• Why not take a moment to introduce yourself to our members?

Kalkbreath

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Is there a list of which fish species are being certified? Oh and what exactly are these fish certified from? What makes them different? from, say last months fish......or last years catch? And why are not every fish from Hawaii , Fiji and Tonga certified by default? If every criteria is met? Also, Since the Airlines are responsible for the need to use smaller fish bags............{ meaning, if air freight cost 50% less ........then each fish could have twice as large an amount of water, for the same $cost.........and the number one cause of fish death would eliminated! If Airfreight is the greatest killer of fish{30 +hours} plus more hours waiting for fish and wildlife!and the largest single cost ,{ More then the fish themselves}Why has the greatest killer of our fish, Airfreight been left out of the MAC solution? If we could send one firefish Gobie perbox then ,the 1% would be easy! Its not the collection thats harming the fish nearly as much as it is the cost of transportation of our pets....Why wont greenpeace protest the Airlines ?
_________________
Mercedes O370
_________________
fullmelt hash
 

kylen

Experienced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Kalk,

It appears that you have confused many issues regarding shipping into one catchall blame the airlines. Now don't get me wrong, the airlines certainly have their issues with respect to handling and I am not going to defend them. I would be the last to do this...they are my greatest cause of frustration.

But...why are the airlines to blame for the use of smaller bags? It's the exporters or wholesalers that dictate packing density. They must bear a great deal of the responsibility for this. I've had many complaints about the number of fish per box, but isn't the health of the fish supposed to be taken into account. After all, the most expensive fish one could buy is a dead one.

Sometimes, it appears that it is a sense of pride that a LFS will state "my supplier can get x number of fish in a box. They are a good supplier. Look at the money they are saving me in freight." Problem is, in many instances, half the fish are dead within two days and the ones that are still alive can't (shouldn't) be sold due to their poor condition. Their is a happy medium with packing density. I have yet to hear a complaint about the amount of water that Hawaiian exporter use to pack.

Again, not to defend the airlines, but IATA (the airlines governing body) states in their live animal regulations that a shipment of live fish must tbe able to survive 48 hours unattended from the time of acceptance. This does not include pack time, travel time, and delivery time at destination. Add this up and you are looking at upwards of 60 hours in a bag. It seems that a teaspoon of water in a bag or shoe-horning a tang/butterfly/angel into a 5" bag would be unacceptable. I can speak for the Canadian marketplace, but I find it sad that for a retailer to try and import product from far off places thinking that they are going to save a great deal of money dealing direct. I have witnessed DOA rates of more than 85% because the transit time is just too great.

As far as freight rates...I envy you Americans. Come to Canada where we have to pay upwards of $6/kg (yes I know CAD) to fly product across the country. This equates to about $1.75/lbs. This gets us airlines leaving fish in freezing weather for 14 hours on the ramp. You guessed it...a complete mess.
 

Kalkbreath

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Do you agree that the single greatest direct cause and indirect {days later} of fish mortality is{ prior to the hobbyist} is due to shipping stress? I can fly myself; 6' 3" 220 lbs }plus luggage 200lbs}in the cabin {eating peanuts and Coke} from Lax to Atl in five hours ....for less money then I can ship the same weight in the belly of a plane on a 20 hour Air freight to the same Airport. / Why? The sole reason the Philippines send 80% of this hobbies fish imports, is in how they ship those fish {tight} Lower Airfare per fish........the single reason Walt is the leader in LiveRock is also Freight driven..........The day that someone lines up a cheap charter plane ,carrying hobby fish cheaply and quickly from the islands to Calif. .....is the day that a 1% DOA is possible and TRUE collection/transport improvements happen ..........until then even the most careful net collectors are still at the mercy of another industriess indifference.......
_________________
Mercedes Axor
_________________
Cooking Chef
 

kylen

Experienced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Oh I certainly agree. I believe that you can purchase the best quality fish available and provide the best care for them, but when the product is tendered to the airline it is done on a wing and a prayer.

I have the luxury of a direct flight (13 hours) from the PI. This has greatly reduced our DOA over the last year compared to shiping with connections through HKG. You can't get here from there any faster. Having a cheap charter will not alter DOA's. What will lower DOA's is having an exporter use larger bags. This is kind of like you in the back of that airplane for five hours breathing recycled air. Seems that this is a major consumer issue...air quality. The airlines do not want to bring in more fresh air from the outside because it causes increased fuel burn...higher cost. Why is it alright for fish to be in bags with inadequate amounts of water? Seems there is a parallel to me.

At the same time, how many importers/LFS actually can figure out their true landed cost of an item. I have dealt with many LFS who do not even factor freight into the equation...much less DOA. To be competitive, sometimes I have had to sit down and do the math for them. The price of the fish themselves is too attractive to consider other cost factors.

Shipping is only one component of lowering DOA, albeit a rather lage one. Collections improvements are a completely unrelated issue.
 

Kalkbreath

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
kylen":iqfsz4a0 said:
Having a cheap charter will not alter DOA's. What will lower DOA's is having an exporter use larger bags. .
If the cost of the freight per box was cut in half , we could ship the fish in twice as large bags and still arrive at the same landing costs per fish..............Another issue is the idea that having US Fish &Wildlife inspecting each shipment ... If the inspectors one day have to inspect for certain species ie; {unsuitable species list} the additional hours each shipment will be sitting on the dicks waiting for inspectiors to check, will raise mortalities even higher. { the last hours in a bag are the most deadly } Seems most efforts to help protect our little fishes ,in up harming them further?
_________________
Acid Reflux Forum
_________________
college grants
 

kylen

Experienced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
With Sept 11 and economic factors affecting the airlines, there will only be upwards pressure on costs. Airfreight costs will never come down, only rise. SCR's (special commodity rates) may disappear and full TACT rating may come into effect. I think it's more prudent to put pressure on the airlines tohandle shipments of fish properly.

I can't speak for the process of USFW, being Canadian, eh. If this inspection for items on a USL comes into effect, could a system of submission of paperwork prior to arrival into the country be arranged. This way the shipment could be pre-cleared based on items in the shipment. We have this system for imports of plant material. It works great. If the Agri-Food Department wants to inspect based on items in your shipment they will not release the shipment for customs clearance. They can also perform spot inspections to keep you honest.
 

Kalkbreath

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
There is a pre inspection already in place and it happens daily...its called CITES permits Permits are pulled weeks proir, All the manifest is submitted the day before arrival. Yet this has little effect on the clearance process.{ which can take many hours} Imagine how long inspection clearance will take if fish inspections are also taking place,notjust coral........ this would amount to thirty times more boxes for the already overburden US fish and wildlife each week! I can just Imagine all the dead fish and now coral ? I still think more fish and coral die waiting to be inspected ,then at any other time in the stressfull shipping process! {last hours in a bag, usually out in the open,on the floor,waiting for an inspector............ instead of in a temperature controlled room or better being acclimating and out of the bag....the fish has been defecating in for thirty hours?
_________________
grand daddy purple strain
_________________
Rent guarantee Forum
 

PeterIMA

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
KalK, You and others make some good points. I agree that a major part of the cost of the fish is the air freight costs, freight rebates from the airlines back to the exporters, duties etc. It also is true that aside from cyanide a major cause of the high mortalities is transit time and the fact that fish are packed too tightly. Yet, the pet industry in the United States has not funded any studies to try to alleviate these problems. In contrast, Singapore (which is a major supplier of freshwater fish and reshipped marines to the USA) has been doing research on these topics.

Some ideas that might help. Novalek in Hayward CA sells Breathing bags. These bags have a plastic first developed by the Russian space program. I have evaluated these bags with a Philippine exporter of net-caught fish (Asian Marine Resources International-AMRI). We packed about 30 fish each in separate breathing bags with pieces of styrofoam to separate the bags inside a styrofoam box. Then we packe a second box in the same way. The two styrofoam boxes were packed inside a larger breathing bag and everything was packed inside a cardboard shipping box (the normal way of shipping fish from the Philippines). Each bag containing fish also contained Amquel and Nitrofurazone.

We left the box for 80 hours and then reopened the box. Nornally, if the fish had been packed in regular bags, one would expect the fish to be highly stressed or dead. Instead, we found the fish all alive, and looking healthy. I mesured the pH in the bags (as soon as they were opened). The pH was 7.3. Normally, after about 40-50 hours in regular bags the pH falls to about 5-6. The fish were dumped into a pan (in the same water) and observed for about a half hour. They showed no signs of stress and no mortality. They were then netted and put into tanks containing seawater at pH 8.3. All were alive after 5 days. AMRI maintained some marines up to three weeks in breathing bags (not inside the boxes with the surrounding breathing bag).I have also received similar reports from others who have used breathing bags. T

he bags are somewhat thin, and there are other problems that need to be solved. But, with a little research, I am confident they could be solved. With breathing bags, one could get lower freight rates (since the delivery time does not need to be guaranteed within 48 hours by the airlines). The pet trade needs to do research along these lines if they want to reduce DOAs and improve shipping practices.

Peter Rubec
 

dizzy

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Kalkbreath":1tcj36zg said:
I like what I hear! please keep us informed.

Kalk,

Peter said the pet industry needs to be doing tests with the breathing bags. He didn't say that anyone was actually working with the bags now. The bags have been around. Martin Moe Jr. brought some clowns to MACNA in those bags several years ago with good results. Despite their potential no one seems to be using them now.

Another area that needs to be explored is tranquilizing or putting the fish under during shipping. Some shippers use drugs to slow the fish down. Years ago I remember reading about the Chinese working to "knock out" goldfish and ship them between layers of wet paper. Elwyn Segrest stated that progress has been made in this area and that he believes in the future it will be possible to ship fish in very little water. If someone would really get serious with this research it could revolutionize the way fish are shipped. Solutions to the problems are out there. The question is how do you accelerate the process?

MG
 

naesco

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Dizzy are you serious?

