MAC Cyanide Detection Testing
- Thread starter JennM
- Start date
John_Brandt":2huweon7 said:
This comment you made
John_Brandt":2huweon7 said:
And it seems that "brewing for years" is apt, as demonstrated within the MACAttack files. I think that the organization should have known that it would garner itself this cadre of "nay-sayers", as borne out by the exchanges within the correspondences of the MACAttack files. The fact that some of them came from within the ranks of MAC doesn't speak well for the organization as it operates at this time.
With what I've gleaned so far, I've come to realize that, from a hobbyist's perspective, they really have no other guarantee of cyanide-free animals without some sort of certification. I am often wont to make an analogy here with organic foods. It's a very good thing, but truthfully, the customer has no guarantees or proof of veracity without some governing body to look to to back up that guarantee.
However! When the scruples of that governing body are questionable in the first place, then the customer effectively has no guarantee. This is a huge problem, I won't get into listing all the other issues, but they really are valid concerns.
Sorry Mary, I didn't realize they were linked via reefsource! (I'm trying to get as much learnin' in as possible--my brain, O! my brain..)
Here... I went shopping today and bought some of us some nice white coats with XXXXLong sleeves 
How about I sell to my customers the fish first, let them take them home, and THEN talk to them about purchasing and setting up a tank?
Same premise, IMO....
Promote certification, issue certification, even sell Nemo and Dory based on that certification, and THEN figure out how to certify properly...
Darn those pesky details.....
I think it smells like a funding issue too. But who am I? Just another whacko
Jenn
How about I sell to my customers the fish first, let them take them home, and THEN talk to them about purchasing and setting up a tank?
Same premise, IMO....
Promote certification, issue certification, even sell Nemo and Dory based on that certification, and THEN figure out how to certify properly...
Darn those pesky details.....
I think it smells like a funding issue too. But who am I? Just another whacko
Jenn
Give a mac ...errr, man enough rope, and all that.
Hi Jenn,
1.
It is not possible to implement a BFAR-run CDT schedule covering a major part of the ornamental trade in the Philippines in short order, because of funding~manpower. Just hiring and keeping the monitoring manpower in place is a sizeable proposition, and this year's tasks are already pretty mandated, and the requisite funding already limited during the last budget deliberations for the BFAR.
2.
It is quite possible to start EFFECTIVELY monitoring a small part (1-2 exporters maybe) of the local industry, and if that's what MAC is talking about, then they could start in 2-3 weeks: BFAR manpower tasks will have to reshuffled, and that time is sufficient to put away pending tasks/commitments... I say possible, because there is the very real chance that BFAR simply doesn't have the spare man-hours to accomodate a mid-year addition to its mandated tasks, and is being polite by asking for a few weeks more.
Saying 'no' outright to a worthy, humble request is often considered rude, and playing for time in the face of apparent impossibility is not always dishonest ---Filipinos largely believe in prayer, miracles and Divine Intervention. Two weeks is enough time to work hard and pray hard. Let me be clear: if you honestly believe in a loving God's miracles, then NOTHING is impossible, so there can be no dishonesty when you say "it's possible, give us a few weeks to see if we can work it out", even when your manpower and budget are already badly strained.
3.
Even with all its weaknesses, ISE can still make a huge difference, if you diligently nab specimens hot and fresh from the collector, on top of the run-of-the-mill color checks on wholesaler and exporter holding.
The problem is that the terms wholesaler and exporter are NOT the same thing. Easy to monitor exporters, so long as you know they tightly control their soiurces. Sometimes the source is directly the collector... but sometimes, the source is a 'wholesaler'. This is an outfit that buys specimens that collectors are unable to sell (for any of a bazillion reasons --there are some very nice specimens available via wholesalers).
Sometimes a group of collectors will quietly form a cooperative with a few bad mangoes in it ---the Mr. Clean of the group presents an acceptable face to even an honest exporter unaware of a 'cooperative' and BAM, you've got a tainted batch.
For such cases of specimens arriving at the exporters from terra et tempus incognitae, ISE is seriously handicapped. You either spring for more HPL Chroma units or (more cheaply) investigate the specimens' path of travel ---and tell on the offending sources. The exporter busts his source's a$$, and that source harangues HIS sources, etc. on down... creating business pressure to clean up....
THAT is the sort of rudimentary self-policing that can take months to set in, even with an honest desire for clean harvest among all exporters and most of their collectors.
4.
MAC has to start somewhere, and if it is only with maybe two exporters, then at least it's a start. Even if a new BFAR-MAC CDT sched for just ONE exporter were to start tomorrow, would it PRACTICALLY matter to MAC critics (myself included)?
I happen to agree with Steve that knowledge of a skilled, clean source is presently a priceless business asset, moreso if you personally developed that asset, and not one to be given away carelessly (especially when one has already done so much that directly/indirectly helps the competition to obtain clean sources).
Say the CDT reveals bad sources (collector-direct or otherwise), and the honest exporter ceases all dealings with them. The honest exporter still needs a replacement, clean-cource option to turn to. Are there enough alternative sources to turn to?
Say the CDT gives that one exporter a real clean bill of health all year long. What changes?
Even with effective CDT in place,
Even with effective identification and prosecution of cyanide users,
Even with sufficient numbers of net-capture collectors magically available,
Even with ethical exporters ready to ditch all criminal sources,
For so long as a number of US importers don't give a goddayum about cyanide or reef-rape, there will be no favor shown to clean sources. There will ALWAYS be incentive for bulk, for volume, and therefore for lazy cyanide use.
This is a very fragile new bridge we're all trying to build, from SEAsia to the US. Over time it will grow stronger, like a young coral bommie, but right now, all it takes is one compromised link for the bridge to fail.
For all my pessimism, I still believe the Philippine end is fixable.
I have less hope of reform on the US end.
Still, I'm Filipino so nothing's really impossible if we work really hard and pray even harder.
Is MAC promising the impossible?
Not if it truly believes: then nothing is impossible.
Insofar as what it claims it is trying to do, it deserves our support,
AND our constructive (if blunt) criticism.
Is MAC misrepresenting its vaunted 'badge of certification'?
Since so many links in the bridge leading up to it are still compromised,
...I think, yes.
Horge
Hi Jenn,
1.
It is not possible to implement a BFAR-run CDT schedule covering a major part of the ornamental trade in the Philippines in short order, because of funding~manpower. Just hiring and keeping the monitoring manpower in place is a sizeable proposition, and this year's tasks are already pretty mandated, and the requisite funding already limited during the last budget deliberations for the BFAR.
2.
It is quite possible to start EFFECTIVELY monitoring a small part (1-2 exporters maybe) of the local industry, and if that's what MAC is talking about, then they could start in 2-3 weeks: BFAR manpower tasks will have to reshuffled, and that time is sufficient to put away pending tasks/commitments... I say possible, because there is the very real chance that BFAR simply doesn't have the spare man-hours to accomodate a mid-year addition to its mandated tasks, and is being polite by asking for a few weeks more.
Saying 'no' outright to a worthy, humble request is often considered rude, and playing for time in the face of apparent impossibility is not always dishonest ---Filipinos largely believe in prayer, miracles and Divine Intervention. Two weeks is enough time to work hard and pray hard. Let me be clear: if you honestly believe in a loving God's miracles, then NOTHING is impossible, so there can be no dishonesty when you say "it's possible, give us a few weeks to see if we can work it out", even when your manpower and budget are already badly strained.
3.
Even with all its weaknesses, ISE can still make a huge difference, if you diligently nab specimens hot and fresh from the collector, on top of the run-of-the-mill color checks on wholesaler and exporter holding.
The problem is that the terms wholesaler and exporter are NOT the same thing. Easy to monitor exporters, so long as you know they tightly control their soiurces. Sometimes the source is directly the collector... but sometimes, the source is a 'wholesaler'. This is an outfit that buys specimens that collectors are unable to sell (for any of a bazillion reasons --there are some very nice specimens available via wholesalers).
Sometimes a group of collectors will quietly form a cooperative with a few bad mangoes in it ---the Mr. Clean of the group presents an acceptable face to even an honest exporter unaware of a 'cooperative' and BAM, you've got a tainted batch.
For such cases of specimens arriving at the exporters from terra et tempus incognitae, ISE is seriously handicapped. You either spring for more HPL Chroma units or (more cheaply) investigate the specimens' path of travel ---and tell on the offending sources. The exporter busts his source's a$$, and that source harangues HIS sources, etc. on down... creating business pressure to clean up....
THAT is the sort of rudimentary self-policing that can take months to set in, even with an honest desire for clean harvest among all exporters and most of their collectors.
4.
MAC has to start somewhere, and if it is only with maybe two exporters, then at least it's a start. Even if a new BFAR-MAC CDT sched for just ONE exporter were to start tomorrow, would it PRACTICALLY matter to MAC critics (myself included)?
I happen to agree with Steve that knowledge of a skilled, clean source is presently a priceless business asset, moreso if you personally developed that asset, and not one to be given away carelessly (especially when one has already done so much that directly/indirectly helps the competition to obtain clean sources).
Say the CDT reveals bad sources (collector-direct or otherwise), and the honest exporter ceases all dealings with them. The honest exporter still needs a replacement, clean-cource option to turn to. Are there enough alternative sources to turn to?
Say the CDT gives that one exporter a real clean bill of health all year long. What changes?
Even with effective CDT in place,
Even with effective identification and prosecution of cyanide users,
Even with sufficient numbers of net-capture collectors magically available,
Even with ethical exporters ready to ditch all criminal sources,
For so long as a number of US importers don't give a goddayum about cyanide or reef-rape, there will be no favor shown to clean sources. There will ALWAYS be incentive for bulk, for volume, and therefore for lazy cyanide use.
This is a very fragile new bridge we're all trying to build, from SEAsia to the US. Over time it will grow stronger, like a young coral bommie, but right now, all it takes is one compromised link for the bridge to fail.
For all my pessimism, I still believe the Philippine end is fixable.
I have less hope of reform on the US end.
Still, I'm Filipino so nothing's really impossible if we work really hard and pray even harder.
Is MAC promising the impossible?
Not if it truly believes: then nothing is impossible.
Insofar as what it claims it is trying to do, it deserves our support,
AND our constructive (if blunt) criticism.
Is MAC misrepresenting its vaunted 'badge of certification'?
Since so many links in the bridge leading up to it are still compromised,
...I think, yes.
Horge
Mary, I've said this before and you have too. There can be no certification without enforcement.
But to go further (and you all are going to love this one) I posit:
There will be very little drive for net collected fish unless there is certification and enforcement FIRST.
Did I actually say that? YES! Certification first, then more training. Or certify and train at the same time.
It's not some sneaky scheme so that MAC can look good to it's board or directors - it's a sound plan put in place by people that are actually qualified and yes, they DO understand the industry and its economics.
The status quo is just too "juicy" a cow for the industry to want to change on its own (as demonstrated oh, I don't know, TEN TIMES now????) Solution: Certification first, then more training. Or certify and train at the same time.
So why does everyone scream and pull their hair out because fish that were net caught are actually being certified as net caught (gasp!!) and shipped to the US? Some people obviously use nets. More people will be trained and will use nets in
I consider this a positive constructive post and I encourage others to follow up in kind.
Sincerely,
James Wiseman
But to go further (and you all are going to love this one) I posit:
There will be very little drive for net collected fish unless there is certification and enforcement FIRST.
Did I actually say that? YES! Certification first, then more training. Or certify and train at the same time.
It's not some sneaky scheme so that MAC can look good to it's board or directors - it's a sound plan put in place by people that are actually qualified and yes, they DO understand the industry and its economics.
The status quo is just too "juicy" a cow for the industry to want to change on its own (as demonstrated oh, I don't know, TEN TIMES now????) Solution: Certification first, then more training. Or certify and train at the same time.
So why does everyone scream and pull their hair out because fish that were net caught are actually being certified as net caught (gasp!!) and shipped to the US? Some people obviously use nets. More people will be trained and will use nets in
I consider this a positive constructive post and I encourage others to follow up in kind.
Sincerely,
James Wiseman
This sounds (to copy someone else's word) silly to me. How do you certify fish without having the trainings and nets to insure it can be certified? You have to create a supply to certify before you can certify. You can't certify a bunch of fish, create demand, and then go back and do the trainings to make sure the collectors know what their doing. That would be vanilla certification.
How can you certify a group of divers that hasn't been trained? How can you claim that they're following all the MAC rules, when they haven't been trained in the MAC rules? You have to 1st train a group in your protocals THEN certify them as trained in your protocals, otherwise your certifing a group WITH THE COMPLETE KNOWLEDGE that they aren't trained in your protocals AKA fraudulant certification. Is that what your asking for James?
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
James,
That last posting was the thread of the week...and I thank you for it.
The defense of putting the cart before the horse was a first. In fact, it was virtually a defense of the cart with no horse follwing it at all...
Even MAC certified exporters, importers and retailers want varied , certified fish supply...yesterday. Without certified fish to fill their certified wharehouses, they will simply fill them up with illegal, coral killing cyanide fish...which makes them look shallow, bogus and hypocritical.
Certification without fish supply is like a check with no money to back it up. There is a lot of murmuring among them about this...and for good reason.
Just when MACs own have owned up to and admitted to the big mistake...you do a 180 and defend the error as 'wisdom' and not a mistake!
I think the thread merits a sticky and would like to know if any of
the "my MAC right or wrong" crowd will second your reasoning.
I am not anti-MAC on this. I am anti style and hype over substance.
I'm beginning to wonder how much of the MACs admitted " massive amounts of errors" are based on innocent errors or premeditated ones.
I prefer to think of them as innocent. Your thread suggests otherwise.
Sincerely, Steve
That last posting was the thread of the week...and I thank you for it.
The defense of putting the cart before the horse was a first. In fact, it was virtually a defense of the cart with no horse follwing it at all...
Even MAC certified exporters, importers and retailers want varied , certified fish supply...yesterday. Without certified fish to fill their certified wharehouses, they will simply fill them up with illegal, coral killing cyanide fish...which makes them look shallow, bogus and hypocritical.
Certification without fish supply is like a check with no money to back it up. There is a lot of murmuring among them about this...and for good reason.
Just when MACs own have owned up to and admitted to the big mistake...you do a 180 and defend the error as 'wisdom' and not a mistake!
I think the thread merits a sticky and would like to know if any of
the "my MAC right or wrong" crowd will second your reasoning.
I am not anti-MAC on this. I am anti style and hype over substance.
I'm beginning to wonder how much of the MACs admitted " massive amounts of errors" are based on innocent errors or premeditated ones.
I prefer to think of them as innocent. Your thread suggests otherwise.
Sincerely, Steve
Well clearly there must not be any net caught fish coming into the US since according to all y'all no one has been trained yet.
Oh hang on a second, you guys sell net-caught fish! I must not have noticed that before! And others do too.
My point - which you all quickly leapfrogged over so that you could jump on me for putting the cart before the horse - is that there ARE net-caught fish being certified by MAC. The whole point of this is that those fish are supposed to be more desirable and drive up demand for MORE net-caught fish.
So, Mary and Steve - since your fish are already net-caught, why don't you get certified if you haven't done so already? It will help the hobby and the industry. That would be a positive step.
Cheers
James
Oh hang on a second, you guys sell net-caught fish! I must not have noticed that before! And others do too.
My point - which you all quickly leapfrogged over so that you could jump on me for putting the cart before the horse - is that there ARE net-caught fish being certified by MAC. The whole point of this is that those fish are supposed to be more desirable and drive up demand for MORE net-caught fish.
So, Mary and Steve - since your fish are already net-caught, why don't you get certified if you haven't done so already? It will help the hobby and the industry. That would be a positive step.
Cheers
James
Main Entry: mod·er·a·tor
Pronunciation: 'mä-d&-"rA-t&r
Function: noun
Date: circa 1560
1 : one who arbitrates : MEDIATOR
2 : one who presides over an assembly, meeting, or discussion: as a : the presiding officer of a Presbyterian governing body b : the nonpartisan presiding officer of a town meeting c : the chairman of a discussion group
3 : a substance (as graphite) used for slowing down neutrons in a nuclear reactor
- mod·er·a·tor·ship /-"ship/ noun
Pronunciation: 'mä-d&-"rA-t&r
Function: noun
Date: circa 1560
1 : one who arbitrates : MEDIATOR
2 : one who presides over an assembly, meeting, or discussion: as a : the presiding officer of a Presbyterian governing body b : the nonpartisan presiding officer of a town meeting c : the chairman of a discussion group
3 : a substance (as graphite) used for slowing down neutrons in a nuclear reactor
- mod·er·a·tor·ship /-"ship/ noun
God James. Are you really that unversed in this subject? Of course there are net caught fish. EXTREMELY FREAKING LIMITED AMOUNTS COMING FROM ONLY TWO NET CAUGHT ONLY EXPORTERS. Want to know how many clown triggers I got this week? ZERO. I ordered 5. Want to know how many Imperators I got? ONE. Want to know how many Blue Face? ZERO. Want to know how many blue tangs. ZERO. Want to know how many Coral Beauties? 6. Want to know how many Tangs out of about 6 species ordered? FOUR SCOPAS. My god I can't even fill one of my retail customers orders with that!!! If there isn't even enough net caught fish to fill my tiny system (we have about 3500 running right now), then how in the world are these "MAC Certified" places filling their 20,000 gallon systems?? With Non-MAC Certified cyanide caught fish- and this is OK with MAC. There are some divers trained- but not enough to fill the supply line MAC is certifying left and right. No where near enough. So what do you want me to do? Get MAC certified so I can sell MAC Certified Mandarin Gobies? Oh yeah, there's a business plan. :roll: Let me spend $1500 to get certified so I can sell some mandarins.
Which would you rather me do James? Get certified and buy from exporters who have all the variety and quantities I want, but 99% of them are cyanide caught, or stay true to net caught only and put up with the pathetic variety and availability. Which is it James? Do you want me to sell out or remain true to net caught only? This isn't a hypothetical questions. I want an answer to this, please.
Which would you rather me do James? Get certified and buy from exporters who have all the variety and quantities I want, but 99% of them are cyanide caught, or stay true to net caught only and put up with the pathetic variety and availability. Which is it James? Do you want me to sell out or remain true to net caught only? This isn't a hypothetical questions. I want an answer to this, please.
Mary,
I asked why you don't get certified since your fish are already net caught. Because you don't support the certification agency isn't a good reason IMO.
Maybe having the certification will give you a competitive edge. Then you can afford to train some more collectors so that you can get >0 clown triggers and >1 Imperator in the future.
So yes, I want you to get certified.
Love,
James
I asked why you don't get certified since your fish are already net caught. Because you don't support the certification agency isn't a good reason IMO.
Maybe having the certification will give you a competitive edge. Then you can afford to train some more collectors so that you can get >0 clown triggers and >1 Imperator in the future.
So yes, I want you to get certified.
Love,
James
James,
So you would rather me mix cyanide caught fish to get a few MAC certified mandarins?? You want me to go to one of the big PTFEA exporters and get a dozen mandarins, a dozen copperbands, and a dozen clownfish. Fine. Then there's an issue of freight. I can't just bring in 36 fish, James. I have to have at least 15 boxes to make freight. So now I get to finally have all of the clown triggers, blue tangs, angels, etc... that my heart desires!! I can load up on 'em!! Those exporters have plenty!! And they're CYANIDE CAUGHT. But hey, I have 3 MAC certified species so I'm a good guy now.
Sorry James, but that mentality is SICK AND WRONG. I have a thing called ethics. They get in my way and severely hamper my business at times. But I refuse to violate them. And I can't believe someone who claims to care about the reefs is asking me to.
So you would rather me mix cyanide caught fish to get a few MAC certified mandarins?? You want me to go to one of the big PTFEA exporters and get a dozen mandarins, a dozen copperbands, and a dozen clownfish. Fine. Then there's an issue of freight. I can't just bring in 36 fish, James. I have to have at least 15 boxes to make freight. So now I get to finally have all of the clown triggers, blue tangs, angels, etc... that my heart desires!! I can load up on 'em!! Those exporters have plenty!! And they're CYANIDE CAUGHT. But hey, I have 3 MAC certified species so I'm a good guy now.
Sorry James, but that mentality is SICK AND WRONG. I have a thing called ethics. They get in my way and severely hamper my business at times. But I refuse to violate them. And I can't believe someone who claims to care about the reefs is asking me to.
jamesw":22g15opm said:
James,
That some trainings took place is correct. That up to 2000 may have attended trainings in the past could also be correct. This does not mean that the trainings were effective, that the proper tools were available, or that the attendees didn't just show up for the free food either...
If you were to hear about the trainings from some of those who were actually involved, you would be completely embarrassed, James.
There were good, competent trainers involved, at times. They did train a few barangays quite well. These numbers are more like 2-300 than the 2000 normally tossed about. And these are the locations where net-caught fish are coming out of. Not all of these areas are MAC certified collection areas. Several areas decided to pull out of the MAC certification process for reasons I am not entirely clear on.
So, yes, there are net-caught fish coming out of PI. These areas offer a greater supply and greater variety of fish species than the MAC-certified areas do. This supply is an alternative to MAC. But the numbers of fish are still very, very low...
What Steve is pushing for is to do more trainings in other areas where the money fish are still in abundance. Get the people trained and the fish moving so that the collectors get some chicken into their pots. Actually pretty simple to understand. Get enough collectors using nets, the cyanide problem begins to go away. Call it critical mass or whatever.
Once the trainings are done, MAC can work with the communities to see if MAC certification is right for them. Or not. The groundwork will already be laid for them. It is in MAC's best interests to see the trainings happen. It is difficult to understand why they do not seem to see this and support it wholeheartedly...
Regards.
Mike Kirda
I think you're making the serious mistake that all net caught fish are MAC certified. They aren't. What good would it do me to get certified if I can only get a few species of fish that are MAC certified?? There are several species that are never caught with cyanide- NEVER. But only a couple of those are MAC certified right now. What does MAC have now- one or two certified collection areas? They can't produce any variety. What good does it do for my company to be MAC certified if I can't get any certified fish?? Oh wait! I know what good it does, and you yourself said it:
Ah yes. Unsuspecting retailers who don't know what MAC certification entails would look at my "MAC CERTIFIED WHOLESALER" label and think "My, all of their fish must be net caught and come from well managed reefs". Believe me James, there are folks using this competitive edge...to sell cyanide caught fish.
What James is describing is an excellent multi-step process and perhaps exactly what MAC is currently doing.
The basic process: 1) certify the supply chain and species list that, based on research and personal experience, you trust the most and certify them (that is, pick the collectors that are already trained and use nets); 2) after generating consumer interest (and revenue) implement the program with a supply chain that you have a lower "trust level" with along with a CDT and a net training program; 3) after validation of the new supply chain certify them; 4) repeat...
There are many ways to go about doing most things. We have no evidence to say that the fish that MAC has certified up to this point are any different than the fish tauted and sold by our experts (here at this forum) as being very likely net caught and cyanide free. The time to get concerned is if fish that come from very suspect collectors are certified without a CDT. As far as I've seen this hasn't happened.
-Lee
The basic process: 1) certify the supply chain and species list that, based on research and personal experience, you trust the most and certify them (that is, pick the collectors that are already trained and use nets); 2) after generating consumer interest (and revenue) implement the program with a supply chain that you have a lower "trust level" with along with a CDT and a net training program; 3) after validation of the new supply chain certify them; 4) repeat...
There are many ways to go about doing most things. We have no evidence to say that the fish that MAC has certified up to this point are any different than the fish tauted and sold by our experts (here at this forum) as being very likely net caught and cyanide free. The time to get concerned is if fish that come from very suspect collectors are certified without a CDT. As far as I've seen this hasn't happened.
-Lee
I'm not accusing MAC certified fish of being cyanide caught. I am accusing MAC certified companies of mixing fish. This practice is EXPECTED AND CONDONED BY MAC. Don't you see a problem with that? That a MAC certified company can carry cyanide caught fish with the full approval of MAC??
I hate to have to explain this yet again, but I feel I have to. You have two different MAC certified entities.
1. MAC CERTIFIED FACILITY- This is any facility that can keep a paperwork trail and pay a certifier to give them a stamp of approval. This facility can carry all MAC certified fish (all 3 or 4 species), no MAC certified fish, or a mix of MAC certified and uncertified fish.
2. MAC CERTIFIED FISH- These are fish that come from a MAC certified collection area and are caught by MAC certified divers. They become uncertified as soon as one of many criteria pop up (mortality, going to an uncertified facility, etc...) There are only a few species that meet this criteria because MAC thought certifying facilities was more important than getting a supply of certified fish for those facilities.
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:
