MO Research Needs

[PeterIMA]

Today, I received a copy of the "Florida Sea Grant College Program Strategic Plan 2002 - 2005." I have been asked to comment on the stated research goals in the report. I am soliciting comments from the participants on this forum pertaining to the collection, culture, and transport of marine ornamental species. Are the goals stated in the report adequate or do they need to be changed? Can you suggest any other research goals that should be added?

As you probably know NOAA Sea Grant has been one of the main sponsors of the three marine ornamentals conferences which have been held (two in Hawaii and one in Florida). The book Marine Ornamental Species Collection, Culture, and Cultivation was published by Iowa State Press in 2003 by editors Dr. Jim Cato (Florida Sea Grant) and by Dr. Chris Brown (Florida International University).

Please provide your opinions concerning what research is needed to support the aquarium trade.

Under Goal 3: Develop the Food and Hobby Segments of Florida's Marine Aquaculture Industry.

Part A: Foster Sustainable Ornamental Aquarium Species Culture, Collection, and Conservation.

1. Breed marine species whose economic value, hardiness in captivity, and degree to which they are "highly prized" are demonstrated as viable.

2. Develop feeds suitable for the varying nutritional neds of aquacultured and collected ornamental species.

3. Enhance post-hatching and post-harvest survivorship of traded species from point of origin -- whether from production facilities or wild collection -- to the end consumer.

4. Promote higher survival of collected ornamental organisms and minimize impacts of harvest through practices to reduce mortality; determine sustainable long-term harvest.,

5. Extend culture, collection and conservation techniques to the marine aquaculture industry.

Sincerely,
Peter Rubec

 

[naesco]

What about the issue of unsuitable species.
Identify through contacting hobbyists (ie on RC and this board) those coral and fish that have no chance of survival in hobbyist tanks.

 

[Anonymous]

What about the issue of unsuitable species.
Identify through contacting hobbyists (ie on RC and this board) those coral and fish that have no chance of survival in hobbyist tanks.

would that include the noob hobbyists that have no ability to keep clownfish, thereby saying that clowns can't be kept alive?


naesco, don't be so quick to write-at least try and think through your suggestions through to the end of what they imply

plus, there's already a fairly decent usl list on this forum-very little needs to be tweaked w/it :wink:

 

[dizzy]

When you don't have any fish why do you need an unsuitability list? If the harvest is sustainable, what the heck does it matter? If these are the only sustainable fish in the CAMPs the people are going to eat. One way or another.
Mitch

 

[Anonymous]

1. Breed marine species whose economic value, hardiness in captivity, and degree to which they are "highly prized" are demonstrated as viable.

all marine fish kept by hobbyists arguably fall into that category-the only real consideration is whether or not desirability, or cost effectivity, of the rearing of the species is of primary importance

which is more highly prized, an oscillaris, or a queen angel- far more people buy ocellari, but queens always get snapped up even at their higher prices

which costs more, or takes more effort, to rear per 'capita'

how would the determination of the above goal be made, per species considered?

2. Develop feeds suitable for the varying nutritional neds of aquacultured and collected ornamental species

already been done and a half-why waste other people's money ?

the only real barrier is food sizes types for larvae, and alot has been found/developed over the past 20 yrs, imo, the info's already out there, by the time this 'project' is viable and running, there won't be any need for further investigation, as far as the major species taht are found to be aquaculturable from zygote to fry in captivity

3. Enhance post-hatching and post-harvest survivorship of traded species from point of origin -- whether from production facilities or wild collection -- to the end consumer

not nearly as big an issue as it is w/wild caught. cyanide, and flight time, should be rather inconsequential compared to what wild caught goes through now :wink:

4. Promote higher survival of collected ornamental organisms and minimize impacts of harvest through practices to reduce mortality; determine sustainable long-term harvest.,

isn't this #3 worded slightly differently? :wink:

5. Extend culture, collection and conservation techniques to the marine aquaculture industry

.


huh?

i thought aquaculture WAS the extending of all of the above into the mo industry

aquaculture IS the culture, collection, and conservation of species

the culturing and collecting (harvesting from facility) of 'man-produced' fish conserves the fish in the wild, no ?

methinks you could have gotten by just with #1 :wink:

all the rest either have to fall into place as fish are reared, or will arise as a result of

all the rearing techniques of raising fry are pretty standard

it's the aqcuiring of eggs and succesfully raising larvae on a regular basis that's the major impediment to the aquaculture aspect of marine orgs

even w/that, look at the advances made since the late '70's/early '80's



i would suggest that the most important areas for developement would be...


investigating whether or not hormonal manipulation and egg/milt stripping removal is possible/practical for pelagic spawners, like tangs, angels, wrasses, and if artificial incubation in lieu of parenting brooder fish is practical, or more efficient than maintaining 100 brooding pairs (number given only as example, not indicative of what would be actually needed)


and how to raise large amounts of the necessary foods on a large scale cost effectively for the larvae, what are the developmental issues challenging larvae raising (diseases in closed systems that may be specific to larvae , what population densities in closed system are optimal, etc etc)

once you get past all those larval issues, the rest should be relatively easy, exactly the same as it is/was in the commercial food aquaculture industry (one area where i have plenty of direct hands on experience) :wink:


i would like to stress that i think it's very important to try and propagate as many species as possible, both to provide as diverse a product for the ornamental market, but also to provide a method for replacement for as many species as we can that are out on the reefs, and have been greatly affected by the industry re: population levels

 

[Anonymous]

addendum:

i don't consider fry rearing in situ from larval settling in 'sea pens' to be true aquaculture

i define aquaculture as where the fish are completely raised in vitro, from zygote to fry/juvenile, in a facility

if the larva ain't cultured, it's not a truly aquacultured fish, imo

'farm raised' would be a more appropo term for those,methinks

 

[Anonymous]

from ofi:

http://www.ornamental-fish-int.org/data ... 5&gid=4838

Mariculture
One way to reduce the pressure on coral reef ecosystems brought about by an increasing demand for marine ornamentals is to improve and further develop the ability to culture desirable organisms for trade [67]. Indeed, aquaculture can be an environmentally sound way to increase the supply of such organisms, by helping reduce pressure on wild fish populations and producing juvenile and market size fish of a wide variety of species year round. Furthermore, rearing aquarium fish in closed systems is likely to lead to the production of hardier species, which fare better in captivity and survive longer [19, 68, 69]. Although, to date, the vast majority of marine ornamentals are wild-caught (breeding and rearing of marine species only accounts for 1 to 2% of the trade at present) and efforts to develop captive cultivation have been limited, there is increasing pressure to develop reliable and sustainable hatchery procedures for the captive breeding of many reef fish species.

So far, most marine ornamental aquaculture remains comparatively problematic, both from a technical and socio-economic point of view [70]. Attempts at closing life cycles, i.e. spawning, rearing and mating, repeatedly in closed systems have proven to be technically challenging for most species (except for species within the Pomacentridae family [71] as for example Amphiprion spp.) and existing mariculture projects have been developed on a relatively small scale [35]. Blennies, gobies and members of the Pomacentridae family, are relatively easy to rear in captivity as they attach or deposit their eggs on or in various substrates. Most other fish species such as angelfishes and butterflyfishes are more difficult to culture in captivity.

To date, the greatest obstacle to successfully tank of breeding ornamental reef fish is to rear larvae beyond the sixth to eighth day of development, a time typically associated with failure to initiate larval feeding [68]. This is often due to larval feeds being too large or not meeting the nutritional requirements of fish larvae. Once the larvae transform into small juveniles, they are weaned onto semi-natural diets and various prepared rations and can be transported and sold [72]. Beside technical challenges, the high price commanded by some cultured aquarium fishes compared to those wild-caught often undermines their economic viability [35].

 

[naesco]

When you don't have any fish why do you need an unsuitability list? If the harvest is sustainable, what the heck does it matter? If these are the only sustainable fish in the CAMPs the people are going to eat. One way or another.
Mitch

It does matter. Here are a couple of reasons.

1. It is no longer acceptable for industry to sell fish from the USL or coral like dendro and gonis that have no hope of survial in hobbyist tanks. This practice is unethical and must stop.

2. It is unethical to remove a fish, coral or invert from the sea knowing that it it cannot survive in hobbyists tanks.

Sustainability is a completely different issue.

 

[kylen]

Then to extend your premise, why not have every hobbyist go through a certification process in order to ensure that their husbandry methods will have a fish/coral/invert survive in their tank for a predetermined time period. Like Mary said...dead fish swimming.

 

[naesco]

Then to extend your premise, why not have every hobbyist go through a certification process in order to ensure that their husbandry methods will have a fish/coral/invert survive in their tank for a predetermined time period. Like Mary said...dead fish swimming.

Are yu suggesting that we should continue to import fish and coral that have no hope of survival in hobbyist's tanks?

 

[Anonymous]

When you don't have any fish why do you need an unsuitability list? If the harvest is sustainable, what the heck does it matter? If these are the only sustainable fish in the CAMPs the people are going to eat. One way or another.
Mitch

It does matter. Here are a couple of reasons.

1. It is no longer acceptable for industry to sell fish from the USL or coral like dendro and gonis that have no hope of survial in hobbyist tanks. This practice is unethical and must stop.

2. It is unethical to remove a fish, coral or invert from the sea knowing that it it cannot survive in hobbyists tanks.

Sustainability is a completely different issue.

I sure did kill a lot of grass yesterday. Stepped on a few bugs I would imagine too. Stop lawncare Now!! Leaform before it's too late!

 

[Anonymous]

Then to extend your premise, why not have every hobbyist go through a certification process in order to ensure that their husbandry methods will have a fish/coral/invert survive in their tank for a predetermined time period. Like Mary said...dead fish swimming.

Are yu suggesting that we should continue to import fish and coral that have no hope of survival in hobbyist's tanks?

naesco,

the fish or coral that have NO chance in ALL hobbtists tanks account for less than 5% of the species that regularly arrived in the 1/2 a dozen stores i've worked at here stateside in 3 states

i have NO problem w/those species (nearly all of that 5% are species that get too big for aquariums anyway



HERE'S A QUESTION FOR YOU NAESCO.....

what are your feelings about cleaner wrasses :wink: i know quite a few people that have kept them long term-according to their observations, they are not unsuitable species :wink:

 

[naesco]

I agree that USL species that enter are in the low numbers. Still loser importers still bring them in including corals like dendro and gonis.
I agree that some reefers are having success with some species of cleaner wrasse for certain areas.
However, I subscribe to Fenner's view that they are best left in the ocean doing the good job they do.
I don't think they are on anyone's USL though.

 

[Anonymous]

I agree that USL species that enter are in the low numbers. Still loser importers still bring them in including corals like dendro and gonis.
I agree that some reefers are having success with some species of cleaner wrasse for certain areas.
However, I subscribe to Fenner's view that they are best left in the ocean doing the good job they do.
I don't think they are on anyone's USL though.

hold on, i thought you acknowledged that dendros and goni's are fills, which the importer has no control over, how does that make them the 'losers' ?

i'm assuming you're using it in the context of being a loser, rather than someone who's losing

i think i'll drop bob fenner a line and let him know who his newest fan is, i'll bet he'll be absolutely thrilled to see how vocal a proponent, of your known stature in the industry, he has !

 

[dizzy]

I believe the whole concept of the unsuitable species list is silly for MAC certified stores, and these are the only ones the lists would apply too. Even they could choose to ignor the list since they can carry non-MAC certified fish too. If you build a certification system that dealers trust and support it works so much better than this forced compliance legislation, airline regulation, gun to the head vaporization of the independents. A good certification system would feed accurate information on DAA information and make it generally available for everyone that wanted to know the odds of success. If you want to purchase a fish that only has a 30% chance of surviving go for it. Even if it dies at least you can take solace in knowing that it was harvested in a sustainable manner and that your purchase helped to feed a poor family in the Philippines or Indo. You can also take solace in knowing that if that fish had been placed on some silly USL it would have likely ended up as a food item which required a larger harvest due to the lower value.

I believe that making compromises to the 1%DOA/1%DAA and coming to the realization that providing people with the facts is a better deterrent to needless waste than emotion based laws. What is wrong with a certification system that provides healthy fish with good recomendations. Leave people some ability to determine what risks they want to take. It will be very easy in the future to point out stores that try to sell people difficult fish without warning. Simply economics will take care of these dealers in the information age. Build a sysem that works and dealers will gravitate toward it. Try to build a Puritan based Utopia based on the gun to the head and predictable failure will follow. MAC/MAMTI needs to learn to be the good cop, not the bad cop.
Mitch

 

[kylen]

Are yu suggesting that we should continue to import fish and coral that have no hope of survival in hobbyist's tanks?

If the collection is done in a sustainable manner, why not?

 

[naesco]

Are yu suggesting that we should continue to import fish and coral that have no hope of survival in hobbyist's tanks?

If the collection is done in a sustainable manner, why not?

Because you are selling MO to unsuspecting hobbbyists knowing that they have no hope of surviving in even expert hobbyist tanks.
I have a problem with that do you

 

[Anonymous]

Are yu suggesting that we should continue to import fish and coral that have no hope of survival in hobbyist's tanks?

If the collection is done in a sustainable manner, why not?

Because you are selling MO to unsuspecting hobbbyists knowing that they have no hope of surviving in even expert hobbyist tanks.
I have a problem with that do you

i'll ask the question in a way you may be able to understand wayne, since you SEEM to not even bother reading the question....


if a fish is AQUACULTURED, which means THERE IS NO IMPACT ON THE REEF WHATSOEVER, what difference does it make?

take clownfish, for example....


ora clowns dying in novices tanks because the 'HOBBYIST' can't be bothered to learn how to take care of them hurts only the hobbyists wallet

if they want to waste their money repeatedly, what do you care ? it doesn't hurt the reefs at all

do you want to legislate the ways people can spend their disposable income ? :lol:

 

[kylen]

The same can be said for any fish that is acceptable to Naesco for importation. Take a yellow tang or any damsel. Throw it to the lions (newbie). That's why I suggested a certification system for hobbyists to ensure they follow proper husbandry and can keep a fish alive for more than a couple of days.

 

[Rikko]

There's no such thing as a species that have NO chance, only a TINY chance... SO FAR.

SO FAR.

The aquarium hobby as a whole is half hobby and half science, especially the reefing hobby. We're not very good at dendros, a few gorgs, Moorish Idols, a few types of stars, sea apples, etc, etc... Should their import be halted?

Absolutely! And it should have been done 50 years ago!
Remember when the species with NO chance were still imported? Fussy and temperamental species like, I dunno, xenia, montipora, probably even those ever so sensitive caulerpa and aiptasia.
They should have stopped that before anybody can learn anything!

I'm confident there will be NO impossible species within a short number of years (within reason - no harsh environmental extremes can be safely or should be replicated in the home aquarium at this point). Do we instead make a blanket decision right now to ban EVERYTHING we're not that great at keeping? That legislation will never be properly updated if and when our abilities advance because the pioneers will likely be public aquariums who aren't known for encouraging the aquarium hobby outside their world of government and corporate dollars.

The responsibility should lie at the end of the chain: the retailer AND the consumer. ESPECIALLY the consumer. There is an unfortunate attitude these days that an end user needs to be 'told' everything. I disagree. If you don't know what you're doing, you can either ASK SOMEONE or BUY A BOOK.
Advanced and pioneering aquarists shouldn't be cut out of the loop for good because of a rabble of unscrupulous buyers and sellers.

I'm sure Eric Borneman and you probably have differing ideas of what is IMPOSSIBLE to keep alive. What do you keep in your reef tank right now? What have you kept up to this point? How many animals did you kill? Should those species all be banned?
Legislation is like a band aid. It's delightfully easy to apply, and a nightmare to remove.