Ship Light

[sdcfish]

Mitch,

You are absolutely right about the garbage in and garbage out. Definately shows up from the very beginning which is the collection process.

We hold our fish in our new arrival systems with medication for normally 24 hours....sometimes longer. If the fish aren't ready, they don't come out. Some species we keep in their until sold. Like Semilarvatus "Golden" Butterfly, we have see much better results holding them in the medication to avoid red sores on their sides. Same goes for some clownfish that won't break down with white slime when shipped too quickly. As I write this....I think of the recently stressed out PNG shipment we just took...first shipment and had an extremely long flight...more than normal, and we did ship some fish pre-maturely that looked good, but broke down. Only a couple dozen clownfish, but in hind site, we should have held them longer.

I think that some losses are due to skipping the ammonia detox step during acclimation. That will surely lead to losses after a few days. I hope that more people use this simple step and enjoy the results.

Another question mark is clearly the temperature changes during shipping, and also the handling by different carriers. If the airlines would all handle the livestock with care, and in the same fashion, we would probably see more consistent results.

Big Bob is correct about the dimensional weights. Most of the airlines are now "dimming out" the shipments and will charge. We are trying to fine tune the pack where as we are always hitting the most efficient weight per box. We can just pack a lot more fish per box, and keep the weights maximized....that's the art, and the ticket!

Like I said...it's a work in process...and over the last 5 years, we have been testing it. Now we are just marketing it. As the airlines adjust, so will we.

Regards,

Eric

 

[Ret_Talbot]

JadeFox, this is an interesting subject. I hope something positive will come from it.

One very important aspect that must be added to the DOA/ DAA mortality equations is related to what is happening at collection points. The ideal situation would be if something is also done at community level. We know that fish are kept by collectors in plastic bags for extended periods of time, at this point water weight is not important, the problem is that collectors keep many fish per bag stored in structures where temperature could be as high as 30ºC, abrupt water changes are done depending on the value of the fish, if expensive twice a day,if not once a day. Fish are kept like this for a week.

No doubt that this has negative consequences..... later when shipping fish overseas by exporters.

Jaime

Indeed true, although I'm focused largely on fishes that arrived stateside with the same collection and shipping techniques in their past and how they do shipped domestically with a light or tight pack versus a regular or large pack. Your point is well taken though and duly noted in my notes. Cheers....

 

[Ret_Talbot]

Thanks for the continued good input om everybody. Politics aside, here's where I am stuck at present:

I have one company advertising to its customers that they pack tight and ship light to save the customer money. They claim DOA/DAA has not increased with this shipping method.

I have another company advertising to its customers that they don't pack light to save the customer money given the spotiness of domestic freight service and the resulting DOA/DAA from shiping without any "insuance" (e.g. a large pack with big bags, more H20/O2). They claim that they have lower DOA resulting from delayed packages than a company shipping light/tight.

In other words, both companies claim to ship the way they ship to save their customers money. So which is it? Ad if there is clearly a better method based on science, why is that not shared openly in the best interest of the industry and the animals. I can appreciate proprietary concerns up to a point, but if there is a etter way to do it which also makes the industry more profitable and, in turn, more robust, why is that information not eagerly dispersed so the industry as a whole can benefit?

Again, I'm trying not to be too naive here, but wasn't the purpose of the Oregon study to beefit the industry, not an individual company?

 

[sdcfish]

Jadefox,

We clearly share so much information freely that it would be unfair to call us insensitive to bettering the industry as a whole. You don't have the full picture nor the understanding of how competitive the industry is....not to mention how difficult it is for a company like ours to compete with others not offering near the effort put in to the products even though we are expected or driven to sell at the same price or better.

So please be somewhat compassionate that if we want to hold back some information that isn't really any secret anyway......you can find tight packing on every Philipine box that leaves the country.....so it's really no big deal nor any secret.

Fish_Dave is not advertising that he doesn't pack tight...he is just commenting on it. We also pack the exact same way Fish_Dave does...it's just called our Large Size Pack. Like we used to do all the time. As previously mentioned, we now also include a tight (Small) and a medium pack to offer a more variety of choices, hence the savings

We don't feel it would be smart to just draw it out and lay it in front, when other methods can also be equally successful, just more expensive.

I am pretty sure we have been exchanging information privately, and I have offered to speak to you more in person or on the phone multiple times now. I am still happy to continue those exchanges of emails to help you complete your research. Feel free to call me on my cell number you have to speak more. Your conclusion will be made public for everyone to read.

If you are interested in other topics to write on, I have some good ones that would definately better the industry and livestock much more than packing techniques. I hope to speak to you soon.

Eric

 

[Ret_Talbot]

Jadefox,

We clearly share so much information freely that it would be unfair to call us insensitive to bettering the industry as a whole. You don't have the full picture nor the understanding of how competitive the industry is....not to mention how difficult it is for a company like ours to compete with others not offering near the effort put in to the products even though we are expected or driven to sell at the same price or better.

I didn't mean to call you insensitive at all--sorry if it came across that way. I may not be a "lifer" in the industry, but I certainly appreciate the way the industry works. If you'll forgive me for saying so, it's not unlike a lot of indusries when it comes to the nuts and bolts. My experience is there are a lot of guys in the marine aquarium industry at all levels from collectors to wholesalers to retailers that are working very hard to earn a living, care for the animals and provide for a valuable hobby experience for many aquarists. I only hope to contribute to everyone's success.

So please be somewhat compassionate that if we want to hold back some information that isn't really any secret anyway......you can find tight packing on every Philipine box that leaves the country.....so it's really no big deal nor any secret.

I'm not suggeting you guys are sitting on some master formula...lol, and I know there is a lot of information already out there. My thought, based on my experience with other industries and in this one, is that a true industry leader might benefit by actively bringing that information to the largest number of people within the industry. There are, in my opinion, a lot of opportunities for individual companies and people in this industry to step-up in a leadership capacity. Anything shy of transparency is, based on my assessment, bound to harm an industry that in some ways is already on the ropes. I have some personal thoughts about what that looks like, but it goes well beyond the scope of my journalistic inquiry here.

Fish_Dave is not advertising that he doesn't pack tight...he is just commenting on it. We also pack the exact same way Fish_Dave does...it's just called our Large Size Pack. Like we used to do all the time. As previously mentioned, we now also include a tight (Small) and a medium pack to offer a more variety of choices, hence the savings

It actually is not Fish_Dave to whom I was referring in my previous post. It was another wholesaler that makes a point of advertising to their customers that they don't pack light/tight for the reasons I cited in my previous post. I think the difference is that there was a perception you were packing tight/light as a default packing method for at least three months without offering the tiered approach which I understand you now offer.

We don't feel it would be smart to just draw it out and lay it in front, when other methods can also be equally successful, just more expensive.

I disagree, but I also don't run a company. My issue is really about the study you clued me in to during our first exchange. If the Oregon study led to better, more cost effective shipping techniques (as you suggested it did), then based on the stated purpose of the study and the source of funding, that information should absolutely (IMO) be readily available to everyone in the industry.

I am pretty sure we have been exchanging information privately, and I have offered to speak to you more in person or on the phone multiple times now. I am still happy to continue those exchanges of emails to help you complete your research. Feel free to call me on my cell number you have to speak more. Your conclusion will be made public for everyone to read.

Yes, we have exchanged e-mails, and as I mentioned, I have had some pressing deadlines that have put this story on the proverbial back-burner. Don't worry...I fully intend to have some face time with you before I publish anything.

If you are interested in other topics to write on, I have some good ones that would definately better the industry and livestock much more than packing techniques. I hope to speak to you soon. Eric

I look forward to taking soon. I do write on a wide range of topics in the industry, and I hope all of my writing prompts a deeper discussion about how the industry can be more sustainable and more robust. I don't care so much if I convince someone of something--rather I hope to simply get people talking.

The packing techniques story is one around which there is a fair bit of buzz right now based on the volume of feedback I am getting both here and privately, and that is why I am pursuing it. I actually think addressing this issue, and the many issues that stem from it, could be very beneficial to the success of the industry in the longrun. But that's just my journalistic hunch...

Thanks again for all your input and willingness to dialog so openly.

 

[sdcfish]

Very good Jadefox......it's all good

Definately out for the better good of the industry and environment.

I am surprised that there is another wholesaler trying to market the opposite of what we are. That's pretty funny that someone would actually try to convince a retailer to pay more when they could be saving more.....makes no sense. Since we are offering three styles of packing, it's really just up to the retailer how they want it. Our guarantee does not vary on the pack, so it's all the same to us.

I hope you had a chance to speak to the customers that we received such positive feed back from.....I will continue to send you those names of customers that had gone out of the way to tell us how pleased they were for saving them the big $$$$. That's unusual....normally we only hear the bad, but seems like the good is coming through too

Have a great day.

Eric

 

[Fish_dave]

Eric,

You are making this all about economics. The only reason that you promote or bring up the "light packing" issue is to save money on shipping costs. I don't think that you are promoting that using less water is actually better for shipping fish. (If you are then I and many others would take issue with you.) I think that we could all agree that more water in shipping is better for the animal health. You are saying that you can reduce the water with very little compromise in mortality. I do not argue that you can reduce water from a very large pack to a smaller pack without more mortality. Once you go from a small pack to an even tighter pack mortality does go up. I do not see you guys using a philippine pack for your shipouts. If SDC starts packing 150 - 200 damsels per box then you will have greater mortality and I think that you would be foolish to do it. Where does the lighter pack start having a negative impact on animal health ? It is not a well defined point where you go from no problems to many problems. The less water you use in shipping the more issues there will be with the animals. It is an economic issue, where is the point that it is better to compromize animal health to save in shipping costs. We all make that call, if not we would be shipping everything in crates of water.

You have customers thanking you for saving them shipping dollars, another wholesaler is doing the opposite of what you are doing and is refusing to pack lighter than they feel comfortable with telling customers that they do not want to compromise animal health to save some shipping dollars. Why do you find this funny ? It is just two sides of marketing.

At PAF I do not think that the amount of packing water is a marketing tool. We pack with the amount of water that we feel is the best compromise between animal health and freight costs. If customers request a lighter pack then I will try and do it but at their risk, I don't guarantee what I don't feel comfortable with. That is my policy, we pack how we feel the animals will be safe with a large percentage of error built in.

If you have data that shows that less water is better for animal health when shipping I would like to see it, I may not belive it but I would like to see the data. I have been asked to pack with more water more often than I have been asked to pack lighter.

Today I packed a 4 inch clarion angel in a 20 inch bag. I also packed a 4 inch bar goby in a 6 inch bag. I would have never packed the clarion even in a 10 inch bag. It is about economics and the value of the fish you are shipping. The customer getting the 2,000.00 clarion in a 20 inch bag will never complain but the same customer getting 4 inch bar gobies in an 8 inch bag would scream bloody murder at us.

I think that the main issue that I have with the packing light deal is that it is being used as marketing and I don't think that something that has this much impact on fish health should be used as a marketing tool.

My rambling thoughts on the issue.

Dave

 

[sdcfish]

Thanks Dave for the ramble....I am following you.

We are offering multiple levels of packing...not just the light pack. An expensive fish or delicate fish still get the large pack as necessary. As you do, we would not put an expensive fish in the same sized bag as the

The fact that less water equals more oxygen is why the fish can survive better....but again...that's getting into much testing on our part, and you along with others will just have to spend the time to see where the adjustment makes the biggest success. Testing Ph and Ammonia levels in different sized bags, with different oxygen levels and water levels is what we have been doing for oh....about 5 years now? Using these test pack techniques with a few of our customers in different parts of the US is what we have been doing...and getting test results back to see where the right formula is.

This tighter pack is really nothing more than what you and I have been seeing for years....so let's all not start thinking that we are pioneering some new packing method although the traditional method as we mostly know is now called the "Large" pack...... and it's just us telling the customers that we are modifying our packing styles to offer more savings and flexibility.

Everyone interested can do their research, train their staff, buy all the required bag sizes, and start doing exactly what we are doing.

It's easy for you...just come on over and see how the fish are being packed on a small, medium or large pack. We don't have any curtains that we pack fish behind, and you are always welcome buddy to come on over! We actually don't see enough of each other as it is

Maybe the next SDC bbq should be a PAF/SDC bbq. Sounds good to me.

Eric

 

[Ret_Talbot]

I think that the main issue that I have with the packing light deal is that it is being used as marketing and I don't think that something that has this much impact on fish health should be used as a marketing tool.

I must admit that, while I am far from squeemish (and I do understand the economics), this sentiment does resonate with me on a personal level. Being that as it is, this sentiment also resonates with me on an industry level. When it comes to those who believe our industry does more harm than good, an industry leader advertising that they are saving customers money by putting the animals at greater risk is just the kind of PR we don't need. This isn't meant as a critique of the way Eric or Dave or anyone else does business--it's simply a though to be chewed upon.

 

[Ret_Talbot]

Assuming there is "an optimal packing density that maximizes post-shipment survival of a given species", who wants to throw out some hard data based on experience?

 

[Ret_Talbot]

We are offering multiple levels of packing...not just the light pack.

I think the issue might be that there is a perception that for a period o several months, you were shipping tight as your default shipping. I understand that is now dealt with on shipment by shipment basis.

The fact that less water equals more oxygen is why the fish can survive better....but again...that's getting into much testing on our part, and you along with others will just have to spend the time to see where the adjustment makes the biggest success.

Is this really true? I can see how one might say that a fish can survive in less water but "survive better"? Obviously the amount of O2 is a critical component, but, assuming that sufficient O2 is used, less water still increases risk to the animal, doesn't it?

This tighter pack is really nothing more than what you and I have been seeing for years....so let's all not start thinking that we are pioneering some new packing method although the traditional method as we mostly know is now called the "Large" pack...... and it's just us telling the customers that we are modifying our packing styles to offer more savings and flexibility.

But isn't there a difference in terms of risk to the animals when it comes to shipping freight to LAX and then shipping domestically? Aren't domestic flights far less reliable, and isn't that why some wholesalers make a point of packing "large" by default when shipping within the country as added insurance given the unreliability of domestic flights?

 

[PeterIMA]

Jadefox,

Just some thoughts about shipping.

First neither Dave or Eric clearly defined whether they were discussing shipping for Los Angeles to retail facilities or whether they were discussing transshipping fish from say the Philippines through LA and on to retailers nationwide in the USA.

The problem that traditional importers/wholesalers face is that there are transhippers that do the second option. The transhippers do not maintain expensive holding facilities in LA or San Francisco. They may have a garage where they receive boxes from incoming flights. The bags are opened and they replace the oxygen and then put the boxes (with fish still in the original bags) onto the next flight to retailers. Retailers whom I have spoken to like the lower prices, but don't like the mortality that often ranges from 25-50%.

The traditional importers/wholesalers are faced with competition from transhippers. Rumor has it that some are wholesalers during the week and retailers on weekends. Some importer/wholesalers are now transshipping fish to retailers. Others sell over the internet undercutting their retail customers. Cherry picking is allowed by others who then sell the fish over the internet. So, the shipping situation is intertwined with marketing strategies that may not ensure that non-stressed fish reach retailers.

Ideally, the fish received by an importer should be removed from the bags, placed in aquaria, and allowed to acclimate for at least 5-7 days. This rarely happens. If the fish go out the next day (quite common) they are still stressed from their flights to the USA from overseas.

As far as the study by Dr. Heidel and associates, I see them converging on the solutions that I recommended in the SPC Live Reef Fish Information Bulletin #13 (paper published by myself with Ferdinand Cruz). I also provided Dr. Heidel with an extensive literature review that I am sure was helpful in defining the problems concerning ammonia, carbon dioxide, stress, handling etc. The difference is that Ferdinand and I did not have a grant to support our studies. But, we have shared more information than the scientists at Oregon State University.

Peter

 

[Ret_Talbot]

Jadefox,

Just some thoughts about shipping.

First neither Dave or Eric clearly defined whether they were discussing shipping for Los Angeles to retail facilities or whether they were discussing transshipping fish from say the Philippines through LA and on to retailers nationwide in the USA.

The problem that traditional importers/wholesalers face is that there are transhippers that do the second option. The transhippers do not maintain expensive holding facilities in LA or San Francisco. They may have a garage where they receive boxes from incoming flights. The bags are opened and they replace the oxygen and then put the boxes (with fish still in the original bags) onto the next flight to retailers. Retailers whom I have spoken to like the lower prices, but don't like the mortality that often ranges from 25-50%.

The traditional importers/wholesalers are faced with competition from transhippers. Rumor has it that some are wholesalers during the week and retailers on weekends. Others sell over the internet undercutting their retail customers. Cherry picking is allowed by others who then sell the fish over the internet. So, the shipping situation is intertwined with marketing strategies that may not ensure that quality fish reach retailers.

Ideally, the fish received by an importer should be removed from the bags, placed in aquaria, and allowed to acclimate for at least 5-7 days. This rarely happens. If the fish go out the next day (quite common) they are still stressed from their flights to the USA from overseas.

As far as the study by Dr. Heidel and associates, I see them converging on the solutions that I recommended in the SPC Live Reef Fish Information Bulletin #13 (paper published by myself with Ferdinand Cruz). I also provide Dr. heidel with an extensive literature review that I am sure was helpful in defining the problems concerning ammonia, carbon dioxide, stress, handling etc. The difference is that Ferdinand and I did not have a grant to support our studies. But, we have shared more information than the scientists at Oregon State University.

Peter

Thanks for this, Peter. for this story, we are discussing the traditional wholesaler who is QTing and holding fish before repackaging and sening to domestic retailers. Would you give me permission to reprint some or all of your paper from SPC Live Reef Fish Information Bulletin #13? I have been in touch with Jerry at OSU, and he provided some thoughts. I'm interested in the notion of discussing hard numbers regarding optimal packing density per species. Thanks again.

 

[Anonymous]

Jadefox,

First neither Dave or Eric clearly defined whether they were discussing shipping for Los Angeles to retail facilities or whether they were discussing transshipping fish from say the Philippines through LA and on to retailers nationwide in the USA.

Peter that is the premise of this very thread so of course it was defined at the start so neither Dave nor Eric needed to define it in their posts.

Reread the thread, you'll see what you missed

Greetings, All.

I'm hearing a lot of buzz right now about "ship light" options that are being offered by wholesaler(s) to save their customers freight, and I am currently drafting an article.

For those of you unfamiliar with the term, "shipping light" refers to shipping animals in less water to lighten the overall weight and thereby reduce freight charges. The rumored result has been higher than average DOA.

Is there anyone who can confirm or deny the existence of this practice or who has any thoughts or information they would like to share either on the record or off?

 

[PeterIMA]

Gresham, Maybe I did not clearly explain my comments.

If a wholesaler receives fish "light" and re-oxes the bags (like a transshipper), the fish arrive at the retailer packed "light". This is not the same as stating that a wholesaler unpacks the fish from overseas, holds them, and then repacks them in various ways (varying from tight to loose pack). It would be helpful if wholesalers making postings would explain something about their holding procedures prior to shipping to retailers.

Peter

 

[Anonymous]

First neither Dave or Eric clearly defined whether they were discussing shipping for Los Angeles to retail facilities or whether they were discussing transshipping fish from say the Philippines through LA and on to retailers nationwide in the USA.

Gresham, Maybe I did not clearly explain my comments.

Well the above is crystal clear to me. You didn't catch on this entire thread is about wholesaler to retailer...stateside after acclimating the fish (see both Eric's and Dave's prior posts on the matter)

If a wholesaler receives fish "light" and re-oxes the bags (like a transshipper), the fish arrive at the retailer packed "light". This is not the same as stating that a wholesaler unpacks the fish from overseas, holds them, and then repacks them in various ways (varying from tight to loose pack). It would be helpful if wholesalers making postings would explain something about their holding procedures prior to shipping to retailers.

Peter

Any ro-ox/rebab of over seas shipments is considered a transhipment Peter. Your comments are gettting even more confused now :lol: Besides that's not what this thread is about, make another if that's what you want to know. I have seen both SDC and PAF receive shipments. They both acclimate. Both stated their basic procedures and if wasn't clear to you....SDC has an entire acclimation/holding area off the main floor. Both try not to ship out soon after arrival and I have never heard of either re-ox/rebag to turn a import shipment around in a tranship fashion.

This is where you kind of blew it. As a wholesaler yourself do you think they'll now give you as much info as when you where just a scientist?

 

[PeterIMA]

Gresham, Thanks for addressing my concerns. There are transshippers and some wholesalers re-oxing shipments as I described. I was not making accusations against either Eric or Dave.

Peter

 

[PeterIMA]

Duplicate posting deleted

 

[sdcfish]

Peter,

We receive our shipments each day and follow these basic procedures:

Take 6 sample bags from different boxes and sized animals and test that water for ph, salinity, temp, (we used to test ammonia but it was off the scale every time so we stopped) and then we record that data on to the incoming report sheet which accompanies every shipment.

We adjust the ph in our acclimation water by setting the controllers which alter the ph automatically..up or down. We also add medication to the acclimation water during this ph adjustment period. No water other than the water the fish arrived in has been introduced to the new arrivals.

We cut open bags into trays, or acclimation boxes. Dim light is required for this procudure. Then we neutralize the ammonia in the trays of newly placed fish, and begin to introduce the new water with lower matched ph and medication. The fish can re-circluate in these trays for 24 hours but we normally can finish an acclimation in a few hours depending on the ph levels that the fish arrived with.

After the ph is raised to natural sea water levels, we remove the fish and place into seperate holding systems that are also medicated and the fish can be kept there for days...but most that are completely acclimated will be moved to our main systems for sale. Fish that are sick or not ready, will be placed into long term hospital systems.

Some fish are seperately bagged up with a different type of treatment and then re-acclimated the following day. This happens every time for certain types of fish that do not typically acclimate well.

We can receive and ship fish with the same packing size. "Light" as we seem to be calling it, I normally use the term "Tight", but same thing. The key is to make sure the fish are screened well before shipping. Over the last year, we have managers do all the screening. It used to be that the pullers could pick and pack their own orders without managers seeing the item, but we felt an improvement to that method would be to have our managers write all qty's and sizes of the pulled items down on the order form, and screen the fish at the same time. One manager can screen multiple orders at the same time, or even pull their own order as well.

We have a sizing chart that has 15 or 16 differnent lines for different groups of livestock. For example size chart 1 might be for pygmy angels where a medium might be 2.5", where as size chart 4 might be for Adult angels like an Imperator where a medium would be 4". That was a fun task coming up with that chart...let me tell you it's a piece of work...and we still make some adjustments 2 years later now.

I hope I am not boring you all.....or trying to bandstand here....but I guess writing it all down makes it all sound pretty complex...there truly are many steps to the process for sure....I am not even talking about husbandry, feeding, maintenance and all the other stuff we have to do to run the business....sheesh! Livestock is an undertaking for sure.

I will stop now......hope that wasn't too bad

Eric

 

[PeterIMA]

Eric, Thanks for your explanation concerning your acclimation procedures. It is good to learn about your methods. You are truly an industry leader. I applaud your efforts to contract Dr. Heidel and his associates at Oregon State University to look into the causes of shipping mortality and to help find workable solutions.

Peter