Peter, From the data you listed which was collected from the testing, do you believe that it is in any way possible to arrive at a useful conclusion? And furthermore do you feel that it is "proper " for the industry to use your conclusion "that 25% of fish destined to the US.... are collected with cyanide"?
Questions for Peter Rubec ? And others
- Thread starter Kalkbreath
- Start date
Kalkbreath":zf2dz31s said:
That is your conclusion, Kalk.
Mine is that 25% of the hobby fish tested scored positive on the CDT.
Two very different things.
One is supported by the study, the other (yours) is not.
But surely you remember this from Hy Tran's post before:
Regards.
Mike Kirda
As an outside observer, I will make the following calculations:
Rubec et al. (“Trends Determined by Cyanide Testing…”, 2003) show that in the Phillipine Islands, approximately 19% of Pomacentridae (damsel family, including chromis, damsels, anemonefish) collected from 1996-1999 were collected using cyanide. Approximately 44% of Acanthuridae (tangs) collected over that same period were collected using cyanide. Approximately 29% of the angelfish (Pomacanthidae) collected were collected using cyanide. These are all aquarium fish.
Kalkbreath writes in the “Fuzzy Numbers” thread that the PI exports approximately 3 million aquarium fish a year, of which 60% (1.8 million) are Pomacentridae (damsel family). He did not supply a figure for how many of the PI exports are angelfish, tangs, butterflyfish, or others.
I (Hy) therefore calculate that at least 340,000 of the fish exported from the PI were collected using cyanide. I base this calculation on the 19% Pomacentridae number reported in Rubec et al., multiplied by Kalkbreath’s 1.8 million PI-exported Pomacentridae. (342,000 if you want to carry to three significant digits, which I don’t). The number of aquarium fish exported from the PI using cyanide is likely higher than 340,000, because I have no idea how many tangs, angels, or butterflyfish are exported from the PI.
If Kalk had told me that 60% of the PI exports are Pomacentridae and the remaining 40% are Acanthuridae, I would have calculated 340,000 damsels+(1.2 million x 44%). The result would have been 340,000+530,000=870,000 out of 3 million had been collected using cyanide (or 29%). But Kalk only tells me "60% of the PI exports are damsels," and does not tell me what the remaining 40% are.
Kalkbreath cites a modeling study, Mous, Pet-Soede, Erdmann, Cesar, Sadovy, & Pet, “Cyanide fishing on Indonesian coral reefs for the live food fish market—What is the problem?” (SPC Live Reef Fish Information Bulleting #7, 2000). Mous et al. model the amount of coral cover loss per cyanide-collected food fish (specifically, high value groupers and wrasses fished for the high end food trade). They use a variety of numbers in their models, but use 1 sq. meter of coral cover loss per fish caught as a middle estimate (neither best nor worse).
Based on Mous et al., I will assume that 1 sq. meter of coral cover is lost per damsel, or tang, or angel, or butterfly caught. Therefore, I estimate that at a minimum, 340,000 sq. meters of coral cover is lost per year in the PI due to cyanide fishing. This estimate is based strictly on the Rubec et al. paper (19%), numbers provided by Kalkbreath in his “Fuzzy Numbers” thread (1.8 million damsels/yr), and Mous et al. paper cited by Kalk (1 sq. m loss per fish collected). Mind you, this is a minimum estimate, as it does not cover non-damsels collected in the PI.
340,000 sq. m. is approximately 84 acres per year of coral cover lost in the PI due to cyanide fishing for Pomacentridae.
Two more comments: (1) Mous et al. cite an estimate by McManus et al. (1997) that 0.4% of reef cover is lost per year due to cyanide fishing of aquarium fish, which is an order of magnitude worse than the estimated reef cover lost from cyanide food fishing, and (2) I know that Kalk did not ask about this, but here goes: In “Fuzzy Numbers,” Kalk is asked about food fish, and Kalk replies “I converted 2000 pounds of groupers and grunts to two tones of damsels and blennies ........I compared biomass.” Where I come from, 1 ton is 2,200 lbs (approximately). I’m not sure why tons of food fish/sq. km is important, but if you wish for me to take you seriously, you can't make mistakes like this :wink:
Anyone who wishes to, should be able to pull out a handheld calculator, and calculate the numbers as I have, and come up with the same results.
