world shipping conditions. From this we hope to determine the best means of reducing shipping mortalities through the chain of custody.
Peter
Terry B":1zl0gkfm said:
Terry I went by Aquarium Restaurant today. They were keeping the big tank at 20ppt, but have raised it to 22ppt. They told me the sharks can tolerate hypo pretty well. Expecially the sawfish which is from brackish water. This may not be low enough to totally kill crypto but does seem to help keep it under control and with ozone.
Mitch
Attachments
Pfffh.
Euryhaline elasmobranchs?
That's textbook. Grade school pop info, even.
Carcharhinus leucas would swim kilometers upriver, from the South China Sea, and into Lake Bai (Taal Lake). They would move in quantity even, occsionally attacking netfishermen in their dugouts, up to about 1935. Seems they're more aggro in freshwater.
River pollution and a gating system ended the problem. I hear it's still a concern in India.
Kalkbreath":27v0j70k said:
Attacking me back with scattershot just shows disorganized and incoherent thought, Kalk.
Tupperware? Read your own previous post!
Reading your posts is becoming more and more like that gradeschool game where little children would write a paragraph, then pass it along to the next kid who would then write a paragraph, and so on. None of them seem related to the other. Other than the occasional amusement factor, there seems to be no coherent thought, moral, or message.
Terry,
Sorry this has sort of hijacked your thread. It isn't a bad idea, but it will be difficult to implement at current technological levels in the Philippines and Indonesia. Until you see the fishermen at a village level, it is difficult to appreciate this. It could be done at an exporter level though.
Regards.
Mike Kirda
And for some one that so clearly expresses him or herself:wink: ...........I missed where you explained " Why is it that for two decades ..... tests have not been done in a manor that duplicates real world shipping"? "Or real world cyanide collection?" I guess its our closely held trade secrets. [Like the Coca Cola recipy or the ingredients in that big Mack sauce!]
I will save you poor reeformers another twenty years of stumbling around with Tupperware and Masson jars ........We dont ship in those vessles.............Its easy .......... Fish , oxygen, Natural seawater,shipping bags,staples or bands, heat packs , Styrofoam box , cardboard box. Or beter yet watch the experts do it and take notes. But stop pretending to be experts .................If when you bag [ie stress] your fish and 60% die...............stop the study and determin what the **** just happened. Dont just assume that half the fish dying form being netted is normal .........then publish the nonsense for the world to read..
I will save you poor reeformers another twenty years of stumbling around with Tupperware and Masson jars ........We dont ship in those vessles.............Its easy .......... Fish , oxygen, Natural seawater,shipping bags,staples or bands, heat packs , Styrofoam box , cardboard box. Or beter yet watch the experts do it and take notes. But stop pretending to be experts .................If when you bag [ie stress] your fish and 60% die...............stop the study and determin what the **** just happened. Dont just assume that half the fish dying form being netted is normal .........then publish the nonsense for the world to read..
And for an update:
I dropped the salinity to 1.009 on one of our stores systems last week .
The fish seem to like the lower salt levels.
Yet just as expected ...........the skimmers dont work worth a poop. So Nitate levels are climbing .......and Redox level plumiting.
Wish I had an open system [Seawater] with a nearby glacier as a fresh water source. :lol:
[so I could do a huge water change every day ]
I dropped the salinity to 1.009 on one of our stores systems last week .
The fish seem to like the lower salt levels.
Yet just as expected ...........the skimmers dont work worth a poop. So Nitate levels are climbing .......and Redox level plumiting.
Wish I had an open system [Seawater] with a nearby glacier as a fresh water source. :lol:
[so I could do a huge water change every day ]
Kalk, Some comments in reply to yours.
First, I am not clear where your comments about tupperware and/or masson jars come from. I think it is in reply to a comment I made about scientific research done of fish in sealed containers (e.g. McFarland and Norris studied the effects of changes in water quality parameters on the California killifish with and without the addition of Tris buffer using sealed containers). First there was no mention of tupperware in any of my postings.
In terms of an experimental approach sealed containers (including tupperware if that is what you would choose) are just as valid as sealed polyethylene bags. The assumption is that there is no exchange of gases across the membrane of the bag or across the walls of the container. As far as I know that assumption is true for both the bags and the containers (contrary to what you seem to imply). So, in terms of studying changes in pH, and the accumulation of dissolved carbon dioxide, and dissolved ammonium/ammonia. They are equivalent. The difference may be that it is easier to mount electronic probes in a solid walled sealed test container than it is with a sealed polyethylene bag.
Secondly, I should note that the pet trade through the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC) has never funded any research pertaining to these questions (shipping fish in plastic bags) to do with the aquarium trade. The only paper that I am aware of is that by Dr. Robert Rofen of Kordon/Novalek pertaining to breathing bags. These bags do exchange gases like oxygen and carbon dioxide across their membranes. I have tried them and will be doing some more evaluations with them. However, in terms of using chemical additives that I have discussed on this forum, I have been referring to sealed polyethylene bags that do not exchange gases (hence the need to deal with the accumulation of carbon dioxide etc).
3. I think that in the present case, I am more of an expert on these subjects than you are. In addition to being a scientist, I am a marine hobbyist, have founded several NGOs that have done cyanide testing, net training etc. In addition, I have been concerned about shipping and have already done experiments with breathing bags (special plastic membrane from the russian space program) etc.
4. The new research being undertaken will involve real-world shipping of marine fishes in sealed polyethylene bags with reporting by exporters and importers. The study will also involve three Ph.D scientists (including myself, and two others).
Peter Rubec
First, I am not clear where your comments about tupperware and/or masson jars come from. I think it is in reply to a comment I made about scientific research done of fish in sealed containers (e.g. McFarland and Norris studied the effects of changes in water quality parameters on the California killifish with and without the addition of Tris buffer using sealed containers). First there was no mention of tupperware in any of my postings.
In terms of an experimental approach sealed containers (including tupperware if that is what you would choose) are just as valid as sealed polyethylene bags. The assumption is that there is no exchange of gases across the membrane of the bag or across the walls of the container. As far as I know that assumption is true for both the bags and the containers (contrary to what you seem to imply). So, in terms of studying changes in pH, and the accumulation of dissolved carbon dioxide, and dissolved ammonium/ammonia. They are equivalent. The difference may be that it is easier to mount electronic probes in a solid walled sealed test container than it is with a sealed polyethylene bag.
Secondly, I should note that the pet trade through the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC) has never funded any research pertaining to these questions (shipping fish in plastic bags) to do with the aquarium trade. The only paper that I am aware of is that by Dr. Robert Rofen of Kordon/Novalek pertaining to breathing bags. These bags do exchange gases like oxygen and carbon dioxide across their membranes. I have tried them and will be doing some more evaluations with them. However, in terms of using chemical additives that I have discussed on this forum, I have been referring to sealed polyethylene bags that do not exchange gases (hence the need to deal with the accumulation of carbon dioxide etc).
3. I think that in the present case, I am more of an expert on these subjects than you are. In addition to being a scientist, I am a marine hobbyist, have founded several NGOs that have done cyanide testing, net training etc. In addition, I have been concerned about shipping and have already done experiments with breathing bags (special plastic membrane from the russian space program) etc.
4. The new research being undertaken will involve real-world shipping of marine fishes in sealed polyethylene bags with reporting by exporters and importers. The study will also involve three Ph.D scientists (including myself, and two others).
Peter Rubec
3. I think that in the present case, I am more of an expert on these subjects than you are. In addition to being a scientist, I am a marine hobbyist, have founded several NGOs that have done cyanide testing, net training etc. In addition, I have been concerned about shipping and have already done experiments with breathing bags (special plastic membrane from the russian space program) etc.
4. The new research being undertaken will involve real world shipping of marine fishes in sealed polyethylene bags with reporting by exporters and importers. The study will also involve three Ph.D scientists (including myself, and 2 others).
I hope your study will be sucessful and end in the mandatory use of these bags and firm regulations stipulating the maximum number of fish per species per bag.
While cyanide is our problem because we continue to import fish from the Philippines and Indonesia where the use of cyanide is rampant, our choice in transporting these creatures is ours to make today.
4. The new research being undertaken will involve real world shipping of marine fishes in sealed polyethylene bags with reporting by exporters and importers. The study will also involve three Ph.D scientists (including myself, and 2 others).
I hope your study will be sucessful and end in the mandatory use of these bags and firm regulations stipulating the maximum number of fish per species per bag.
While cyanide is our problem because we continue to import fish from the Philippines and Indonesia where the use of cyanide is rampant, our choice in transporting these creatures is ours to make today.
horge":3inicto9 said:
Yes, the Bull Shark (Carcharinus leucas) frequently enters freshwater. It may be the most dangerous shark in the world. It does not live permanently in freshwater, but can remain for extended periods in rivers and lakes that are connected to the sea. It has been found as far as 2300 miles upstream in the Amazon River. It also inhabits Lake Nicaragua, negotiating rapids en route through the San Juan River which connects to the Caribbean Sea. It is still found in the Ganges River (India), Zambezi River (Africa), Mississippi River (USA) and Mekong River (Mainland SE Asia).
You remember Cartimar in Pasay City, John?
Where lots of marine ornamentals are sold (and the garbage dump qualifies as a WMD)?
8O
In a shop, the tanks are typically stacked 2 or three high chain-circuited to a loooooong and deep concrete sump underneath, right?. Most of these sumps are full of live rock for sale, but a few do hold sharks and rays of various species.
Most other fish are easy to relocate during tank FW-flushing/maintenance, but the sharks (having no other practical containers to be moved to), typically put up with a few hours of very low salinity, maybe once or twice a year. Some shopkeepers involved (the ones I haven't antagonized yet, hehe) say the sharks get sluggish, but are okay within a day or so.
Some of the unsold sharks have grown a bit big (over 3 feet) where they are kept, and are now perhaps too big to sell. When I asked about these overstaying tenants, one shopkeeper shrugged and said, grinning:
'sopas' ('soup').
horge
Where lots of marine ornamentals are sold (and the garbage dump qualifies as a WMD)?
8O
In a shop, the tanks are typically stacked 2 or three high chain-circuited to a loooooong and deep concrete sump underneath, right?. Most of these sumps are full of live rock for sale, but a few do hold sharks and rays of various species.
Most other fish are easy to relocate during tank FW-flushing/maintenance, but the sharks (having no other practical containers to be moved to), typically put up with a few hours of very low salinity, maybe once or twice a year. Some shopkeepers involved (the ones I haven't antagonized yet, hehe) say the sharks get sluggish, but are okay within a day or so.
Some of the unsold sharks have grown a bit big (over 3 feet) where they are kept, and are now perhaps too big to sell. When I asked about these overstaying tenants, one shopkeeper shrugged and said, grinning:
'sopas' ('soup').
horge
Grabe! One doesn't forget Cartimar Market easily. You've got to love a fish shop with a grill at the doorway. Nice to snack on chicken or lechon as you are looking over the livestock. Yeah, the black-tips were cruising down there with the chocolate chip stars. It was quite a sensory experience - grilled chicken, rotting garbage and dead fish fill your sinuses. No need to go diving in the Philippines; everything is right there in the shops! Get your baby sea turtles right here.
It was amazing to see all the live coral for sale. Seemed like most of the tanks just had coral stacked on top of each other instead of using live rock as a structure.
It was amazing to see all the live coral for sale. Seemed like most of the tanks just had coral stacked on top of each other instead of using live rock as a structure.
Attachments
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:
