I would like to toss out a few of my thoughts on this "shipping light" deal.
I think that everyone would agree that the motivation behind shipping light is economic, to save money on the freight bill. I don't think that there is any study or any person that can make a case that shipping with less water is actually better for the animal. The reason to use less water is to save money. When we put animals in a closed bag with water things start to go bad. It would follow that the less water in the bag the faster things can go bad. Take this to the extremes and more water equals better, no problems and less water equals worse, at the extreme no water and death for aquatic animals. I think that it is pretty clear, no studies needed. Less water in shipping is worse, more water is better when only looking at the health of the animals.
It is not a well defined line when you have "enough" water and when there is too little. There are so many variables that it just can not be accuratly predicted. When the result is death of the animal it is clear that you have gone to far. When the animal is still alive it is much harder to tell if it has been negativly affected by too little water. Is it overstressed ? Will it die later? Have gills or internal organs been compromised? All of this is very hard to quantify. Logic would lead us to believe that more water in shipping would reduce the chance of residual effects on the animals. For the health of the animal more water is better and less water is worse.
As the only argument for using less water (that holds water) is economic, does that argument make sense ? When shipping internationally it probably does. Fish coming from the source generally have a low value compared to the freight costs to move them around. If a few die the cost is not large compared to the freight costs. After a fish gets to the states and is marked up by a wholesaler the cost is much higher, often many times the cost from the source. Much more money is now invested in that fish so the value of the fish compared to freight costs to move it around are now flip flopped. The fish is worth much more than the freight to move it around. Economics would now say that it is worth the extra freight costs if it keeps the fish more healthy. This is also true with expensive or rare fish shipped internationally, if the value of the fish is high we use a lot more water to ship the fish as the freight is not as much of a concern as is the health of the fish. Economically as the value of the fish increases the impact of the freight costs to move the fish decreases and the need to keep the fish healthy increases greatly. Fish in the states have a high value due to accumulated costs to get them here. Just looking at it from the economics freight costs should be secondary to fish health due to the high value of the fish at this point.
The argument that fish are shipped internationally with much less water than domestically is a poor argument. International freight is booked freight with high priority. Delays can and do happen but not nearly as much as with domestic freight. Domestic freight is low priority and delays and poor handling are almost the norm and not an exception. Shipping with a minium amount of water can be successful on a perfect flight but throw in a delay or a few hours spent on hot tarmac in Phoenix during a transfer and the whole shipment can be a disaster. With more water for packing the outcome will often be much better.
I do not think that a good case can be made for shipping with minimal water amounts. With the uncertainties inherent in domestic shipping I want my fish packed in a reasonable or even excess of water. If the freight cost were taken away I do not know of anyone that would not ship fish with an excess of water. The only reason I can think of to ship light is economic and for the above reasons I do not think that the economic argument holds up.
So far I have not brought up the fact that these are live animals that we are talking about and we should put the health of the animals above the simple economics. In my opinion it is just not right to cause a possible health issue to save a few quarters. International freight is often double the cost value of the fish, domestic freight is rarely even half the cost value of the fish once they are in the U.S. I have often asked for a heavier pack for my fish, I can not remember ever telling a shiper to ship lighter.
Please let's not go down the road of compromising fish health to save a small amount of money. These are live animals, price should not be an issue that compromises health. If your freight costs go up, raise the price of the animals. Price should not compromise health.
Dave
