Borneman's Reefkeeping Magazine article

[dizzy]

I believe this topic deserves it's own thread. I found quit a few questionable statements in Eric Borneman's article in the current Reefkeeping Magazine. http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-12/eb/index.php Some of them were posted in the RPI thread, but need to be revisted here. I hope someone informs Eric B. about this thread. I think Eric's numbers on Bangaii cardinal fish importation are wildly in error. I called four wholesalers on 104th Street to confirm my suspicions. I spoke with Bob of Quality Marine, Eric of Sea Dwelling Creatures, Dave of Pacific Aqua Farms, and Michael at Underwater World. All were forthcoming to me and seemed to agree that the truth is nothing we need to run from. A couple were bringing in about 300 per week. One was bringing in around 200, and the other about 50 a week. I also regularly see a fax from another wholesaler who lists quantities and it is usually around 200. None of them were bringing in anywhere near the 1000-5000 per week that Eric Borneman claims in his article. So anyway read Eric quotes below and then realize he must be pulling numbers out of a magic hat or something.



Eric Borenman quote:
"Most facilities do not divulge actual numbers in their inventory lists; rather a three star rating system designating vague amounts of inventory is more commonly applied. A single large transshipper, of which there are dozens (and hundreds of smaller ones), showed a single week's inventory totaling 17,795 fish from Bali, only one of five countries they represented, and 45 countries now export marine fish (Bruckner, 2005; Bernardi and Vagelli, 2004; Lunn and Moreau, 2004). A retailer we spoke with claimed that most, if not nearly all, of these fish will be sold within a week. Among the fish listed were 2,000 Banggai cardinalfish, Pterapogon kaudneri, which are endemic to areas near the Island of Banggai that is off the eastern coast of Sulawesi in Indonesia. The range of this species is larger than originally estimated, but it is still not a widespread species. We learned that most large wholesalers and transshippers regularly show from 1,000-5,000 of these fish on their weekly inventory lists at a price of $4-5 each, with box lots of 120 cardinalfish selling for $2 each. This species, only recently discovered, is also one that has been shown to breed readily in captivity, even by beginners, and its wild populations are declining"

 

[Fish_dave]

I am glad that Dizzy started this thread. Many people who read these threads may not remember the gross mis-stating of numbers that Borneman used when writing about the shipping of live rock from Fiji many years ago. His numbers then were off by about an order of magnitude if you considered all of the available air freight space out of Fiji at the time was used for Live rock. Of course all of the space was not used by live rock due to the many shipments of Tuna, other eidible fish, garments, and general cargo coming out of Fiji. When Bob Mankin asked me several years ago if the numbers could possibly be correct it took only about 5 minutes of calculating to see that they were absurd. Eric seems to jump behind a cause and use whatever numbers he can find to prove his case, even if those numbers make no sense and can not be true.

In this quote of Bornemans from Dizzy I think that there is a similar streching of truth that common sense would disprove. It is true that many wholesalers do use a star rating system to show amounts of inventory. This is certainly not used to make the inventory amounts "vague" as Borneman says but is just an easy way to show if we have a few, more than a few, or a lot of a certain item in inventory. Inventory also canges all throughout the day as items are sold and new ones arrive. It is not feasible to keep a running exact inventory on our stock lists. We are not hiding our true inventory amounts, almost all wholesale operations are open to walk in buyers who can see at any instant exactly what our inventories are. If they are looking at a tank with 150 blue tangs in it then I think that when asked what our inventory of blue tangs was most people would say "quite a few" which is what our 3 stars mean.

I find the quote of hundreds of small transhippers way off the mark. I deal with transhippers every day and I know of only of low dozens of transhippers, low like in one or two dozen. I would give him the benefit of the doubt and say maybe there may be 4 - 5 dozen but I really doubt the hundreds claim.

The weeks inventory of fish of 17,795 from an exporter in bali does not surprize me. Probably close to 8,000 of those were damsel fish alone.

The 45 countries that export marine fish statement is really out of context. There probably are 45 countries that export marine fish but many of them are re-exporting fish from another country. Most wholesalers deal with 10 to 12 countries at most. We all would like to get a list of the 45 countries that export fish so that we could increase our selections. I think that at least a fourth of those 45 countries are re-export countries or are non commercial export countries, maybe more than a fourth.

How would a retailer far removed from the export station in Bali have any idea if all 17,795 fish in Bali were sold within the week. That is an absurd claim.

The 2,000 figure for Banggai cardinals may in fact be true for all Banggais brought into the states weekly. 104th street takes probably 1,000 of those and the rest of the states could easily take that many also. I think that I read somewhere that Borneman states that one collecting station in Indonesia collects 20,000 banggai cardinal PER DAY. That is nuts, where is this guy getting these numbers from ?

Never have I nor do I think anyone else on 104th street had 1,000 to 5,000 Banggai cardinals on our weekly stock lists. Maybe someone in an office typed in 1,000 rather than 3 stars to show that there were many available. I have not seen 1,000 at any one time in tanks on 104th or elsewhere other than in Bali. 5,000 is way out of line. As for Banggai cardinals being so easy to breed in captivity that even beginners can do it then why do we not see more Banggais availble for sale from hobbyists. The fact is that they are not that easy to breed and it takes quite a bit of effort and time to raise them. Many people have bred them but it is not that easy to produce any numbers of them. That is why there is still a demand for wild caught. Borneman makes it sound like an easy thing to breed cardinals, according to him even beginners can breed Banggai's. If that were true then we would soon see a decline of wild collected coming in as the beginners started to sell those great little hardy captive bred Banggais to their local stores. Most everyone that I know would rather have a captive raised Banggai than to deal with the problems of wild collected. Problem is it just is not that easy to do.

I read all of Bornemans article and have issue with many many more things. The above is just from one small paragraph in a fairly large article. He takes faulty data and presents it as good. Many of the studies that he quotes have been talked about on this forum and have been show to be very qustionable. Borneman is courting the eco-science boys and their grant money. They use flawed data to prove their point thinking (and probably correctly so) that if it is used often enough and by enough people in enough pseudo science papers that it will be perceived to be truth. This is truth by repetition, not truth by good science.

I hope that a few others will jump in and let us know their take on these numbers and data that Borneman uses as research and "science".

Dave

 

[clarionreef]

"....courting the eco-science boys and their grant money. They use flawed data to prove their point thinking (and probably correctly so) that if it is used often enough and by enough people in enough pseudo science papers that it will be perceived to be truth. This is truth by repetition, not truth by good science. "
Wow...
What a timely, succinct, accurate and well put observation. Then again, it comes from experience and Dave has more then all the "eco-pseudo science" boys combined.
I wish the other importers would chime in more often as they feel the same way but have learned to be pro eco-pseudo science to placate them.
Come on guys, we forget more about fish every nite then they ever learned.
Steve

 

[dizzy]

Steve all the wholesalers I spoke with seem to agree that it is potentially damaging to have people publishing false or inflated numbers about our industry. I hope some of the rest of them join in as well. There is a need to see that people who publish false statements under the pretense of non-fiction, suffer the reputation damage that such unprofessionalism deserves. We need to send the message to the future scientists of the world that truth does matter.
Mitch

PS
I'm taking out my PS message.

 

[dizzy]

Eric Borneman quote: "If we estimate that there are one million reefkeepers in the U.S., and we consider what I think is a conservative estimate of one hundred animals purchased over the average person's time as a hobbyist, it's easy to see why some people might be concerned. It is again important to keep in mind that the aquarium trade has grown by approximately 30% each year".



We (Fishey Business pet store)just received "The Red Book of Pet Store Management 2005" It is a supplement to Pet Product News. From page 6 "The following facts are results of the Pet Product News State of the Industry Survey 2004-2005. The survey was taken by 741 owners or top managers of independent pet stores." From a chart on page 7. The question was How many Pets? Households owning (in millions) Under the Saltwater Fish catagory 0.8 or 800,000 change from 2002 14% Pets per household 12.0 total Pets 9.6 million Change from 2002 37% They also have the number of holdholds with freshwater fish at 13.9 up 5% from 2002. This survey shows a growth of 14% from 2002 until sometime in 2005. Certainly not 30% per year as suggested by Eric. The 9.6 total pets means the average saltwater customer has 12 fish in their tank and since that is up 37% from 2002 it would suggest husbandry advances or larger average tanks sizes IMO.

I also have a copy of 2001-2000 APPMA National Pet Owners Survey. The APPMA stands for American Pet Products Manufactures Association. This survey has the number of households that keep saltwater fish at 700,000 back in 2000.

I don't believe either survey considered reefkeeping a seperate catagory from saltwater fishkeeping. So that being the case I ask Eric to please divulge his source that he got the one million household figure from. It would be very useful for some marketing research I am working on. I'm also curious as to where the 30% growth per year figure comes from.
Mitch

 

[PeterIMA]

I think that Eric has done a good job with his paper, although there are a number of inaccurate statements. Finding accurate information about the aquarium trade is not easy. Given that the Philippines and Indonesia do not compile accurate statistics (because there is no fishery monitoring) it is understandable that there will be disagreements concerning numbers of fishes exported and imported.

As far as Banggai cardinals are concerned, I see no conflict about Eric's stated numbers collected and the numbers estimated as being imported and sold in the U.S.A. There is a huge mortality on Banggai cardinals that is related to the fact that cyanide is used for collection and the fish are stressed during transport back to Bali. Hence, there is a huge mortality. This is documented in some of the "scientific" papers referred to.

In my mind, if it made it into a scientific journal (which these numbers did) then that it is more believable than if some persons in the trade stated it on Reefs.org. Scientists are not as bad as some have claimed. Bashing them is not the answer.

Peter Rubec, Ph.D.

 

[naesco]

Why are you guys afraid of the truth.

 

[clarionreef]

Huh? :roll:
Wayne,
What you actually know of the truth came from here!!!
This is where you read it all first!
Falsifying how many bangaii are collected hurts the case for truth much like in the early days when people claimed that their yellow tangs were caught w/ cyanide .[when the truth was simple starvation.]
As Mitch pointed out, there need be no falsifying and exaggerating to make a good case!
The truth is actually good enough!
Why are you afraid of the actual truth in stead of a sensationalized one?
The answer to the Bangaii question is net training in the villages there, empowering the locals there and making them immune to the cyanide raiders from Bali.
Now, theres the answer for free. Not too sensational I admit. Not to cute and anthropomorphic...and not too relevant to eco-wannabie skill sets...but the very best approach.
The rest of the dialogue will never save a Bangaii and is basically to attract money for white guys from white guys to show how much "we care".
Bangaiis belong to the fisherman whose ancestors are buried in the region.
They could be the guardians and the beneficiaries of the resource and the custodians as well. Raiders from Denpasar are the main blow to the fish but not in the numbers claimed. Besides, its not the numbers but the destruction of critical habitat from the juice that prevents better, more sustainable recruitment of numbers.
Steve

 

[Kalkbreath]

I think that Eric has done a good job with his paper, although there are a number of inaccurate statements. Finding accurate information about the aquarium trade is not easy. Given that the Philippines and Indonesia do not compile accurate statistics (because there is no fishery monitoring) it is understandable that there will be disagreements concerning numbers of fishes exported and imported.

As far as Banggai cardinals are concerned, I see no conflict about Eric's stated numbers collected and the numbers estimated as being imported and sold in the U.S.A. There is a huge mortality on Banggai cardinals that is related to the fact that cyanide is used for collection and the fish are stressed during transport back to Bali. Hence, there is a huge mortality. This is documented in some of the "scientific" papers referred to.

In my mind, if it made it into a scientific journal (which these numbers did) then that it is more believable than if some persons in the trade stated it on Reefs.org. Scientists are not as bad as some have claimed. Bashing them is not the answer.

Peter Rubec, Ph.D.

"Global Cooling" made it into hundreds of scientific papers back in the 1970's That didnt make it so .........
Eric's Fiji live rock report made it into scientific papers as well
that didnt make his numbers possible either........:wink:

 

[corality]

Wayne: THE TRUTH....you are ignorant.How well do you even know Borneman? I know him very well....in fact better then anyone on this board unfortunately. Science is the building blocks of understanding , however, when weilded by people like Eric it can also be very dangerous because it can influence the sheeple(like yourself) into believing the world is coming to a end.Steve is right....the Bali raiders are the problem and the long boat ride back is very stressful. Guess what? the Bangaii's being collected by the locals and sent via air cargo(Garuda) are damn near bulletproof.I would like to confirm Dizzy's statement that noone is bringing in thousands a week....i bring in 300 once a month....i hold them, feed them, and sell them.We lose maybe 6 to 10 depending on how many bags go flat but the point is that the data being projected is erroneous. Just because you and your koolaid drinking cohorts want something to be real...doesnt make it so. Next time check your facts(do it yourself,dont rely on other people info) before flapping your trap. I can confirm,first hand, that Borneman is a fraud....and not to be trusted with any kind of responsibility. If you dont believe me, why dont you call Billy Causey of the FKNMS and ask him why he is no longer allowed to EVER work in the Keys again. His number is posted on the FKNMS website.Take Care.

 

[naesco]

The truth is reality.
Take a trip anywhere in the islands of the Philippines.
Go where this is no industrial or population related impact on the reefs.
Than, dive in and you are in for a shock.
Than, tell me that there is no destruction done by your industry.

Criticize Borneman all you want but he is one of the few leaders in our hobby with the courage to tell it like it is.

 

[corality]

There you go again. Pointing the finger at the wrong person (group)yet totally buttressing a so called leader's point of view. Am i arguing about the total destruction in the Philippines?No one is.Fact of the matter,whether you believe it or not, Bornemans data on collection statistics is wrong in so many ways. Do you base your opinion on facts or what makes you feel good? From reading your post in the past i thought you were silly, now i know you are crazy.Truth is reality?LOL :roll:

Lay off the koolaid

 

[dizzy]

In fairness to Eric I acknowlege his article does contain a great deal of factual, useful information. What I don't like about the article is the way it is peppered with quotes like the following from Jaime: "Today, there are between 3,500 and 4,000 collectors in the Philippines, up from 1,500 in 1995, with some 60-75% of them illegally using approximately 150,000 kg of sodium cyanide per year to catch fish "(Baquero, 1999).

Later he quotes Rubec: Reports indicate that mortality of all marine species captured for the trade may be 50% or higher during the process of removing fish from the reef to the often primitive holding facilities prior to export. An additional 30% mortality can then occur at each step in the transport chain, culminating in what may be over 90% mortality before retail purchase (Rubec, et al., 2001).

And then this one: Cyanide fishing often results in a type of sudden death syndrome, often becoming apparent only after the fish has been shipped to other countries and entered the retail channel. It has been estimated to result in nine fish killed for every one collected (Brower, 1991)

If you extrapolate moratality figures using those numbers you can reach a conclusion that something like 983 out of 1000 fish die and only 17 out of that 1000 live to be sold at retail, if cyanide is used in collection. Which happens on average 70% of the time. If cyanide collectors kill 9 out of 10 then 900 die on the reefs. Another 50 die on the way to the exporters, cutting the 100 in half. The exporters lose 15 more before shipping so it is down to 35. LA wholesalers lose 11 of the 35 taking it down to 24. Retailers lose 7 or 8 of the remaining 24 resulting of a net 17-18 being sold out of the 1000. Out of that 7-8 only 10% survive more than a year. Terrible survival rate for sure. :roll:

Note I edited this to change 993 to 983. Fuzzy math problems.