So you advocate drugging of fish so that you can ship them more economically and sell them at a higher profit to reefers.
Is this generally the view of industry?
 

dizzy

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
naesco,

If they can put the fish under and ship them cheaper without hurting them I'm 100% for it. Here in the US we have something called "sleeping pills" that are actually taken by real live people. Are you against advances in this type of science?

Mitch
 

naesco

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Dizzy how about trying the following.
1. Buy only certified cyanide fish.
2.Boycott Indonesian and Phillipines fish until the industry cleans up their act.
3.Where possible buy coral and fish that are cultured here so their is minimal transport.
4.Buy from reputable wholesalers.
5. Provide large bags with less fish and provide sufficient oxygen.
6. Support the breathable bag technology even if it costs you more to get them.
As to your question the answer is a resounding NO! Who would!
When the reformers in industry prevail and industry cleans up their act maybe I might change my mind. Nothing gives me the slightest confidence that I could trust industry with drugging fish now.
Do you blame me?
Thank you
 

SPC

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Posted by dizzy:
If they can put the fish under and ship them cheaper without hurting them I'm 100% for it. Here in the US we have something called "sleeping pills" that are actually taken by real live people. Are you against advances in this type of science?

-I don't see any reason to consider this yet when other technologies such as breathing bags haven't been used. These bags have been around for many years and yet no one has demanded their use, why is this?
Steve
 

PeterIMA

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I am encouraged to see that others on reefs.org are interested in finding practical solutions such as breathing bags and use of sedatives in shipping. As a Research Scientist I try to keep abreast of scientific literature on these subjects. In 1988 I proposed to the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC) to evaluate anesthetics for shipping and/or collecting. PIJAC turned it down. The government of Singapore has evaluated several anesthetics for shipping freshwater fish (like guppies and barbs). Quinaldine sulfate was shown to be useful as a sedative and reduced ammonia excretion in shipments in conjunction with the use of neomycin (to control bacteria), and an ammonia absorbing zeolite. I tried to do some experiments with Dr. Denise Petty on marines using an alcohol compound as a sedative. We never finished do the experiments, because Elwin Segrest pulled the plug (Denise works for Segrest Farms).

The goldfish that you referred to were being anesthitized the carbon dioxide. Other anesthetic that looked promising was metomidate (until I realized its distribution was restricted to the medical profession). Clove oil looks promising and is being used for collecting in Indonesia. However, I found out clove oil like most of the other chemicals causes a stress response with the fish. Hence, it does not look too promising to use sedatives in shipping water (although it is being done to some extent).

Quinaldine sulfate can be used to sedate the fish prior to putting them in shipping bags (this can help to alleviate handling stress). Breathing bags have potential, but there may be simpler approachs like adding buffers to the shipping water. One Filipino exporter does this. It is considered a "Trade Secret". There are exporters/importers with answers, but they don't want to share the information. So far, the pet trade in the USA has not shown any willingness to either fund research or come forward with the "trade secrets" to help their competitors. This unwilingness to share information could lead to a ban on the entire trade.

The research I am talking about to find practical solutions for shipping fish would not be expensive. Hopefully, these approaches will be evaluated and become part of revised MAC standards/manuals.

Peter Rubec
 

dizzy

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
naesco said:
Dizzy how about trying the following.
1. Buy only certified cyanide fish.
naesco,

I assume you mean certified cyanide-free fish. I can assure you I do try to buy fish that weren't caught with cyanide. No one despises cyanide use any more than I do. There are currently no meaningful cyanide detection tests being performed to my knowledge.

FYI fish are already being shipped under the influence of tranquilizing drugs. Believe it or not these drugs are being used by aquaculture facilites with little or no bad effects. Besides cost savings, this has the advantage of reducing stress. This technique may not work well for all species, but it does seem to work on clowns and psuedos. Perhaps if fish like angels and tangs were relaxed they would not get spooked and punch holes in the thin breathing bags.

MG
 

naesco

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Dizzy I am aware you and other industry types are concientious industry/hobbyists and so I take care in referring to industry and not the poster personally. :)

PeterIMA
I agree with your comments on MACs potential involvment and the necessity of industry funding better handling methods of the fish and coral in their care.
It appears to me that the only way this will happen is when the government mandates minimum shipping conditions.
They should be doing this rather than counting dead fish in airlines care which is what is proposed.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
There are exporters/importers with answers, but they don't want to share the information. So far, the pet trade in the USA has not shown any willingness to either fund research or come forward with the "trade secrets" to help their competitors. This unwilingness to share information could lead to a ban on the entire trade.

Bingo.

I long for the day when wholesalers and LFS's compete on service and knowledge, and not on who has the most trade secrets. As a relatively new shop, I can tell you that finding out the bad guys from the not as bad guys is a lonely battle. No one wants to let the cat out of the bag so to speak on who "the conscientious industry person" should be dealing with. It's a closely guarded secret, and the only real answers come from trial and error. Seems to work against reform as the good guys are supressed and the bad guys advertise.
 

MaryHM

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
It's quite easy to determine what suppliers are carrying cyanide caught fish and which aren't. Look at their stocklist. If it has practically every fish known to the hobby on it, you can bet that a vast majority of them are from the Philippines and Indonesia.
 

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:


Top