Thanks!
Hy
Rubec et al. (“Trends Determined by Cyanide Testing…”, 2003) show that in the Phillipine Islands, approximately 19% of Pomacentridae (damsel family, including chromis, damsels, anemonefish) collected from 1996-1999 were collected using cyanide. Approximately 44% of Acanthuridae (tangs) collected over that same period were collected using cyanide. Approximately 29% of the angelfish (Pomacanthidae) collected were collected using cyanide. These are all aquarium fish.
Kalkbreath writes in the “Fuzzy Numbers” thread that the PI exports approximately 3 million aquarium fish a year, of which 60% (1.8 million) are Pomacentridae (damsel family). He did not supply a figure for how many of the PI exports are angelfish, tangs, butterflyfish, or others.
I (Hy) therefore calculate that at least 340,000 of the fish exported from the PI were collected using cyanide. I base this calculation on the 19% Pomacentridae number reported in Rubec et al., multiplied by Kalkbreath’s 1.8 million PI-exported Pomacentridae. (342,000 if you want to carry to three significant digits, which I don’t). The number of aquarium fish exported from the PI using cyanide is likely higher than 340,000, because I have no idea how many tangs, angels, or butterflyfish are exported from the PI.
If Kalk had told me that 60% of the PI exports are Pomacentridae and the remaining 40% are Acanthuridae, I would have calculated 340,000 damsels+(1.2 million x 44%). The result would have been 340,000+530,000=870,000 out of 3 million had been collected using cyanide (or 29%). But Kalk only tells me "60% of the PI exports are damsels," and does not tell me what the remaining 40% are.
Kalkbreath cites a modeling study, Mous, Pet-Soede, Erdmann, Cesar, Sadovy, & Pet, “Cyanide fishing on Indonesian coral reefs for the live food fish market—What is the problem?” (SPC Live Reef Fish Information Bulleting #7, 2000). Mous et al. model the amount of coral cover loss per cyanide-collected food fish (specifically, high value groupers and wrasses fished for the high end food trade). They use a variety of numbers in their models, but use 1 sq. meter of coral cover loss per fish caught as a middle estimate (neither best nor worse).
Based on Mous et al., I will assume that 1 sq. meter of coral cover is lost per damsel, or tang, or angel, or butterfly caught. Therefore, I estimate that at a minimum, 340,000 sq. meters of coral cover is lost per year in the PI due to cyanide fishing. This estimate is based strictly on the Rubec et al. paper (19%), numbers provided by Kalkbreath in his “Fuzzy Numbers” thread (1.8 million damsels/yr), and Mous et al. paper cited by Kalk (1 sq. m loss per fish collected). Mind you, this is a minimum estimate, as it does not cover non-damsels collected in the PI.
340,000 sq. m. is approximately 84 acres per year of coral cover lost in the PI due to cyanide fishing for Pomacentridae.
Two more comments: (1) Mous et al. cite an estimate by McManus et al. (1997) that 0.4% of reef cover is lost per year due to cyanide fishing of aquarium fish, which is an order of magnitude worse than the estimated reef cover lost from cyanide food fishing, and (2) I know that Kalk did not ask about this, but here goes: In “Fuzzy Numbers,” Kalk is asked about food fish, and Kalk replies “I converted 2000 pounds of groupers and grunts to two tones of damsels and blennies ........I compared biomass.” Where I come from, 1 ton is 2,200 lbs (approximately). I’m not sure why tons of food fish/sq. km is important, but if you wish for me to take you seriously, you can't make mistakes like this :wink:
Anyone who wishes to, should be able to pull out a handheld calculator, and calculate the numbers as I have, and come up with the same results.
Thanks!
Hy
Kalk, First I don't feel this study (published in 2003)has been cited very much. The Reefs to Aquaria publication by World Conservation Monitoring Center did not cite it. You seem very concerned as to whether the 25% of aquarium fishes tested as having cyanide present by IMA (out of a sample of 7,703 aquarium fish specimens) can be applied to the export numbers traded from PI. Perhaps, it is the best subsample to provide information for such an extrapolation. It certainly is lower the 70 % Positive claimed by the World Conservation Monitoring Center (WCMC) Report.
As far as the quote you have highlighted from IMA's website "IMA testing of 48,000 fish in the Philippines shows that 25% ... ", I did not write this. It is not in my paper. But, it probably is closer to the truth than the figures put out by WCMC. They seem to have lifted numbers from my earlier publications (like one in 1986). When referring to the study by Frank Lallo (that I mentioned in my 2001 paper Cyanide-Free Net-Caught fish paper) they incorrectly ascribe it to a coral trade paper by Dr. Andrew Bruckner presented in the Coral Reef Symposium in Bali.
It is important to cite papers correctly and be accurate in reporting what the author stated. You need to improve your performance, but I can't hold you totally accountable when others before your also have mucked up what was stated.
Peter
As far as the quote you have highlighted from IMA's website "IMA testing of 48,000 fish in the Philippines shows that 25% ... ", I did not write this. It is not in my paper. But, it probably is closer to the truth than the figures put out by WCMC. They seem to have lifted numbers from my earlier publications (like one in 1986). When referring to the study by Frank Lallo (that I mentioned in my 2001 paper Cyanide-Free Net-Caught fish paper) they incorrectly ascribe it to a coral trade paper by Dr. Andrew Bruckner presented in the Coral Reef Symposium in Bali.
It is important to cite papers correctly and be accurate in reporting what the author stated. You need to improve your performance, but I can't hold you totally accountable when others before your also have mucked up what was stated.
Peter
My line of questioning to Peter is not going in this direction ........But because Peter is perhaps preparing for the journey he knows he is about to take ...........I will respond, to this...... most damsels are collected fifty plus at a time , because they keep in schools of hundreds and hide together. So in comming up with a number for meters of reef harmed by damsel collection dividing the total area effected by fifty would be in order. Also , anti cyanide collection pressures in PI today are quite like it was in 1998 and 1999...EVEN MORE SO ...there is a huge focus on stopping cyanide. So if we only include data which reflects current collection pressures like in {1998 and 1999} We will have around seven percent positive testing results for Damsels. {even the total for all species in 1998 was only 8% and 18 for 1999}{but only Peter knows for sure, because that data has not been released for about eight years now?}Second, Clownfish make up the next largest group of fish collected in PI and these fish are poor swimmers and usually wont leave the host anemone....so are very easy to collect and are in huge supply and cheap.Next mandarins and blenies and gobies are the next most exported in number .......these fish also have very low cyanide collection rates and most likely will reflect this in Peters data during the last three years testing .So this means About 80% of the fish collected from PI in volume are in the ten percent or less during the last three years of peters test But again this is not where I am headed in this discussion ......... :wink:
Kalkbreath":22wv81d6 said:
Today is Feb. 1, 2004. 2004 - 1998 = 6!
Kalk,
Seriously here... If you want to be taken seriously,
STOP MAKING SUCH BONE-HEADED MISTAKES!
No one, and I mean NO ONE can take you seriously in the least when you make claims based on stupid math errors.
hdtran":2dm6uf4g said:
Hy,
The spots I have seen that were likely MO cyanide collection plumes were not that large. 10 x 10 to 10 x 20 cm loss is probably more likely for fish that hide inside coral heads.
So I think the estimate is probably high.
However, the other issue is that corals rarely cover 100% of a reef. 60% coral cover is more 'normal'. So the 'area' should be increased, IMO, to be representative of normal reefs.
Regards.
Mike Kirda
If one does a seach on the web , with your name and the word cyanide ......the 25% quote comes up many times .........Are you doing anything to correct this? Is what you are telling us is that there really is NO data currently available to give us an idea how much cyanide collection took place in the late nineties or today?PeterIMA":2krcrtyh said:
Kalk, I can't control what people or other organizations say on the web. I don't even consider that "published information" in the strict sense. I am unhappy with some of the ways Dr. Elizabeth Wood cited my papers. Recently, I went back to view her review about the aquarium trade, and found it was no longer posted. I have also stated I disagree with how the World Conservation Monitoring Center has quoted or not quoted some of papers. As far as your extrapolations they are pure garbage. They start with the wrong numbers and go from there.
My 2003 paper covered trends in cyanide from 1996 to 2000 (not to 1999). I disagree with your assertions that the damselfish (family Pomacentridae) account for 60% of the total numbers of fish exported from the PI. See my comments at the beginning of Fuzzy Numbers thread. The study by Christina Balboa put the percent of damelfish (of all species recorded) imported to the USA in October 2000 at 43%. The WCMC estimated from exporters data (from numerous countries) Pomacentridae at 47%. The percent for Pomacentridae imported reported by WCMC to Europe and USA was 43%.
Your logic is flawed and so are your extrapolations. The WCMC data is incomplete. Under these circumstances one should remaim sceptical and underestimate rather than overestimate. Some of your extrapolations can not be made because the data available is too spotty or incomplete. I object to your trying to imply that I am the one making such shaky assertions.
Peter Rubec
My 2003 paper covered trends in cyanide from 1996 to 2000 (not to 1999). I disagree with your assertions that the damselfish (family Pomacentridae) account for 60% of the total numbers of fish exported from the PI. See my comments at the beginning of Fuzzy Numbers thread. The study by Christina Balboa put the percent of damelfish (of all species recorded) imported to the USA in October 2000 at 43%. The WCMC estimated from exporters data (from numerous countries) Pomacentridae at 47%. The percent for Pomacentridae imported reported by WCMC to Europe and USA was 43%.
Your logic is flawed and so are your extrapolations. The WCMC data is incomplete. Under these circumstances one should remaim sceptical and underestimate rather than overestimate. Some of your extrapolations can not be made because the data available is too spotty or incomplete. I object to your trying to imply that I am the one making such shaky assertions.
Peter Rubec
Hy and Kalk, Lets at least get the numbers straight. The trend for aquarium fish went from 43% cyanide present in 1996, to 41% in 1997, 18% in 1998, 8% in 1999, and 29% in 2000. Hy stated there was an increasing trend with 8% in 1998 (wrong) 18% in 1999 (wrong) to 29% 2000. You both have the paper and the trend is also on the IMA website. Let's start with the right numbers.
As far as Kalk's guesses about percentages for damsels by year. They are just guesses because he has not been given any data. Why should I? He just misquotes the data already out there.
Peter
As far as Kalk's guesses about percentages for damsels by year. They are just guesses because he has not been given any data. Why should I? He just misquotes the data already out there.
Peter
Peter,
You're right, I did not read Kalk's %'s carefully enough, and just quoted him. Not an excuse, just an explanation. I should have gone back to the source and read the source again. Rubec et al. (2003):
1996: 43%
1997: 41%
1998: 18%
1999: 8%
2000: 29%
The percentage is percent with positive for cyanide in aquarium fish tested.
Sorry about my goof.
Do note that my "estimates" in the post above are based on Kalk's assertions of 60%, so the validity of that number is only as good as the 60% number. I'm still waiting for Kalk's source for the 60% Pomacentridae from the PI.
I do stand by my statement (wherever I wrote it) that one should not extrapolate without a model in mind. All of our discussions are based on data up to the year 2000, and no extrapolation should be made from there. I don't know if I was clear enough in the other thread that I was against extrapolation.
Regards,
Hy
You're right, I did not read Kalk's %'s carefully enough, and just quoted him. Not an excuse, just an explanation. I should have gone back to the source and read the source again. Rubec et al. (2003):
1996: 43%
1997: 41%
1998: 18%
1999: 8%
2000: 29%
The percentage is percent with positive for cyanide in aquarium fish tested.
Sorry about my goof.
Do note that my "estimates" in the post above are based on Kalk's assertions of 60%, so the validity of that number is only as good as the 60% number. I'm still waiting for Kalk's source for the 60% Pomacentridae from the PI.
I do stand by my statement (wherever I wrote it) that one should not extrapolate without a model in mind. All of our discussions are based on data up to the year 2000, and no extrapolation should be made from there. I don't know if I was clear enough in the other thread that I was against extrapolation.
Regards,
Hy
Do you really think that all Countries export fish in the same ratios? Hawaii does not export any damsels...Yet they export 100 percent of the number six fish of the top ten.{or is it number five?}...........that alone changes the dynamics of ratios ......43% of what Hawaii exports is not damsels..Zero is.....That means that some where in the average another country is taking up the slack for Hawaii. .............. The Philippines exports far more damsel the average.PeterIMA":2kbvlz70 said:
Kalk, OK go to the GMAD database and query all of the top ten species that are members of the Pomacetridae, that were reported as being exported from the Philippines. Then use the pecentage that is provided of the total exports (43%) that were reported to come from the Philippines against the total number in the GMAD database (3,513,281 fish reported by exporters worldwide). This derives the number coming from the Philippines (1,510,710.8). Please note this is probably not the total exports within any given year, but a sample from participating exporters (probably from Aquascapes Philiippines and Brem). That does not matter for the present analysis.
Having queried each of the top ten species that were damelfish from PI (separately by each species) you will learn how many of each species were exported from PI. Add those numbers together and calculate the percentage of damsels out of the total number of all species reported as exported from PI (eg. SUM OF DAMSELS x 100/1,510,710.8)=% damsels from PI. This will give an idea of the proportion being exported. Undoubtedly it is still not the exact number (since it only deals with the main species of damsels like green chromis etc) and leaves out the less frequently traded damselfish species). But, it is the closest we can probably get at this time. Please, do not expect me to do this for you. You are capable of doing it. GO TO IT.
Peter
Having queried each of the top ten species that were damelfish from PI (separately by each species) you will learn how many of each species were exported from PI. Add those numbers together and calculate the percentage of damsels out of the total number of all species reported as exported from PI (eg. SUM OF DAMSELS x 100/1,510,710.8)=% damsels from PI. This will give an idea of the proportion being exported. Undoubtedly it is still not the exact number (since it only deals with the main species of damsels like green chromis etc) and leaves out the less frequently traded damselfish species). But, it is the closest we can probably get at this time. Please, do not expect me to do this for you. You are capable of doing it. GO TO IT.
Peter
No, Peter, you have no business offering your opinion to the industry until you have done it.......thats My point. If PI is the only country exporting damsels......... then the 43% total for all Countries is a useless number when determining what percentage of the fish PI exports is Damsels! Back in 1996 PI Was probably exporting 80% of the total for the hobby if not more. You offered up conclusions without ever understanding the dynamics! three of the top twenty fish imported are not exported at all from PI......This means the 43% must be higher for PI . Is it 70% ? maybe not ......but it might be ..........You have no idea.
Kalk, Just for your information, the IMA monitored individual shipments exported from PI and has reports on the numbers/volumes traded for several years. These were provided to BFAR. So, in addition to the cyanide test results BFAR has a pretty good idea about the numbers and proportions by species or MO fish exported (thanks to IMA's efforts). If you really want to challenge me or the IMA we will be happy to call you as an expert witness. Otherwise, be careful what you say about me and the IMA.
Mike, I would tip 15%.
Mike, I would tip 15%.
Does that mean I can call you as my witness .....for their misuse of your study > You pointed out that they were wrong when they stated "that 45% of fish destine to the USA are tainted "I am only questioning the data, The intent of those collecting the data is not important {or is it?} Does this mean we are done here ? , Did you ever mention if you still believe that testing 5 damsels ...........lets say {Chrsiptera} each year [like in the study] Five individual fish from one species, you would be able to gauge the rate of cyanide present in the remaining 100,000 untested fish for the year ? If not what purpose did your review of the data serve?PeterIMA":1va0sjy8 said:
Who stated :that 45% of the fish destine for the USA are tainted"? If you are referring to the powerpoint presentation on the IMA website, if I recall correctly, it says something like 25% of aquarium fish destined for Europe and the USA and 44% of food fish destined for Hong Kong and mainland China ..were tainted". This is consistent with the data in my paper. I did not say this was wrong, only that it is not something that I wrote (someone in IMA other than myself added the statement to the powerpoint after I gave it to them).
I don't see how you are pulling this 5 damselfish tested per year crap. If you examine the table on the IMA website you will see that there were 1807 damselfish tested from 1996 to 2000. That is a lot more than 5 per year (even when I break it down by species). To repeat what I stated earlier: I will release the numbers by species and year when I have completed analyzing the entire CDT database (of about 48,000 fish specimens).
I don't see how you are pulling this 5 damselfish tested per year crap. If you examine the table on the IMA website you will see that there were 1807 damselfish tested from 1996 to 2000. That is a lot more than 5 per year (even when I break it down by species). To repeat what I stated earlier: I will release the numbers by species and year when I have completed analyzing the entire CDT database (of about 48,000 fish specimens).
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:
