A
Anonymous
Guest
Royal grammas are caught with quin by MANY people in the Caribbean, as are many other fish, so maybe the quin accounts for the "missing %" your talking about Kalk.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Improving the survival rates of transported fish.
- Thread starter Terry B
- Start date
Kalkbreath":1oggbk8s said:Actually lets back up a little........What percentage of the fish sold to hobbyists do you think have been collected with cyanide? Its most likely only around ten percent. If we are to believe the tests that concluded that 25 percent of PI fish were collected with cyanide then that means even if you buy a PI fish its only got a one in four chance its been juiced. Then take into account that many of the cyanide fish die from the poison before reaching the hobbyist. More so then non cyanided fish so the 25 % will decrease to 15 percent. Then we must take into account all the fish that inter the market from non cyanide collecting locations. The fourth most popular fish the yellow tang and all Hawaiian fish , the Caribbean and Florida fish like the popular Royal gramma. About one-third of the fish interring the trade are not from the Philippines or Indonesia. That fact would cut the 15% figure down again to perhaps less then ten percent. ...........so perhaps we should rethink the idea that cyanide is to blame for fish dying in your tank. The facts just dont support that notion.SciGuy2":1oggbk8s said:Excellent post, Doug! It is great to hear another hobbyist's opinion. Great job of describing the situation we hobbyists are in.
Hello Kalk
I don't care what percentage of fish are caught with cyanide.
Only the percentage of the fish I purchase.
I don't think I said I knew the reason for the fishes deaths.
Those were just some of the reasons I heard over the years.
I know it couldn't be cyanide because I asked them.
We don't sell poisoned fish here.
If only you could see my collection.
The fact I do know is that I havn't bought a poisoned fish in
over a years time.
One last thing Kalk when did you start worring about the facts.
Mike warned me I hope it's not to late!
It is unfortunate that Terry's thread got highjacked and misdirected by Kalk and others. The high delayed mortality of MO fish in the trade is the issue.
At MO I spoke at the evening panel and during the regular session about this topic. There has been too much discussion about mortality due to cyanide, while ignoring the other factors like stress, ammonia, and starvation. The latter factors can kill fish alone or in combination with the other factors. Hall and Bellwood (1995) did a study on damselfish that documented mortalities for each factor alone and with the factors in combination on groups of 16 damselfish. My point at MO was that we need to eliminate the use of cyanide and THEN come up with shipping-handling methods to eliminate the other factors. I mentioned that a lot of research has been conducted by scientists at the University of Singapore on freshwater fish (and some on marine fish) transport methods for fish in sealed plastic bags. Basically, there are methods which remove/neutralize excreted carbon dioxide and/or allow the pH to be buffered (eg. Tris buffer), to control bacterial proliferation (e.g. neomycin sulfate for freshwater, nitrofurazone for marine), to neutralize ammonium as it is excreted (e.g. Amquel and some other products), and/or to sedate the fish to reduce their metabolism (e.g. phenoxyethanol, quinaldine sulfate) during shipping. Some of these methods are being applied now but are considered "trade secrets". Terry has written a paper that he plans to publish. I also am in the process of reviewing the literature on these topics. The trade would benefit by the methods in the scientific literature becoming more widely known and applied. It is not just a question of the mortality due to cyanide. The cumulative mortality figures I have published (Rubec 1986, Rubec 1987, Rubec and Sundararajan 1991) acknowledge that cyanide is not the sole factor contributing to the high mortality rates through the chain-of-custody (Rubec et al. 2001). The trade has the capability of dealing with these problems and should do so to increase profitability. No one makes money off of dead fish.
Peter Rubec
At MO I spoke at the evening panel and during the regular session about this topic. There has been too much discussion about mortality due to cyanide, while ignoring the other factors like stress, ammonia, and starvation. The latter factors can kill fish alone or in combination with the other factors. Hall and Bellwood (1995) did a study on damselfish that documented mortalities for each factor alone and with the factors in combination on groups of 16 damselfish. My point at MO was that we need to eliminate the use of cyanide and THEN come up with shipping-handling methods to eliminate the other factors. I mentioned that a lot of research has been conducted by scientists at the University of Singapore on freshwater fish (and some on marine fish) transport methods for fish in sealed plastic bags. Basically, there are methods which remove/neutralize excreted carbon dioxide and/or allow the pH to be buffered (eg. Tris buffer), to control bacterial proliferation (e.g. neomycin sulfate for freshwater, nitrofurazone for marine), to neutralize ammonium as it is excreted (e.g. Amquel and some other products), and/or to sedate the fish to reduce their metabolism (e.g. phenoxyethanol, quinaldine sulfate) during shipping. Some of these methods are being applied now but are considered "trade secrets". Terry has written a paper that he plans to publish. I also am in the process of reviewing the literature on these topics. The trade would benefit by the methods in the scientific literature becoming more widely known and applied. It is not just a question of the mortality due to cyanide. The cumulative mortality figures I have published (Rubec 1986, Rubec 1987, Rubec and Sundararajan 1991) acknowledge that cyanide is not the sole factor contributing to the high mortality rates through the chain-of-custody (Rubec et al. 2001). The trade has the capability of dealing with these problems and should do so to increase profitability. No one makes money off of dead fish.
Peter Rubec
If pointing out that breathing bags do far more harm then good,is the work of a highjacker ........then I am guilty........Oxygen is what fish breath not Air......{except when they jump out of the water} Low pH is what saves fish from their own feces.......Coming up with plans for replacing oxygen in transport bags with Air ..........and artificially raising the pH in Ammonia filled transport water..........is quite off base ..........unless one is trying to market a new product Or is it the idea that "we must do something" mentality is worth while even if the "something" actual makes conditions worse! :wink:
Kalk, While I have experimented with breathing bags, I do not profess to have completely solved the problems with their use (e.g. thin membranes torn by fish with spines). Your comments about oxygen in the bags are irrelevant, when the carbon dioxide depresses the pH (they can not use the oxygen efficiently). Fish are being stressed by the drop in pH. The acclimation procedures used when the bags are opened often lead to ammonia poisoning as well. My point is that one can stabilize the pH and neutralize the ammonium (by binding it to Amquel). Fish then arrive without being stressed and there is less acclimation needed. Fishes exposed to low pH need to be brought back to normal pH very gradually (10-12 hours). While, we don't understand all of the physiological effects, we do know that fishes that are stressed are more susceptible to disease and to other secondary effects. So, my point is that the existing shipping methods commonly used (to which Kalk alluded) need to be changed in order to reduce the delayed mortality and increase survival of MO fish.
I think that Peter was referring to a large number of posts in this thread arguing about whether more fish come out of PI or Indonesia. The topic of this thread was supposed to be about reducing losses associated with handling and transport.
Mary,
I wrote about current methods, made suggestions for improvements and talked a bit about some possible future alternatives.
Terry B
Mary,
I wrote about current methods, made suggestions for improvements and talked a bit about some possible future alternatives.
Terry B
Terry B":3otmgw30 said:Mary,
I wrote about current methods, made suggestions for improvements and talked a bit about some possible future alternatives.
Terry B
Terry,
Where did you submit it to and what is the timeframe for publication?
I'm interested in reading it.
Regards.
Mike Kirda
Your dead wrong..........and so are the fish transported this way. You are avoiding the issue of what the "breath bags" Breath ......... There is no extra oxygen or air in the transport boxes ! What good is breathing the Co2 from the other fifty fish ? And what good is 95 degree cargo plane hull air if you were to have semi open boxes??PeterIMA":3mipecg4 said:Kalk, While I have experimented with breathing bags, I do not profess to have completely solved the problems with their use (e.g. thin membranes torn by fish with spines). Your comments about oxygen in the bags are irrelevant, when the carbon dioxide depresses the pH (they can not use the oxygen efficiently). Fish are being stressed by the drop in pH. The acclimation procedures used when the bags are opened often lead to ammonia poisoning as well. My point is that one can stabilize the pH and neutralize the ammonium (by binding it to Amquel). Fish then arrive without being stressed and there is less acclimation needed. Fishes exposed to low pH need to be brought back to normal pH very gradually (10-12 hours). While, we don't understand all of the physiological effects, we do know that fishes that are stressed are more susceptible to disease and to other secondary effects. So, my point is that the existing shipping methods commonly used (to which Kalk alluded) need to be changed in order to reduce the delayed mortality and increase survival of MO fish.
Kalkbreath":2gx7ezgz said:Your dead wrong..........and so are the fish transported this way. You are avoiding the issue of what the "breath bags" Breath ......... There is no extra oxygen or air in the transport boxes ! What good is breathing the Co2 from the other fifty fish ? And what good is 95 degree cargo plane hull air if you were to have semi open boxes??
(shaking my head)
Have you ever seen how fish are packed from a village to Manila?
Are you so sure that breathing bags have no place anywhere?
I think that they have a time and place, given a few points are followed.
Don't be so quick to dismiss everything, Kalk. You might learn something.
Mike, you stated many times how bad holding is at the village level. Cost of bags was pointed out by you as one of the hold backs for them. Breathable bags cost 4x to 10x the cost of normal bags. The bags would still get filled up with ammonia (they don't breath ammonia do they?) just as quick, and the villagers would have the same ammonia problem they currently have. The villagers have plenty of o2 at their disposal, o2 isn't a problem they have, again, it's ammonia. On top of the ammonia and non existant o2 probleml, add to that the problem of the bags popping with one just looking at it. The flimsyness of the bags is the BIGGEST problem they face. We use either doubled 2mil bags or single 4milm bags for shipping, those breathable bags are like .5 to 1mil.
And what good is 95 degree cargo plane hull air if you were to have semi open boxes??
Huh, I thought they were around 60 degrees or so. Its not 95 at the level they fly and they don't heat the passangers to 95 degrees. I doubt they heat cargo to 95 degrees, so what are you talking about?
GreshamH":2wmnkrzn said:Mike, you stated many times how bad holding is at the village level. Cost of bags was pointed out by you as one of the hold backs for them. Breathable bags cost 4x to 10x the cost of normal bags. The bags would still get filled up with ammonia (they don't breath ammonia do they?) just as quick, and the villagers would have the same ammonia problem they currently have. The villagers have plenty of o2 at their disposal, o2 isn't a problem they have, again, it's ammonia. On top of the ammonia and non existant o2 probleml, add to that the problem of the bags popping with one just looking at it. The flimsyness of the bags is the BIGGEST problem they face. We use either doubled 2mil bags or single 4milm bags for shipping, those breathable bags are like .5 to 1mil.
Gresham,
Am aware of all of those things and more.
Given what I do know about the breathing bags, I'm still inclined to think that they have a place. Certainly not a magic bullet.
Frankly, I think that we'd do well to work with a village to sponsor some research in what works best from their standpoint. This would mean buying them some bags and tris and Amquel and an O2 cylinder, etc., then try experimenting with what works best. Especially for those villages 12+ hours away. We know things can be improved. The question is how much.
I also tend to think that such research could be done very cheaply and could help answer some fundamental questions.
Regards.
Mike Kirda
You know what I mean.......Like I want my fish to experience 98 degree tempt on the ground for three hours and then 45 degrees at 20,000 feet ten minutes later.........The boxes spend more time on the ground then in the air. We use heat packs and cold packs for good reason. I will agree with Mkirda that research needs to continue.......But there are physical laws that breath bags cannot overcome........and financial issues as well . But the real issue is that not many fish die from old bag technology. They die from heat ,cold, ammonia ,scared to death, cell mate beat me up , transhipper changed my water with pH at 8.3......etc. There is not much to gain with bag technology......the atomosphere outside the box plays a greater role then the water in the bags.GreshamH":3b802cse said:And what good is 95 degree cargo plane hull air if you were to have semi open boxes??
Huh, I thought they were around 60 degrees or so. Its not 95 at the level they fly and they don't heat the passangers to 95 degrees. I doubt they heat cargo to 95 degrees, so what are you talking about?
I think there is a misunderstanding. Breathing bags is only one way that might improve shipping. Right now, I can not recommend breathing bags. Most of my comments pertained to additives that should be tested with regular polyethylene shipping bags.
Basically, breathing bags have a special membrane (first developed by the Russian space program) that allows carbon dioxide to be expelled and oxygen to be absorbed. Because the carbon dioxide is expelled the pH does not drop as much as with regular bags. There is no need to add oxygen to breathing bags, just seawater. They work well alone (AMRI kept some fish in breathing bags in their office for 3 weeks, similar results were found by Novalek). Breathing bags may be useful for collectors who hold fish in bags while traveling back to the villages and on shore for as long as 5-7 days.
When, the breathing bags each containing a MO fish are placed inside a thicker liner bag (that is also a breathing bag sold by Novalek) there are problems because now the air must traverse two membranes. Air can pass through cardboard and styrofoam boxes with no problems. The problem occurs with the membrane for the liner bag being too thick and reducing the gas exchange.
An alternative is to use regular polyethylene bags with a buffer. In this case, oxygen is added to about 3/4 the volume of bag along with 1/4 seawater. These bags do not allow gases to be exchanged. The buffer neutralizes the carbon dioxide excreted by the fish and shifts it to bicarbonate. Without the buffer carbonic acid is formed and the pH falls. With the buffer the pH does not drop below 7.
In both cases above, I recommend the addition of an agent like Amquel to neutralize the ammonium. However, I believe that Terry is saying that the Amquel can not be used with Tris buffer (they negatively interact). Hence, the earlier part of the thread suggested another buffer consisting of sodium bicarbonate and borate (undefined what form). Terry stated that John Farrel Kuhns told him that the bicarbonate/borate buffer would work with Amquel. Any chance you will market this as a liquid formulation John?
In addition, one should use an agent to reduce the proliferation of bacteria in the bags. Novalek and myself have found that nitrofurazone and Amquel work with MO fish in breathing bags. Nitrofurazone would still work in regular polyethylene bags.
Another option that has been used is to add a sedative dose of either 2 phenoxyethanol or quinaldine sulfate. These sedatives have been found by researchers to reduce the ammonia excretion of the fish by reducing the metabolism of the fish during transport.
I am interested in what others have to say about these ideas.
Peter
Basically, breathing bags have a special membrane (first developed by the Russian space program) that allows carbon dioxide to be expelled and oxygen to be absorbed. Because the carbon dioxide is expelled the pH does not drop as much as with regular bags. There is no need to add oxygen to breathing bags, just seawater. They work well alone (AMRI kept some fish in breathing bags in their office for 3 weeks, similar results were found by Novalek). Breathing bags may be useful for collectors who hold fish in bags while traveling back to the villages and on shore for as long as 5-7 days.
When, the breathing bags each containing a MO fish are placed inside a thicker liner bag (that is also a breathing bag sold by Novalek) there are problems because now the air must traverse two membranes. Air can pass through cardboard and styrofoam boxes with no problems. The problem occurs with the membrane for the liner bag being too thick and reducing the gas exchange.
An alternative is to use regular polyethylene bags with a buffer. In this case, oxygen is added to about 3/4 the volume of bag along with 1/4 seawater. These bags do not allow gases to be exchanged. The buffer neutralizes the carbon dioxide excreted by the fish and shifts it to bicarbonate. Without the buffer carbonic acid is formed and the pH falls. With the buffer the pH does not drop below 7.
In both cases above, I recommend the addition of an agent like Amquel to neutralize the ammonium. However, I believe that Terry is saying that the Amquel can not be used with Tris buffer (they negatively interact). Hence, the earlier part of the thread suggested another buffer consisting of sodium bicarbonate and borate (undefined what form). Terry stated that John Farrel Kuhns told him that the bicarbonate/borate buffer would work with Amquel. Any chance you will market this as a liquid formulation John?
In addition, one should use an agent to reduce the proliferation of bacteria in the bags. Novalek and myself have found that nitrofurazone and Amquel work with MO fish in breathing bags. Nitrofurazone would still work in regular polyethylene bags.
Another option that has been used is to add a sedative dose of either 2 phenoxyethanol or quinaldine sulfate. These sedatives have been found by researchers to reduce the ammonia excretion of the fish by reducing the metabolism of the fish during transport.
I am interested in what others have to say about these ideas.
Peter
Correct me if I am wrong, Peter, but isn't the typical way that fish are shipped from villages just in plastic bags with air (and a little seawater, of course...)? And if they are lucky, the fish are bagged in the shade, kept in the shade, then transported in foam boxes inside a Jeepney? And only the more prosperous villages may have an O2 cylinder with which to fill the bags?
With that in mind, as well as the low pH levels you would find, it would seem best to empty the fish and water into a sorting table with water of the same pH, then gradually bring up the pH to reach normal levels, probably by doing water changes...
Or, we can try comparing these traditional methods with using the methods you describe, breathing bags, tris or other buffers, Amquel, antibiotics, and possibily sedatives...
Would be quite interesting to see ten fish of various species go though each of the above, sharing the same Jeepney, and tracking mortality over time... With multiple shipments. Would make for an interesting paper.
Regards.
Mike Kirda
With that in mind, as well as the low pH levels you would find, it would seem best to empty the fish and water into a sorting table with water of the same pH, then gradually bring up the pH to reach normal levels, probably by doing water changes...
Or, we can try comparing these traditional methods with using the methods you describe, breathing bags, tris or other buffers, Amquel, antibiotics, and possibily sedatives...
Would be quite interesting to see ten fish of various species go though each of the above, sharing the same Jeepney, and tracking mortality over time... With multiple shipments. Would make for an interesting paper.
Regards.
Mike Kirda
Kalkbreath":2xjx3cst said:You know what I mean.......Like I want my fish to experience 98 degree tempt on the ground for three hours and then 45 degrees at 20,000 feet ten minutes later.........The boxes spend more time on the ground then in the air. We use heat packs and cold packs for good reason. I will agree with Mkirda that research needs to continue.......But there are physical laws that breath bags cannot overcome........and financial issues as well . But the real issue is that not many fish die from old bag technology. They die from heat ,cold, ammonia ,scared to death, cell mate beat me up , transhipper changed my water with pH at 8.3......etc. There is not much to gain with bag technology......the atomosphere outside the box plays a greater role then the water in the bags.GreshamH":2xjx3cst said:And what good is 95 degree cargo plane hull air if you were to have semi open boxes??
Huh, I thought they were around 60 degrees or so. Its not 95 at the level they fly and they don't heat the passangers to 95 degrees. I doubt they heat cargo to 95 degrees, so what are you talking about?
Sorry, I did not in fact know what you ment, that is why is posted!!!
Mike, I'd correct you, but you asked Peter directly, so I'll let him tell you what he thinks.
GreshamH":1morgsdp said:Mike, I'd correct you, but you asked Peter directly, so I'll let him tell you what he thinks.
Gresham,
Feel free to chime in and answer.
I'd much rather be corrected than give out wrong information.
I have never seen a shipping day happen live at a village-
I've only seen pictures and talked to Ferdinand about it a bit.
I understand that the basics have not been applied wholesale across the collecting villages.
I know that there is a lot that can be improved, given time and money.
I don't believe that most of what is known in the scientific circles has been applied in the villages yet.
I'm also not sure that any of it would be cost-effective either.
Regards.
Mike Kirda
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:
