Fish Mortality Study Data Blue Chromis/Chromis sp.

[Frank Lallo]

Mary & John,
Yes there is the possiblity I could have misread or missunderstood some phone conversations. As I am looking at the papers Doa's were not the biggest problem with the Blue & Black Ribbons. I show days 2/3/4 at almost 89%. As for the Moorish Idol it shows the same thing.

Thanks Guys.

 

[Anonymous]

My bet is on the eels jumping or escaping.

 

[MaryHM]

No retailer in his right mind is going to continually put up with over 70% of his expensive (in excess of $15-20 wholesale if I remember correctly) eels continually escaping week after week. If Frank did a one time call, he might see percentages like that for the eels occasionally. However, if he did repeat calls and followed retailers through a few different shipments (which is my understanding and could be wrong), then it doesn't make any sense. Something is fishy here. :?

 

[Frank Lallo]

Mary,
We spoke this afternoon and told you what I did and who I called in relation to the ribbon data, It is only fair to post it to the rest. I was told that the ribbon is not the easiest species to catch and to make it economiclly succesful these fish may be held for a bit of time until surficent numbers are caught to be shipped. My opinion....Is it possible yes. Is it probable NO. So this particular piece of data may be wrong. But those are the numbers I have and those are the numbers I posted. I will not change any number because it doesn't look right to me or anybody else. They are what I have and I am posting them for everyone's interest and there Insite.

Thanks Mary.

 

[Kalkbreath]

Purcupine Puffer/Didon Holacanthus
Location..........Outlets............#of fish............Doa..........%of
West..............107.................211..................170.91.......81%
Mid................60...................185..................140.6........76%
East..............109..................216..................190.08......88%

Is this the pacific species? If so I agree with these numbers 80% of these come in DOA for me! In fact I dont disagree with any of the DOA DAA percentages........only the number of fish in each group....

 

[dizzy]

Is this the pacific species? If so I agree with these numbers 80% of these come in DOA for me! In fact I dont disagree with any of the DOA DAA percentages........only the number of fish in each group....

kalk, then why do you keep ordering them? :? If you plan on making it long term in this business you need to get smarter. Quick :!: BTW aren't you the transship guy? :roll: No wonder.

 

[Anonymous]

heh :wink:

 

[Kalkbreath]

Is this the pacific species? If so I agree with these numbers 80% of these come in DOA for me! In fact I dont disagree with any of the DOA DAA percentages........only the number of fish in each group....

kalk, then why do you keep ordering them? :? If you plan on making it long term in this business you need to get smarter. Quick :!: BTW aren't you the transship guy? :roll: No wonder.

Im talking about six total for the year and I dont order them anymore [They are ugly anyway .......the Atlantic spiny box is what I carry........ps.Tranship? "Direct" baby "Direct" Also, My store imports almost 1000 green chromis a year ........this survey included how manygreen cromis for threehundred stores?

 

[Frank Lallo]

Kalk,
All the numbers are based on 25 shippments. Many stores do not have the buying power as you may have. You may order once a week or every two weeks, some might place orders once a month or even 2 months. Some may go months without ordering a single Green Chromis so whats your point ? If I have to spoon feed like a damn 2 year old about the details of study call me. I'll put the 2 year old next door on the phone to translate I do not speak Ishkabibble then maybe you'll understand a little better. And btw wonderful job with puffers that would put you at the top of the list in the HIGH catagory. As Mitch said and I would take his advice smart'en up. I find it interesting that after Mitch gave you his little piece of advice and ONLY AFTER do you then say I don't order them any-more, Who's jerk'in who's chain ?

 

[Kalkbreath]

What you fail to see{as a scientist} is...... that yes I had 80% DOA on our little Asian puffer friends this year.......But it was only eight fish ..........................and I will continue to have an 80% DOA "record" on this species of fish for the next ten years ............even though I will not be ordering these fish at all during this same ten years ........see, the 80% stays with me even if I never order one again!{it has to! its part of " MATH"} so I might have an 80% DOA ..........but that does not mean I am harming any more puffers?............Thats how important the control number is........ There is little argument that green chromis are collected at a thousand times more individuals then ribbon eels.......so even ribbon eels with a 80% DOA means that for every thousand ribbon fish ..........one million green cromis are collected and 90% survive........so the ribbon eels cannot affect the overall DOA rate of the combined two fish any greater then one percent.........thats why any survey using a three to one ratio rather then the actual one thousand to one reality......is very similar to my own statement that this hobby only collects from 5% of the islands in the Indo Pacific...........while its true {if one was to name each and every island in the Indo Pacific, then cross out the islands names that ....this hobby collects from ...........the remaining 95% islands would show my statement to be true} I have a feeling your going to list two hundred fish species and give each line item a DOA percentage, then average it out {THE ONE WHALE SHARK and THAT LONE RESPLENDANT ANGEl will cancel out the line for millions of green chromis and the line for yellow tangs....{To average out the four species} ......even though ninety percent of the actual fish represented by these four line items would arrive alive .......................even with a 60% "AVERAGED DOA ..................the bulk of the millions of fish imported would land happy ............. only the top thirty or so species ....are significant ........just like the top two "islands" in My survey of how many islands do we....PI and Indonesia are but two {Species}named island countries but comprise about thirty percent of the actual reefs on the earth.....We are both correct in our statements..................its the context that is the slight of hand :wink:

 

[kylen]

Kalk...


?????????? What are you trying to say??????? I don't think I have ever been so confused. Are you using some different kind of math or is my Canadian upbringing not allowing me to understand what you are saying. Please help me.

I did a quick count of the numbers that Frank has given;

26564 Total fish reported
3218 DOA
~12% overall (all three regions)

My counts could be out a little (forgive me). This doesn't reflect the DAA which will obviously bring the mortality percentage up. Like Frank has been saying, wait until the whole picture has been presented. I can break down the numbers by region if you like, Frank to help you.

One reason I have thought about for the higher numbers of the oddball fish. Based on average fish per store, some fish were reported as 1-2 fish per store over the reporting period. If a each store orders one "fish of the month" fish and it dies, could the majority of the stores not order a replacement. All of a sudden you now have numbers that are what Frank reported. Don't forget, purchasing habits of seven years ago are different of those of today.

 

[mkirda]

Kalk...

?????????? What are you trying to say??????? I don't think I have ever been so confused.

Kylen,

I think I understand the point, although I am still not sure it has any application here yet...

Moving to an anstraction, we have fish A and fish b.

Fish A has a high landed DOA/DAA percentage for whatever reason.
Fish B is much lower.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Fish A is 80% and Fish B is 5%.

In terms of the hobby, Fish B is far more common than Fish A, meaning that in terms of sheer numbers, they are imported in a ratio of 3000:1.
Meaning that for every 3000 Fish Bs, only a single Fish A is imported.

Because of the difference in the numbers of imported fish, you cannot use a straight average when giving information about the DOA/DAA percentage. In other words, you cannot add 80% and 5% and divide by 2, and expect to have an accurate DOA/DAA percentage. You have to weight the averages. Given the hypothetical numbers here, if the differences in the import ratios are that high, the weighted average of DOA/DAA would be just over 5%, not 42.5%... (Forgive me for not actually computing the actual %: It would be some very small fraction over 5%, like maybe 5.001%... )

So, while I understand his point, I also see no evidence to support his claim that the numbers were averaged without regards to numbers of fish imported... Until we see all the raw data, no one can make such a claim and have any leg to stand on, IMO.

I hope I made things clearer here.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[kylen]

Mike,

I understand your explanation. Maybe I misunderstood how the mortality numbers from the poll were derived. Frank can correct me if I'm wrong. I understood that the average of the average DOA/DAA by store was used not the average of the average DOA/DAA by species type. I dunno!

 

[mkirda]

Mike,

I understand your explanation. Maybe I misunderstood how the mortality numbers from the poll were derived. Frank can correct me if I'm wrong. I understood that the average of the average DOA/DAA by store was used not the average of the average DOA/DAA by species type. I dunno!

Me either.

We all would certainly benefit from pumping these numbers into an Excel spreadsheet, then running a few different statistical analyses on them.
You could run and compare the 'average average' vs. a 'weighted average', for example, fairly simply...

Frank,
I don't know if you have had offers yet, but you might consider doing this, if you haven't done it already. I can't really volunteer to do this, unfortunately, but I'm sure others would be happy to help, and would have the requisite experience with Excel to do this properly.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[kylen]

Hey Mike,

I already started a spreadsheet using the numbers that Frank has presented thus far. The problem is that it is on my computer at home and with my wife, two kids, and the dog all wanting me to enjoy our great summer, time has been tight. I should get a chance to finish what I started tonight. I'm getting some quality alone time. Sad part is, instead of golfing I'm working out mortality numbers :roll: .

 

[Kalkbreath]

Kalk...

?????????? What are you trying to say??????? I don't think I have ever been so confused.

Kylen,

I think I understand the point, although I am still not sure it has any application here yet...

Moving to an anstraction, we have fish A and fish b.

Fish A has a high landed DOA/DAA percentage for whatever reason.
Fish B is much lower.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Fish A is 80% and Fish B is 5%.

In terms of the hobby, Fish B is far more common than Fish A, meaning that in terms of sheer numbers, they are imported in a ratio of 3000:1.
Meaning that for every 3000 Fish Bs, only a single Fish A is imported.

Because of the difference in the numbers of imported fish, you cannot use a straight average when giving information about the DOA/DAA percentage. In other words, you cannot add 80% and 5% and divide by 2, and expect to have an accurate DOA/DAA percentage. You have to weight the averages. Given the hypothetical numbers here, if the differences in the import ratios are that high, the weighted average of DOA/DAA would be just over 5%, not 42.5%... (Forgive me for not actually computing the actual %: It would be some very small fraction over 5%, like maybe 5.001%... )

So, while I understand his point, I also see no evidence to support his claim that the numbers were averaged without regards to numbers of fish imported... Until we see all the raw data, no one can make such a claim and have any leg to stand on, IMO.

I hope I made things clearer here.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

Yes , your catching my drift...........you said pretty much the same thing I did ........without the psycho twist stuff...... :wink: Why has frank or anyone else given out any info if the studys data has yet to be digested?

 

[kylen]

Well here goes;

After finishing the spreadsheet with the data that Frank supplied, here are some simple calculations. Bear in mind that there may be discrepencies while transposing numbers as well as rounding off Franks's DOA numbers. As well blue/black ribbon eels were lumped together and general laziness tends to make for a few mistakes. Anyway, it should give a little different slant on the numbers that Frank has presented.

Total Fish Reported
West - 11965
Midwest - 6947
East - 12177
TOTAL - 31089

DOA's
West - 1192
Midwest - 746
East - 1723
TOTAL - 3661

DOA %
West - 10.0
Midwest - 10.7
East - 14.1
OVERALL - 11.8

If and when the DAA numbers are presented it will help clarify Frank's position WRT the mortality numbers. I would not be surprised at all that the original 30/30/60 numbers presented are reached. Based on my experience, I have seen complete batches of damsels/chromis that arrive zero DOA, all die within 48 hours.

Frank...send me the numbers if you want help.

 

[kylen]

To get to the reported mortality percentages reported, the following DAA figures (approximate) would be required over the reporting period.

West Total - 2400
West per store - 22

Midwest Total - 1350
Midwest per store - 22

East Total - 5600
East per store - 51

 

[Anonymous]

Another thing I don't understand is why the East Coast is reporting more fish than the West coast. Surely there are more shops out west, than in the east.

 

[kylen]

In Franks poll, the breakdown of numbers of stores are;

West - 107
Midwest - 60
East - 109

It makes no mention of size of store as this will have an impact on shear numbers of fish.