Is it time to blow the whistle on industry?

[John_Brandt]

About 50% survive the initial exposure if rapidly moved to clean water. Rubec 1986, 1987

An estimated more than 80 percent of cyanide-collected aquarium fish die in the chain from collector to aquarium hobbyist. Rubec 1988

He (Rubec) estimates that at least 10 percent of cyanide-caught fish die at each step in the trade route. From Scientific American Magazine 2001

Total mortality through the chain (over 90%). Rubec 2001

Mortality at the retail level of marine fish was on average: 60% on the east coast, 35% in the mid-west, and 30% on the west coast of the USA, during the first three days after their arrival at the stores. Rubec 2001

 

[MaryHM]

Hey Rover/Len,

It would be cool if you guys would split the thread here. I think this mortality topic is worth pursuing further.

 

[Kalkbreath]

Hey Rover/Len,

It would be cool if you guys would split the thread here. I think this mortality topic is worth pursuing further.

Mary,I was not in the industry in 1986...........I dont think you were either{insert brownie point :wink: }Do you think anyone would or could remimber how things were in early eighties{handling all those cyanide fish must of effected the brains of the east coast importers through second hand juice}} :lol:

 

[flameangel1]

A large part of the mortality for fish on the EAST coast , is due to the problems associated with shipping. Any shipments going through Pittsburgh airport terminals, are subjected to extreme mishandling.
Those people there simply cant seem to read and leave the fish out on the tarmac in the dead of winter and the heat of summer . Bumping the shipments going to smaller airports through jumper flights, is VERY common and is considered NORMAL.

 

[Anonymous]

Even with horrible handling and just plain issues due to the shipment times - 60% DOA is laughable. I have had 100% DOA when the airlines screw things up maybe 5 times in the past 5 years but to be honest it hasn't happened much lately - we use SWA almost exclusively and they just seem to always get it there in a reasonable amount of time.

 

[MaryHM]

Concerning the 60% on the east coast, I posted this under the Rubec thread but no one paid it any attention:


This number makes absolutely no sense to me. Retailers participating in the survey would not know which fish were caught with cyanide and which weren't, and probably not even know the country of origin for most of their species. So we can assume they were saying 60% across the board. Here's why that makes NO sense.

A retailer in NC places a $1000 order from a wholesaler in LA. His freight charges will be about $140.

60% of $1000 is $600, so we can assume the retailer ends up with $400 worth of saleable fish. Let's assume he uses a 3x markup (about average for the industry). He now has $1200 worth of sales on that $400 worth of fish.
$1200 gross profit-$1140 cog+freight= $60 net profit. That wouldn't even cover the electricity, space, water, food, employees, etc... So in effect, every retailer on the east coast would be LOSING money on every shipment of fish. I just can't believe that is true. Even when we have airline delays, leaving the fish in the bags for 50-60 hours, we rarely have 60% DOA on fish.

 

[dizzy]

I'm still trying to figure out this whole West, Midwest, and East Coast thing. I think the issue is more defined by the availability and number of flights into a certain region than anything else. Isn't New York city on the East Coast? I'm willing to bet they have more direction flights from LA into NY than they do from LA to Casper, Wyoming. I'm also wondering if the 30% DOA figures on the "Left" coast take into account all the cherry pickers that work the wholesalers. Surely to God they don't experience 30%. That means the 30% is an average, so most of the West Coast stores that are not in driving distance of LA or San Fran must be up to 40-50% to pull all the cherry picked stuff up to that 30% average.

Another thing that I would mention is that DOA numbers would be higher in times of severe weather. Extreme summer heat or winter cold are likely to increase DOA numbers while fish will ship better in spring and fall.
About all these figures show me is that there was very little data available, and that the people who provided and received it were not on the same page. I believe that the actual average figures are much lower and I would ask people not to use these numbers unless they can be proven accurate. All your doing is getting poor misguided people like Wayne all excited over false data. :wink:

 

[JennM]

A retailer in NC places a $1000 order from a wholesaler in LA. His freight charges will be about $140.

60% of $1000 is $600, so we can assume the retailer ends up with $400 worth of saleable fish. Let's assume he uses a 3x markup (about average for the industry). He now has $1200 worth of sales on that $400 worth of fish.
$1200 gross profit-$1140 cog+freight= $60 net profit. That wouldn't even cover the electricity, space, water, food, employees, etc... So in effect, every retailer on the east coast would be LOSING money on every shipment of fish. I just can't believe that is true. Even when we have airline delays, leaving the fish in the bags for 50-60 hours, we rarely have 60% DOA on fish.

I saw that in the other thread, did not have a chance to post my thoughts -- further to Mary's math, don't forget that retailers buy on speculation for the most part (I suppose others in the chain do too, but not to the extent that retailers do). If that fish doesn't sell right away, it can linger in the store for months. I've got a couple of (ugly) fishes I've had for over a year - they don't create "profit" or even any sort of revenue, until they sell. Until they do, there is all the overhead of upkeep and etc.

I wish some of the folks who rag on and on about "ripoff LFS prices" as they shop for cheap (maybe juiced?) stuff online would read this equasion, because it might make them stop and think.

While I do think that 60% is a high (I am in the East and I don't experience anywhere near that mortality), the numbers definitely cause a pause for thought.

Jenn

 

[PeterIMA]

Jenn, The 60% DOA/DAA figure includes fish bought by retailers from wholesalers and trans-shippers. Frank Lallo did not ask the retailer for information on how the retailers purchased their fish. Of course, if you buy from one of the wholesalers who deal in net-caught fish, you do not experience such a high mortality. That does not mean that others are so fortunate.

Peter Rubec

 

[JennM]

I realize that, Peter, but even before I changed my buying habits, I didn't experience 60% DOA - but I DID experience much higher DOA/DAA than I do now. I do not transship so my overall averages would be much lower anyway. It only stands to reason that transshipped fish going from west to east would have more DOA because of the additional time spent/stress in bags.... misdirected or delayed shipments, I can only imagine. For me it's worth the extra few dollars to buy from wholesalers on the west coast. In the long run I think it saves me dollars.

Even between net caught wholesalers, I have varying degrees of DOA/DAA- and they buy from the same PI exporters, so I would concur that a lot has to do with handling/husbandry and packing. However even the worst case scenario among net caught wholesalers I deal with today, is far better than the best case scenario with 104th street.

Jenn

 

[MaryHM]

Peter,

I have worked for 3 other wholesalers in LA as a salesperson. Never, ever, ever did my customers experience 60% DOA on any type of regular or even semi-regular basis. If they did, they sure as heck wouldn't ever order again. If the research included shipments received from both wholesalers and transshippers, then I would call it flawed research. Those two methods of buying fish are apples to oranges. Obviously a transshipped fish is going to have higher DOA rates than a tanked fish. Not because of cyanide, but because of shipping stress.

 

[John_Brandt]

Peter,

I have worked for 3 other wholesalers in LA as a salesperson. Never, ever, ever did my customers experience 60% DOA on any type of regular or even semi-regular basis. If they did, they sure as heck wouldn't ever order again. If the research included shipments received from both wholesalers and transshippers, then I would call it flawed research. Those two methods of buying fish are apples to oranges. Obviously a transshipped fish is going to have higher DOA rates than a tanked fish. Not because of cyanide, but because of shipping stress.

The reality of this flawed data is even worse than described here. The 60% mortality figure is an average. This means that there were just as many mortalities higher than 60% as there were lower than 60%, otherwise the 60% figure cannot be an average.

 

[MaryHM]

Agreed, John. I can't imagine any retailer routinely receiving 60% or greater DOA and staying in business. I would like to know what the question the researcher asked. Could it have been "What is the highest DOA you have ever experienced??". If so, then of course they would get higher numbers because of things like long airline delays, etc...

 

[PeterIMA]

I think you (collectively) will agree that mortalities on the east coast are higher (even if you disagree with the 60% figure) because of the longer distances shipped and because of trans-shipping. I do not know what proportion of the retailers interviewed on the east coast bought their fish from trans-shippers.

I found it of interest that Richard Oellers told me that he had lower mortality on fish bought from Quality Marine on the west coast (Oellers is situated in Maine) than if he bought fish for his store from a local wholesaler. In my net-caught paper I also indicated that fish bought from west coast wholesalers had lower mortality than fish bought from east coast wholesalers or transhippers. I think we need a more detailed study. Are there any wholesalers or retailers who are willing to provide more information?

PS-Jenn what does 104th Street allude to?

Peter Rubec

 

[mkirda]

The reality of this flawed data is even worse than described here. The 60% mortality figure is an average. This means that there were just as many mortalities higher than 60% as there were lower than 60%, otherwise the 60% figure cannot be an average.

John,

Actually, I have to congratulate you on one thing: If nothing else, you may have provided a catalyst for getting newer updated information. With your connections, I am sure that Peter could get updated information for the in-US transportation leg. A paper with updated information to reflect what is going on today would be welcome, I think.

If there is any way I can help, let me know privately.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[MaryHM]

I think you (collectively) will agree that mortalities on the east coast are higher (even if you disagree with the 60% figure) because of the longer distances shipped and because of trans-shipping. I do not know what proportion of the retailers interviewed on the east coast bought their fish from trans-shippers.

Actually, no I wouldn't agree with that. It's not how far east you are that determines shipping time, it's what your airline connections are. I can ship to Boston, Charlotte, Pittsburgh, New York, Newark, Atlanta, all faster than I can ship to Billings, MT. In fact, since the vast majority of shipments are sent out on red eye flights and picked up the next morning, my customers in Boston actually pick up their shipments before my customer in Sacramento, CA. Boston flight arrives at 6am EST, which is 3am PST and is picked up by 9am EST, which is 6am PST. Sacramento gets in in the middle of the night and is not picked up until 9am PST, which is 12pm EST.

If you don't know which retailers were transshippers and which weren't, then you have flawed data. To try to paint the industry with a transshipping mortality brush is wrong. Yes, you'll get more sensational mortality reports, but the vast majority of retailers do not receive their fish that way. These are two completely different ways of doing business and should be treated as such.

I found it of interest that Richard Oellers told me that he had lower mortality on fish bought from Quality Marine on the west coast (Oellers is situated in Maine) than if he bought fish for his store from a local wholesaler.

This is easily explained by two factors. First, most wholesalers operating in remote parts of the country must transship in their animals. A wholesaler in Portland, ME cannot buy at wholesale prices from LA and then try to wholesale to retailers in their area- not if they want to make any money. Second, most of these local wholesalers have extremely substandard systems. The "big boys" like Quality Marine generally have the best systems money can buy. Proper holding facilities play a huge role in fish health.

 

[PeterIMA]

Mary, I think you stated it better than I can. There are many factors that contribute to fish mortality including cyanide, stress, ammonia, shipping time (including airline connections). I would be interested in receiving a report done by John Tullock for the MAC on the status of the trade in the United States. Did you see this report while you were a MAC supporter? I assume that many of these problems were discussed. I don't claim to be the expert or to have all of the solutions. My question is: What is the MAC doing or planning to do about the excessive mortality in the trade (without getting further into exactly what levels)? The MAC stated they would solve these problems. So far, I see no plan to address them.


Peter Rubec

 

[Anonymous]

Peter,

I have worked for 3 other wholesalers in LA as a salesperson. Never, ever, ever did my customers experience 60% DOA on any type of regular or even semi-regular basis. If they did, they sure as heck wouldn't ever order again. If the research included shipments received from both wholesalers and transshippers, then I would call it flawed research. Those two methods of buying fish are apples to oranges. Obviously a transshipped fish is going to have higher DOA rates than a tanked fish. Not because of cyanide, but because of shipping stress.

The reality of this flawed data is even worse than described here. The 60% mortality figure is an average. This means that there were just as many mortalities higher than 60% as there were lower than 60%, otherwise the 60% figure cannot be an average.

could you elaborate on this, john-doesn't fit in w/what i learned about what average means-if the only highs and lows are of equal percentage, then the incidents would be equal-but there could be more 70% and 50% than 80%'s and 40%'s, no?

 

[PeterIMA]

Vitz, John Brandt stated that an average means there must be an equal number of data (observations) above and below the average (mean) value. This is not necessarily true. It is true that an "arithemetic mean" implies that the "mean" comes from a theoretical bell-shaped normal probability distribution (representing the population of raw data). In reality the "average" may come from calculations done on numbers where the number of data points above and below are not equal in number. The average depends on the magnitudes of the raw numbers (observations). Hence, the average does not necessitate an equal number of observations above and below it.

Peter Rubec

 

[John_Brandt]

Vitz, John Brandt stated that an average means there must be an equal number of data (observations) above and below the average (mean) value. This is not necessarily true. It is true that an "arithemetic mean" implies that the "mean" comes from a theoretical bell-shaped normal probability distribution (representing the population of raw data). In reality the "average" may come from calculations done on numbers where the number of data points above and below are not equal in number. The average depends on the magnitudes of the raw numbers (observations). Hence, the average does not necessitate an equal number of observations above and below it.

Peter Rubec

Peter,

I did not suggest that an equal number of data points (observations) must occur "on both sides" of the average. I suggested that an equal number of mortalities (dead fish) must occur on both sides of the average.

You could easily confuse Vitz (or any reader) into thinking I was wrong about what I stated.

The actual number of dead fish does not perfectly correlate to the actual number of observations made. Otherwise, we wouldn't seek to know the average.