 

[StevenPro]

I understand much of the appeal of the internet in general and message boards in particular is anonymity, but for infrequent visitors like myself or lurkers just reading, it would be very helpful if you all could sign your names to your posts. This way one could judge and weigh the value and credibility of the information provided.

I know some of the participants here:

cortez marine is Steve Robinson

PeterIMA is Dr. Peter Rubec

dizzy is Mitch Gibbs

But most others are a mystery.

And in case you didn't know, I am simply Steven Pro just like my nickname says.

 

[dizzy]

kalk= Jeff Koutnik
naesco= Wayne Ryan

Let's get this Borneman quote in here as well. It was mentioned over in the RPI thread:

"These practices have spread from the Philippines to Indonesia, Sri Lanka and other countries, and have become more common over time, despite efforts to abate their use by training in fish catching with nets (Rubec, et al., 2001). Sadly, many corals are more damaged with nets than with chemicals. Also unfortunate is that many comparatively "reef safe" anaesthetics are available, such as clove oil, and Indonesia is the world's largest producer of cloves"

 

[dizzy]

This is another quote I would like Eric to attribute to some source:

"The global wholesale trade in marine species for aquaria amounts to $200-330 million, with some retail estimates today in the billions, and includes primarily fish, corals, sponges, anemones, mollusks, crustaceans and live rock"

Where are his 1,000,000 reefs tank owner, 30% per year growth, and billions in marine species sales coming from. :?
Mitch

 

[PeterIMA]

First, I would agree that there are exaggerations in Eric's paper. However, let's try to clarify whether the numbers with which one disagrees are ones created by Eric or by someone else (numbers taken from another paper).

I am curious to know whether the Banggai mortality numbers presented are extrapolations made by Eric or taken from scientific papers (some of which I have read but don't have handy to check at the moment).

As far as my mortality estimates through the chain of custody being debated on Reefs.org, I have published more recent numbers last year on the Live Reef Fish Bulletin No. 13. While the recent estimates are not as high as those being thrown around on Reefs.org (from my 1987 paper) they are still way too high.

I applaud Steve's comments about one of the REAL issues (high mortalities between Sulawesi and Bali).

I hope to see you guys at the Marine Ornamentals Conference in Las Vegas. It should be interesting to see if you come to question the panel members including Eric Borneman.

Panel Organizer for MO06 Symposium "Steps Necessary To Attain Sustainability Of The Marine Ornamentals Trade"
Peter Rubec

 

[PeterIMA]

PS-I don't consider Clove Oil to be "reef safe". Despite a paper by Dr. Mark Erdman suggesting the use of clove oil for collecting, preliminary experiments by Dr. James Cervino (personal communication 2004) indicates that clove oil is harmful (kills) corals (although is may be harmless to fish).

Peter Rubec

 

[dizzy]

After Steve Pro stated a thread on ReefCentral I decided to join and ask Eric a few questions there. http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthrea ... ost6331341

Mitch Gibbs

 

[danieldm]

The one thing that I noticed in Eric's article is that many of the sources/data that he cites are more than six or seven years old. Now I don't know nearly as much about this industry as many of the posters within this thread, but I do know quite a bit about data collection and trending.

If I presented a paper to a corporation with data as old as most of Eric's, I would have been laughed out of their boardroom.

Another thing I noted in regards to his statements about the Bangaii Cardinals. One of the papers that he cites was written in 2002 by Vagelii (New Jersey Aquarium) and Erdmann (UC Berkeley) in which their paper states that at least 50,000 Bangaii fish are collected each month, and as many as 600,000-700,000 annually. Their paper is written based upon their research in the region...but I later found where they were using this same paper/research to justify grants/funding to go back for more research.

From a research/data collection perspective you should always assume that people are inflating their numbers in a paper/report that they are using to solicit funding. Especially when there is not any cooborating data to support the numbers reported.