Andrew Long
Marine Ecology and Conservation
September 15, 2011
Review: Global Marine Primary Production Constrains Fisheries Catches
The second portion of this article is essentially the discussion of the implications of these findings and more or less the short comings of the researchers’ methods. Essentially this study seeks a correlation or relationship between gross primary production, as measured by satellite quantification of chlorophyll a in surface waters of fishery zones, and fisheries production. It’s a bottom up control analysis of pelagic ecosystems which examines the effects of primary production in terms of net production at the fisheries level.
Conceptually this is a rather kinetic approach to gross production based on the idea of feed conversion ratios and makes a number of assumptions about the structure of trophic webs, fishing pressure, as well as the size, life span, and fecundity of the populations in a given region. Loss of primary production equals less secondary, tertiary, and quaternary production and so on. The researchers normalize spatial productivity in terms of fisheries population based on reported landings, where some areas are more consistently productive than others. Any fisherman will tell you this isn’t a particularly surprising finding. More substantially, a relationship between primary production and landings was indicated by normalizing spatial norms. The verdict is net decrease, which also isn’t surprising. The researchers relegate the decrease in primary production primarily to ocean warming effectively changing spatial productivity. Eventually they conclude that although surface temperatures likely play a key role in influencing the spatial concentration of primary producers, it is the spatial (and quantitative) element of their distribution that is most troubling for fisheries and net production.
Even though researchers showed a strong relationship between these two parameters, the question remains; is this the primary factor contributing to decreased landings? Or has consistent and more precise fishing effort primarily to blame for the decrease? Several studies have found a net decrease in primary production in conjunction with decreased landings in a number of other regional studies. Chassot, et. al. recognized the importance of demonstrating this as a global phenomenon. Taken regionally, one could reason that a net decrease in production is the result of the migratory nature of fish and/or primary producers. Traditionally, this is the mindset. Humbly, at the edge of the sound, men ponder their effects on the seemingly infinite ocean and cannot ascertain their actions could possibly be significant. Arrogantly we ignore the signs.
Another fact this work points to inadvertently, is the effects of primary consumers. The history of Georges Banks groundfish comes to mind. Landings increased consistently off New England until the mid 1900’s, leading up to an enormous collapse of the groundfish population that affected the region for over 20 years, and in many ways still does today. During the end of that period, landings were steadily increasing, but many people fail to realize is that total catch was comprised of many different species. As hake, haddock, and cod landings decreased, gross total landings increased supplanted by of demand for fishmeal from sardines, menhaden, pilchard, and herring, which are used to make agricultural feeds. The collapse and reduction of many of these grazers/primary consumers has major implications and probably accounted for the lasting effects of the groundfish collapse.
Not included in this article, is the interesting and related science of enhancing primary production by utilizing ferrous sulfate. There’s little question that it enhances primary production several fold. However, the initial idea was to sequester carbon dioxide into the phytoplankton and lower global CO2 concentration. It is unknown what proportion of the sequestered carbon dioxide is deposited in the deep ocean via this method as quantification has proven to be elusive. Might this be just the stone we need to kill the two proverbial birds?
Overall, it’s difficult not to come to the realization that global fisheries are essentially facing a “double whammy" of bottom up consequences (as explained here) in the face of top down effects from fishing effort. The paper underscores the increasing pressure fisheries are facing and how fishing at, or over, maximum sustainable yield leaves no margin for error. For example consider how deeply these factors would compound a viral or seasonal suppression of recruitment/survival.
-Chassot, Emmanuel. "Global marine primary production constrains fisheries catches." Ecology Letters 10 (2010): 495-505. ICON. Web. 13 Sept. 2011.
-Molyneaux, Paul. Swimming in Circles: Aquaculture and the End of Wild Oceans. New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press, 2007.
-Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Oceanus Vol 46 no.1 (2008): Print.
Thursday, November 12, 2015
Article review by Andrew Long
Article review by Andrew Long
Article: “Buyers offer reality check on pursuit of sustainable seafood.”
Author: Bob Tkacz
Source: Aquaculture North America Jan/Feb 2011.
In his report “Buyers offer reality check on pursuit of sustainable seafood,” following the 2010 Chinese Seafood Sustainability Summit, Bob Tkacz highlights some of the lectures and discussions at this year’s international forum for seafood farmers, buyers, traders, and retailers. The author suggests that the increasingly popular buzzword “sustainability,” is somewhat ambiguous for consumers and retailers alike. He illustrates this point well by contrasting the strategies implemented by two of North America’s largest seafood processors/retailers.
The development of Eco-labels, proliferated by environmental NGO’s, holds some intrinsic values of their own. Although it means different things in different markets, an unspecified market survey cited in the article shows that 80% of customers want more information on sustainability issues, and 90% of consumers were willing to switch to sustainably caught products. According to David Smith, president of Sobey’s Seafood, customers are savvier and the state of sustainably caught seafood is going from “nice-to-do” to “need-to-do.” Many feel that NGO certifications aren’t coming fast enough and good retailers know they must do their own homework to buy from fisheries that are at least on a trajectory towards sustainable catch.
Strategies for marketing to their clientele differs among retailers, some rely on eco-labels and consumer perception of sustainable practices, while others have deeper roots in the market. Sobey’s retail chain throughout Canada reports that they don’t rely on eco-labeling because they have a 100 year tradition in the industry, but they support sustainable practices to maintain their image among consumers. Corporations like Santa Monica Seafood however, cater to sophisticated clientele throughout southern California where eco-labels and sustainably caught products are key to image and sales. Despite their heavy reliance on eco-labels as part of their reputation, Santa Monica Seafood, as well as Sobey’s, maintains that if a product is legal they have to offer it in order to maintain relationships with suppliers and business among unscrupulous buyers such as individuals, restaurants, and the other retailers they supply.
The article cites industry projections by the Global Aquaculture Alliance, estimating unprecedented growth over the course of the next 10 years, largely due to the increased demand for seafood, which will make expansion of aquacultural operations feasible for many new species and regions. Tenured retailers know that such demand will also put pressure on traditional fisheries, and warn others not to paint themselves into a corner by pledging to eliminate non-certified products from their markets by specific dates.
Article: “Buyers offer reality check on pursuit of sustainable seafood.”
Author: Bob Tkacz
Source: Aquaculture North America Jan/Feb 2011.
In his report “Buyers offer reality check on pursuit of sustainable seafood,” following the 2010 Chinese Seafood Sustainability Summit, Bob Tkacz highlights some of the lectures and discussions at this year’s international forum for seafood farmers, buyers, traders, and retailers. The author suggests that the increasingly popular buzzword “sustainability,” is somewhat ambiguous for consumers and retailers alike. He illustrates this point well by contrasting the strategies implemented by two of North America’s largest seafood processors/retailers.
The development of Eco-labels, proliferated by environmental NGO’s, holds some intrinsic values of their own. Although it means different things in different markets, an unspecified market survey cited in the article shows that 80% of customers want more information on sustainability issues, and 90% of consumers were willing to switch to sustainably caught products. According to David Smith, president of Sobey’s Seafood, customers are savvier and the state of sustainably caught seafood is going from “nice-to-do” to “need-to-do.” Many feel that NGO certifications aren’t coming fast enough and good retailers know they must do their own homework to buy from fisheries that are at least on a trajectory towards sustainable catch.
Strategies for marketing to their clientele differs among retailers, some rely on eco-labels and consumer perception of sustainable practices, while others have deeper roots in the market. Sobey’s retail chain throughout Canada reports that they don’t rely on eco-labeling because they have a 100 year tradition in the industry, but they support sustainable practices to maintain their image among consumers. Corporations like Santa Monica Seafood however, cater to sophisticated clientele throughout southern California where eco-labels and sustainably caught products are key to image and sales. Despite their heavy reliance on eco-labels as part of their reputation, Santa Monica Seafood, as well as Sobey’s, maintains that if a product is legal they have to offer it in order to maintain relationships with suppliers and business among unscrupulous buyers such as individuals, restaurants, and the other retailers they supply.
The article cites industry projections by the Global Aquaculture Alliance, estimating unprecedented growth over the course of the next 10 years, largely due to the increased demand for seafood, which will make expansion of aquacultural operations feasible for many new species and regions. Tenured retailers know that such demand will also put pressure on traditional fisheries, and warn others not to paint themselves into a corner by pledging to eliminate non-certified products from their markets by specific dates.
Monday, February 20, 2012
Sustainability and marine ornamentals
I'm writing this because there is some interest and concern about the future of our hobby, and in highlighting these issues in a goal oriented fashion may be helpful for some to recognize the breadth of the task and challenges at hand. I will try to tackle this summation as frankly as possible while avoiding a fatalistic narrative, although I'm certain the cynic inside me will foreshadow the gravest scenarios.
Unfortunately the fact of the matter is that we stand at a cross roads in our hobby. Whether you subscribe to anthropogenic global climate change or not is irrelevant (let me know if you would like me to build this case with you privately, I'll allot you to find your own conclusion. Any rational person finds the analysis compelling, yet I digress). There is a siege of other issues facing our hobby on many fronts; economic, environmental, political, and social. There are few comprehensive, cohesive, and coherent analysises of the hard data surrounding our trade. Much of the information is based on collections of individual reports, or inferred from extrusions of small data sets, or improperly manipulated through non-parametric methods. Depending on the narrator some of the available data sets are just outright false. The only honest way to approach this data is at the broadest scale possible.
At present there are some 2600 species of marine organisms traded annually throughout the world. Of these merely 70 have been successfully bred and reared in captive conditions at least once. Even fewer are routienely or commercially produced, yet the formentioned conditions dictate that we make haste to supplant imported species. Naturally, this is a goal enthusiasts and professionals alike have had for years. For years organizations and businesses have attempted time and time again to lay the ground work for sustainable practices, fair trade, and eco-labeling campaigns. However due to a lack of consumer demand these efforts have gone unnoticed and have faded into obscurity. This is in stark contrast to the puchasing habits of sea food consumers who demand to know the impact of the foods they're purchasing. This isn't true in all market communities, however it is much more common than what is seen in the marine ornamental market. Presumably this is due to a simple lack of education, or perhaps due to suspicion among common reef keepers that introspection may force a guilty reprisal.
Fear not tho, our hobby is vessel for education, it is a means of sustainence for indigenous peoples, and generally speaking it is reasonably responsible. However there are many other challenges facing wild reefs and I'm calling on everyone in the community to step up and do better.
Question: why a call for action now? Because improvements in our techniques, technology, and the base of knowledge have led us to now. We have the capacity to reduce reliance on wild stocks, influence collector behavior, indemnify elements of our hobby for years to come, educate the public about the significance and importance of reef ecosystems, and to raise public awareness about the plight of wild reefs and our oceans. Ten years ago these objectives were only coming into focus, two decades ago they were virtually unthought of. Over this time much has changed despite us, but even more because of our efforts. Despite our actions reefs are inperiled for a variety of reasons including (and in no way limited to);
1.) Coastal development - which includes destruction of natural filters such as mangroves and estuary environments which act as nursuries for fish larvae. Pollution which includes chemical agents, nutrient loading, and sedimentation. All of these forces conspire to create fundamental changes in microbial composition, turbidity, benthic communities, and dissolved oxygen.
2.) Overfishing - a majority of fishing efforts are due to global food markets. Many
Unfortunately the fact of the matter is that we stand at a cross roads in our hobby. Whether you subscribe to anthropogenic global climate change or not is irrelevant (let me know if you would like me to build this case with you privately, I'll allot you to find your own conclusion. Any rational person finds the analysis compelling, yet I digress). There is a siege of other issues facing our hobby on many fronts; economic, environmental, political, and social. There are few comprehensive, cohesive, and coherent analysises of the hard data surrounding our trade. Much of the information is based on collections of individual reports, or inferred from extrusions of small data sets, or improperly manipulated through non-parametric methods. Depending on the narrator some of the available data sets are just outright false. The only honest way to approach this data is at the broadest scale possible.
At present there are some 2600 species of marine organisms traded annually throughout the world. Of these merely 70 have been successfully bred and reared in captive conditions at least once. Even fewer are routienely or commercially produced, yet the formentioned conditions dictate that we make haste to supplant imported species. Naturally, this is a goal enthusiasts and professionals alike have had for years. For years organizations and businesses have attempted time and time again to lay the ground work for sustainable practices, fair trade, and eco-labeling campaigns. However due to a lack of consumer demand these efforts have gone unnoticed and have faded into obscurity. This is in stark contrast to the puchasing habits of sea food consumers who demand to know the impact of the foods they're purchasing. This isn't true in all market communities, however it is much more common than what is seen in the marine ornamental market. Presumably this is due to a simple lack of education, or perhaps due to suspicion among common reef keepers that introspection may force a guilty reprisal.
Fear not tho, our hobby is vessel for education, it is a means of sustainence for indigenous peoples, and generally speaking it is reasonably responsible. However there are many other challenges facing wild reefs and I'm calling on everyone in the community to step up and do better.
Question: why a call for action now? Because improvements in our techniques, technology, and the base of knowledge have led us to now. We have the capacity to reduce reliance on wild stocks, influence collector behavior, indemnify elements of our hobby for years to come, educate the public about the significance and importance of reef ecosystems, and to raise public awareness about the plight of wild reefs and our oceans. Ten years ago these objectives were only coming into focus, two decades ago they were virtually unthought of. Over this time much has changed despite us, but even more because of our efforts. Despite our actions reefs are inperiled for a variety of reasons including (and in no way limited to);
1.) Coastal development - which includes destruction of natural filters such as mangroves and estuary environments which act as nursuries for fish larvae. Pollution which includes chemical agents, nutrient loading, and sedimentation. All of these forces conspire to create fundamental changes in microbial composition, turbidity, benthic communities, and dissolved oxygen.
2.) Overfishing - a majority of fishing efforts are due to global food markets. Many
Sunday, September 11, 2011
MACNA Reflections...
Wow, first off what a remarkable show you guys! The vendors are happy, sales are bangin, and people are exchanging information and ideas. At every table, in every isle there is a fellow reefer who has as much experience and dedication as I do, and everyone is receptive to casual (and not so casual) "fish talk." In fact, the talks I've had today have caused me great pause and reflection. But before throwing down the philosophical quandary of topics running through my mind, let me first begin by providing a chronicle of my journey today.
I began like everybody, overwhelmed with the gadgets and corals for sale and the immense size of the show room floor. This was utter paradise, although I was privy to the fact that Brad Raymer was there. I've been locked in a campaign against his show "Tanked" for a couple of weeks now, but moreover locked in a contemplation of our effect and responsibilities to our animals and to wild reefs. This notion set a precedence for my whole day. I said to myself, "I'm just going to go and have a good time and set that all aside," after all, I didn't want to get kicked out of MACNA! More on this later though. What I'd been waiting all year for, was to meet J.E.N. (Charlie) Veron.
I met up with a friend and colleague of mine, fellow GIRS member Matt Tibbs who is working on his pH.D (haha get it pH instead of Ph?) at the University of Iowa in the Department of Geosciences. Matt studies genetic variation between corals actually, and has access to a number laboratory equipment; sequencers, microscopes, computer programs, and such. Could there be a more appropriate friend to enjoy Veron's talk with?! The talk was about Reticulate Evolution, a complex new paradigm for the foundation evolutionary biology somewhat in contrary to Darwinian notions of gene flow mechanisms and the idea of "speciation." In any case, we approached Charlie after his talk and a number of us had the opportunity to chat and ask questions. I was surprised throughout the day, that not everybody I talked to was aware of the gravity of Dr. Verons work and experience. This is a man who began at the Australian Institute of Marine Science in the mid sixties with a background Ph.D in biology, and for 35 years officially, and now many more unofficially, witnessed first hand the decline of wild reefs day by day for a number of decades!!!
When we spoke with Charlie, he evoked the obligatory doctrine that reefs are dying and facing enormous, insurmountable perils throughout the world. By his and other estimates, most reefs have declined by 70% or more in the last 30 years, and that rate only seems to be accelerating. Pause: We hear this figure all the time...what does a reef declining by 70% mean? Imagine you had 10 large acropora colonies filling you 120 gallon tank, and remove 7 of them due to disease, bleaching, breaking, and wasting. Now what kind of condition do you imagine the remaining 3 to be in? Where do you're 15 fish sleep at night now? This all leads to stress. Stress of the fish communities, the coral communities. What's left is a deposition of dead coral skeletons, a rich substrate for bryopsis and the like, cyano perhaps, and then things start getting pretty hairy (literally) for the remaining corals. How many of you would throw in the towel after an episode like this? How many of you would try to improve your water quality or remove pests like acropora eating flat worms after an event like this? At this point, we have those two options; 1.) tell our children and the indigenous island communities that rely on reef fish as a primary source of food, that we quit. Meh, we're done with coral reefs, it was fun for a while, but now were into video games and fast cars, haha, hobbies you know?...!?!?!?! 2.) make the epic, important changes in environmental, political, industrial, and social policies to reduce ocean acidification, sedimentation, pollution, and over exploitation by drastically changing energy use and production, ending mangrove destruction and coastal development, address agricultural and industrial pollution, and setting effective and realistic limits on harvesting food species. It's a massive burden, almost impossible, but will we just wait until there's so much suffering, death, loss, and destruction that we just can't ignore it anymore? This is a call to action.
Charlie also recalled a talk he gave to climate scientists while he was working on or nearing the end of his book A Reef in Time: The Great Barrier Reef From Beginning to End. He said the precedence was that it was a new piece of work and that if anybody had something contrary to say, or wanted to point out anything he had missed or not made clear enough, that they should say so. After the lecture he had a discussion at length with a man he recalls as being quite brilliant and well versed in climate science. Charlie asked him, "you know, I'm sorry who are you again?" The man reveals that he's an executive for Exxon and edits climate talks for politicians, "W" to be exact. Charlie though, how could this guy possibly live with himself, with the deceit and manipulation of facts in the face of it all. Naturally, a seven figure salary dispelled all wonder.
So...what does all of this say about us? At what point do these thoughts begin reverberating at a frequency as to cause an echo, such that we might hear ourselves, inventory our thoughts, and buy or sell that stock (to the highest bidder)? What are the implications of all this, what are the consequences, and who among us is capable of addressing these things with honesty and integrity? I know it's time for me to.
I had an opportunity to address Brett Raymer at the end of the day. I've been moderating a boycott group on Facebook, writing emails to ATM, Discovery Network, and Animal Planet, as well as calling the Discovery Network and posting on public forum discussions. I've had a lot to say in the last few weeks about Tanked. If I could sum it up, this is pretty much the core of it;
"Please join me in boycotting the show "Tanked." The program is a reality TV show about Acrylic Tank Acrylic Tank Manufacturing in Las Vegas. This company panders to the needs of wealthy folks who see marine aquariums as a novelty, and not as a responsibility. It's important for the PR of our hobby and skills that this show is not allowed to proceed. Activists will see this show for what it is, a perversion of nature, and assume that marine aquarists everywhere are this farcical and trifling.
Our hobby already stands at a segway between environmental degradation and pending legislation put forth by humanitarians who detest our activities. It's important that we draw the line here and show the world that we stand as stewards of our livestock and share common ground with those who protest our industry. This is an opportunity to show that we care, maintain, obsess, and respect our livestock in a capacity that is far beyond a novelty. This is a life style, this is a responsibility, this is an obsession, and our community of like-minded individuals are the majority of keepers out there, and we deserve access to these animals because WE truly care. "
I was running around the show room floor taking last minute pictures of booths when I passed by Mark Vera and Brett, I don't think I even saw either one of them, but I heard a tone in Marks voice, and I felt something in the air. I stopped and backed up. They were talking exactly about this very thing in a sort of way, what responsibilities does Brett have as the face of the aquarium industry to the masses? In hindsight, I was too understanding and reasonable with the guy, but I'm not a fighter, I'm an intellectual, and this guy could have taken me! But I threw down anyways, or rather chimed in. Things got pretty hot fast between Mark and Brett, so I switched rolls to moderate the exchange. I was even sympathetic to Bretts disposition, as a business man, having little creative control over the show. Brett put the responsibility of new aquarists on retailers all over the United States, which in a lot of ways is reasonable, but unfortunately not pragmatic since as we know not all LFS's are that great...most aren't. But let's face it clients are manipulative too, some of them are just goddamn determined to kills something! I asked Brett to address these grievances in the upcoming season, and make a show that we can enjoy too!!! He agreed to that in uncertain terms. I later learned that Brett has agreed to make improvements to the Central Campus marine biology lab which I think is fantastic! Anyways, we all made nice and went on our way. I think Mark was a little peeved at me for being too jovial with Raymer, I just didn't want to see anything get out of hand. I sincerely hope Brett will make changes that we can all embrace, that makes us proud of our work, our dedication, and our hobby. MACNA is OUR event.
At dinner I had an exchange with some friends, and I began to "digest" the day. David Hannah was speaking, I couldn't hear him. People were talking and the sound system wasn't loud enough, I was pretty disappointed. But I tried to hear what he had to say anyhow. The summation of the speech was that he believed in the power of aquariums to bring conservation and political will to the masses. Strange, I though. In a room full of people who are being rude and basically ignoring you, you have faith in us as stewards of our animals and as messengers of the plight of the reefs (and indeed the worlds oceans). And it hit me, it all goes back to what Charlie was saying about the Exxon executive, and I wondered, "is this moral bankruptcy?" Raymers objectives are purely economic, and fail to observe the long view, what impact does this have on wild reefs? What impact will new hobbyists have? What impact do we already have...really? What condition are wild reefs in now and will there continue to be an aquarium industry in 15 or 20 years anyways? Disturbingly, for a moment I allotted an economic explanation.....excuse, to justify the actions of a guy that makes 7 figures a year. Somewhere between fiscal responsibility and moral responsibility a line must be drawn. Brett Raymer and his clients are the guys driving Humvees, building coastal developments, using wayy to much fertilizer on their lawns, and maintaining the status quo that is destroying our planet.
Right there! It all comes full circle and nothing could be clearer. Are we all just another part of the machine? With our obsession for gadgets and our perverse desire only for the colorful and "good looking" corals. Many marvel not in the biology, the physiology, and natural history of these animals.....but just the colors. No. We've got to be more than this, the time has come for us to bring much more attention to the plight of reefs, protect, conserve, educate, and call for very serious fundamental changes. I won't be standing idly.
In deepest reflection,
ANdy Long
I began like everybody, overwhelmed with the gadgets and corals for sale and the immense size of the show room floor. This was utter paradise, although I was privy to the fact that Brad Raymer was there. I've been locked in a campaign against his show "Tanked" for a couple of weeks now, but moreover locked in a contemplation of our effect and responsibilities to our animals and to wild reefs. This notion set a precedence for my whole day. I said to myself, "I'm just going to go and have a good time and set that all aside," after all, I didn't want to get kicked out of MACNA! More on this later though. What I'd been waiting all year for, was to meet J.E.N. (Charlie) Veron.
I met up with a friend and colleague of mine, fellow GIRS member Matt Tibbs who is working on his pH.D (haha get it pH instead of Ph?) at the University of Iowa in the Department of Geosciences. Matt studies genetic variation between corals actually, and has access to a number laboratory equipment; sequencers, microscopes, computer programs, and such. Could there be a more appropriate friend to enjoy Veron's talk with?! The talk was about Reticulate Evolution, a complex new paradigm for the foundation evolutionary biology somewhat in contrary to Darwinian notions of gene flow mechanisms and the idea of "speciation." In any case, we approached Charlie after his talk and a number of us had the opportunity to chat and ask questions. I was surprised throughout the day, that not everybody I talked to was aware of the gravity of Dr. Verons work and experience. This is a man who began at the Australian Institute of Marine Science in the mid sixties with a background Ph.D in biology, and for 35 years officially, and now many more unofficially, witnessed first hand the decline of wild reefs day by day for a number of decades!!!
When we spoke with Charlie, he evoked the obligatory doctrine that reefs are dying and facing enormous, insurmountable perils throughout the world. By his and other estimates, most reefs have declined by 70% or more in the last 30 years, and that rate only seems to be accelerating. Pause: We hear this figure all the time...what does a reef declining by 70% mean? Imagine you had 10 large acropora colonies filling you 120 gallon tank, and remove 7 of them due to disease, bleaching, breaking, and wasting. Now what kind of condition do you imagine the remaining 3 to be in? Where do you're 15 fish sleep at night now? This all leads to stress. Stress of the fish communities, the coral communities. What's left is a deposition of dead coral skeletons, a rich substrate for bryopsis and the like, cyano perhaps, and then things start getting pretty hairy (literally) for the remaining corals. How many of you would throw in the towel after an episode like this? How many of you would try to improve your water quality or remove pests like acropora eating flat worms after an event like this? At this point, we have those two options; 1.) tell our children and the indigenous island communities that rely on reef fish as a primary source of food, that we quit. Meh, we're done with coral reefs, it was fun for a while, but now were into video games and fast cars, haha, hobbies you know?...!?!?!?! 2.) make the epic, important changes in environmental, political, industrial, and social policies to reduce ocean acidification, sedimentation, pollution, and over exploitation by drastically changing energy use and production, ending mangrove destruction and coastal development, address agricultural and industrial pollution, and setting effective and realistic limits on harvesting food species. It's a massive burden, almost impossible, but will we just wait until there's so much suffering, death, loss, and destruction that we just can't ignore it anymore? This is a call to action.
Charlie also recalled a talk he gave to climate scientists while he was working on or nearing the end of his book A Reef in Time: The Great Barrier Reef From Beginning to End. He said the precedence was that it was a new piece of work and that if anybody had something contrary to say, or wanted to point out anything he had missed or not made clear enough, that they should say so. After the lecture he had a discussion at length with a man he recalls as being quite brilliant and well versed in climate science. Charlie asked him, "you know, I'm sorry who are you again?" The man reveals that he's an executive for Exxon and edits climate talks for politicians, "W" to be exact. Charlie though, how could this guy possibly live with himself, with the deceit and manipulation of facts in the face of it all. Naturally, a seven figure salary dispelled all wonder.
So...what does all of this say about us? At what point do these thoughts begin reverberating at a frequency as to cause an echo, such that we might hear ourselves, inventory our thoughts, and buy or sell that stock (to the highest bidder)? What are the implications of all this, what are the consequences, and who among us is capable of addressing these things with honesty and integrity? I know it's time for me to.
I had an opportunity to address Brett Raymer at the end of the day. I've been moderating a boycott group on Facebook, writing emails to ATM, Discovery Network, and Animal Planet, as well as calling the Discovery Network and posting on public forum discussions. I've had a lot to say in the last few weeks about Tanked. If I could sum it up, this is pretty much the core of it;
"Please join me in boycotting the show "Tanked." The program is a reality TV show about Acrylic Tank Acrylic Tank Manufacturing in Las Vegas. This company panders to the needs of wealthy folks who see marine aquariums as a novelty, and not as a responsibility. It's important for the PR of our hobby and skills that this show is not allowed to proceed. Activists will see this show for what it is, a perversion of nature, and assume that marine aquarists everywhere are this farcical and trifling.
Our hobby already stands at a segway between environmental degradation and pending legislation put forth by humanitarians who detest our activities. It's important that we draw the line here and show the world that we stand as stewards of our livestock and share common ground with those who protest our industry. This is an opportunity to show that we care, maintain, obsess, and respect our livestock in a capacity that is far beyond a novelty. This is a life style, this is a responsibility, this is an obsession, and our community of like-minded individuals are the majority of keepers out there, and we deserve access to these animals because WE truly care. "
I was running around the show room floor taking last minute pictures of booths when I passed by Mark Vera and Brett, I don't think I even saw either one of them, but I heard a tone in Marks voice, and I felt something in the air. I stopped and backed up. They were talking exactly about this very thing in a sort of way, what responsibilities does Brett have as the face of the aquarium industry to the masses? In hindsight, I was too understanding and reasonable with the guy, but I'm not a fighter, I'm an intellectual, and this guy could have taken me! But I threw down anyways, or rather chimed in. Things got pretty hot fast between Mark and Brett, so I switched rolls to moderate the exchange. I was even sympathetic to Bretts disposition, as a business man, having little creative control over the show. Brett put the responsibility of new aquarists on retailers all over the United States, which in a lot of ways is reasonable, but unfortunately not pragmatic since as we know not all LFS's are that great...most aren't. But let's face it clients are manipulative too, some of them are just goddamn determined to kills something! I asked Brett to address these grievances in the upcoming season, and make a show that we can enjoy too!!! He agreed to that in uncertain terms. I later learned that Brett has agreed to make improvements to the Central Campus marine biology lab which I think is fantastic! Anyways, we all made nice and went on our way. I think Mark was a little peeved at me for being too jovial with Raymer, I just didn't want to see anything get out of hand. I sincerely hope Brett will make changes that we can all embrace, that makes us proud of our work, our dedication, and our hobby. MACNA is OUR event.
At dinner I had an exchange with some friends, and I began to "digest" the day. David Hannah was speaking, I couldn't hear him. People were talking and the sound system wasn't loud enough, I was pretty disappointed. But I tried to hear what he had to say anyhow. The summation of the speech was that he believed in the power of aquariums to bring conservation and political will to the masses. Strange, I though. In a room full of people who are being rude and basically ignoring you, you have faith in us as stewards of our animals and as messengers of the plight of the reefs (and indeed the worlds oceans). And it hit me, it all goes back to what Charlie was saying about the Exxon executive, and I wondered, "is this moral bankruptcy?" Raymers objectives are purely economic, and fail to observe the long view, what impact does this have on wild reefs? What impact will new hobbyists have? What impact do we already have...really? What condition are wild reefs in now and will there continue to be an aquarium industry in 15 or 20 years anyways? Disturbingly, for a moment I allotted an economic explanation.....excuse, to justify the actions of a guy that makes 7 figures a year. Somewhere between fiscal responsibility and moral responsibility a line must be drawn. Brett Raymer and his clients are the guys driving Humvees, building coastal developments, using wayy to much fertilizer on their lawns, and maintaining the status quo that is destroying our planet.
Right there! It all comes full circle and nothing could be clearer. Are we all just another part of the machine? With our obsession for gadgets and our perverse desire only for the colorful and "good looking" corals. Many marvel not in the biology, the physiology, and natural history of these animals.....but just the colors. No. We've got to be more than this, the time has come for us to bring much more attention to the plight of reefs, protect, conserve, educate, and call for very serious fundamental changes. I won't be standing idly.
In deepest reflection,
ANdy Long
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Disaster Strikes Andy's Reef!!!
Last night 9:50pm my wife calls me frantically from home while I'm at work. "The aquarium is cloudy I litterally can't see through it at all!!!"
I take off 10 minutes early to rush home and figure out what has happened, I have a hunch that the autotop off system has failed and there has been a kalkwasser (lime water) overdose. Sure enough! Luckily only 1/2 gallon of super saturated limewater was pumped into the tank, however, the situation is still quite dire!
I pull water parameters immediately. pH >9 kh~10, so I immediately seek to bring the pH back down to 8.5.
I always have white distilled vinegar on hand for cleaning calcified deposits out of pumps and equipment. Vinegar is acetic acid (CH3COOH <--> CH3COO + H) which should work to lower the pH by increasing hydrogen concentration. I'm working with a 5% concentration of acetic acid.
It's also important to realize that by bacterial processes the remaining CH3COO- will metabolize this organic compound in the following manner; CH3COO- + O2 <--> 2CO2 + H2O + OH- <---> CO2 + H2O + HCO3-
The net result is that an initial addition of acetic acid will produce a drop in pH while the metabolized products will also produce a further drop in pH. Thus it's important not to over shoot the target pH and become overzealous or panic stricken with vinegar additions! Fortunately the metabolized reaction also produces a proportional amount of carbonate to replenish alkalinity lost during the initial dosage.
So what's my next step? I followed some advice offered by Randy Holmes Farley to prevent myself from doing a spot of painful stochiometry in a frantic situation. His recommendation is to use 1ml 5% white distilled vinegar/ gallon of tank water to yeild an initial 0.3 change in pH. Later through metabolic processes an additional 0.3 change.
So I slowly added the vinegar to the sump and at about 10pm had a pH of about 8.65. Then ran to the store for beer (it was going to be a long night) and around 11:30pm I was @ 8.35, things were starting to look a little better;
Finally this morning a fresh batch of salt water I mixed over night (I spent most of the time waiting for my RO system to fill my 35 gallon trash can up) I got in a 35 gallon water change, although things were looking much better already, pH 7.9 (typical) kH~ 3 (too low), after the water change the kH went up to 5, and I was pleased with that for now; (overexposure)
In a couple of days I'm hoping things will be back to normal. Things are looking pretty good, I had one casualty in my frag tank, a royal gramma basslett :( and some corals were looking a little rough around the edges. But as of this afternoon things are looking unscathed really, almost really great aside from all the white residue on the walls. I'm hoping I'll get back to this soon;
Wish me luck!!!!
I take off 10 minutes early to rush home and figure out what has happened, I have a hunch that the autotop off system has failed and there has been a kalkwasser (lime water) overdose. Sure enough! Luckily only 1/2 gallon of super saturated limewater was pumped into the tank, however, the situation is still quite dire!
I pull water parameters immediately. pH >9 kh~10, so I immediately seek to bring the pH back down to 8.5.
I always have white distilled vinegar on hand for cleaning calcified deposits out of pumps and equipment. Vinegar is acetic acid (CH3COOH <--> CH3COO + H) which should work to lower the pH by increasing hydrogen concentration. I'm working with a 5% concentration of acetic acid.
It's also important to realize that by bacterial processes the remaining CH3COO- will metabolize this organic compound in the following manner; CH3COO- + O2 <--> 2CO2 + H2O + OH- <---> CO2 + H2O + HCO3-
The net result is that an initial addition of acetic acid will produce a drop in pH while the metabolized products will also produce a further drop in pH. Thus it's important not to over shoot the target pH and become overzealous or panic stricken with vinegar additions! Fortunately the metabolized reaction also produces a proportional amount of carbonate to replenish alkalinity lost during the initial dosage.
So what's my next step? I followed some advice offered by Randy Holmes Farley to prevent myself from doing a spot of painful stochiometry in a frantic situation. His recommendation is to use 1ml 5% white distilled vinegar/ gallon of tank water to yeild an initial 0.3 change in pH. Later through metabolic processes an additional 0.3 change.
So I slowly added the vinegar to the sump and at about 10pm had a pH of about 8.65. Then ran to the store for beer (it was going to be a long night) and around 11:30pm I was @ 8.35, things were starting to look a little better;
Finally this morning a fresh batch of salt water I mixed over night (I spent most of the time waiting for my RO system to fill my 35 gallon trash can up) I got in a 35 gallon water change, although things were looking much better already, pH 7.9 (typical) kH~ 3 (too low), after the water change the kH went up to 5, and I was pleased with that for now; (overexposure)
In a couple of days I'm hoping things will be back to normal. Things are looking pretty good, I had one casualty in my frag tank, a royal gramma basslett :( and some corals were looking a little rough around the edges. But as of this afternoon things are looking unscathed really, almost really great aside from all the white residue on the walls. I'm hoping I'll get back to this soon;
Wish me luck!!!!
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Probiotics and Bacterial Driven Systems (A Regurgitated Presentation I Put Together Months Ago (My Apologies))
Page 4 Text (Loading Error Cannot be Resolved)
How Do Bacterial Driven Systems Accomplish This?
Driving a biological reaction is much like baking a cake, in that different components in different amounts are needed to produce the final product.
2 eggs + 1/2 sugar + 2 cup flour cake
Some well established studies show that many forms of marine bacteria and phytoplankton (bacterioplankton) utilize:
106 carbon + 10 nitrogen + 1 phosphorous
Although different species assimilate in many different variations of ratios.
The limiting reagent in these reactions is free, unbound organic carbon. While it’s true that there are many aromatic rings, long chain fatty acids, saccardies and other components throughout the water system, elemental carbon is essential to bacteria for driving their biological reactions, and in the aquarium, carbon is a limiting component.
Photo Credits: Brian Lentz, Andy Long, www.hausriff.ch
References:
-Coral Magazine
-Smith, Robert L., Thomas M. Smith. Ecology and Field Biology. Benjamin Cummings. New York, 2001.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Are There Viable Alternatives for Aquaculture Feeds?
Abstract
Although aquaculture is a controversial industry, ecology dictates that wild fish are a finite resource. Increase demand for seafood has, and continues to decimate wild fisheries, necessitating the expansion of aquaculture to supplant these markets. Among all agriculturally produced meats, fish yield the best value at the lowest cost. However, in a world where commodities are growing ever scarcer, agriculturalists are competing in a global market for the raw materials required to produce livestock feeds. One of the most valuable commodities is fishmeal and fish oil which is required for optimal health and growth of farm raised fish. As costs of fishmeal have continued to sky rocket over the course of the last 20 years, aquaculturalists look to alternative resources to feed their live stock in order to keep their products competitively priced.
Background
Aquaculture feeds are pellet meals that are the staple diet of farm raised fish which are destined for the dinner table. The feed is comprised of barley, wheat, soy and DDGS (dried grains with soluble a by-product of ethanol production), which are used for their protein, carbohydrates, and lipid content. The largest dietary component of these feeds however, is fishmeal and fish oil, which yield a high proportion of protein, important omega-3 fatty acids, and enhance palatability. Feeds used in the production of swine, poultry, and beef products are also derived from these types of ingredients, including fishmeal and fish oils. Thus each of these agricultural industries is competing for the same commodities.
Pure fishmeal is an important ingredient for aquaculture feeds because it provides the nutritional components required for fast and normal growth of cultured species that are used for human consumption such as salmon, trout, tilapia, catfish, carp (very popular in China), and shrimp. Currently more than 50% of the seafood consumed globally is derived from farm raised sources (NOAA/USDA 2010). Traditionally, fishmeals that comprise the feeds provided to these cultured specimens have been resourced from wild bait fish such as pilchard, sardines, mullet, capelin, herring, and anchovies from fisheries throughout the world. These are resources which aren’t particularly abundant in North American waters with a few exceptions. Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, nearly all of these baitfish fisheries are over exploited and many are deemed to be on the brink of collapse (Molyneaux, 2007).
Regardless, demand for seafood will rise, as fish are consumed as a luxury in some parts of the world, just as well as fish are consumed for sustenance throughout most of the rest of the world. It is estimated that more than 2 billion people rely on fish as their primary source of dietary protein. Fish are healthy foods which provide omega-3 fatty acids which are scarcely found in other natural or synthetic products. Best of all, the feed conversion ratio of fish is much greater than that of other agricultural animals (Molyneaux, 2007). The feed conversion ratio is a measurement of how much edible meat is produced per amount of feed supplied, the conversion of most fish is near 4 pounds of feed per 1 pound of fish. Other agricultural products don’t even come close, the most absurd comparison of 80:1 ratio for beef, and the best being 13:1 ratio in poultry.
Complicating matters further, feed meals are global commodities that are traded and sold to processors, wholesalers, and private resellers. Although gross national production of many of these commodities is high in the United States, much of these products are consumed throughout the North American market. Aquaculturalists must compete for ingredients against traditional agriculturalists, ethanol producers, direct grain consumption, and pet feeds. The most expensive component however, is the fishmeal that remains a staple ingredient in these compound feeds. Unfortunately the United States is a small player in the production of aquacultured products, and has suffered greatly in the global market, especially in the trade of fishmeal and fish oil (NOAA/USDA 2010).
Fortunately, cost of fishmeal, combined with an increasing national market for seafood products has spurred interest in the research and development of fishmeal alternatives derived from less volatile commodities. Currently, the alternative feeds program is still in the research and preliminary development stages, and recently there have been a number of reports released about the findings of feeds derived almost wholly from soy, rapeseed, and DDGS.
Additionally, researchers are looking at the bounty of fish processing by-products and by-catch, some of which is already used as fertilizers. It is questionable whether or not these by-products are a viable alternative because of specific metabolite problems of using bone rich fishmeal, but researchers may find a way to process the meal into a digestible alternative. The present thought is to replace whole fishmeal in aqua feeds with processed by-catch fishmeal, and increasing amounts of plant proteins.
Analysis
By-Product and By-Catch
In order to examine the feasibility of alternative feeds we must objectify the options quantitatively and qualitatively. Quantitative analysis is perhaps is of foremost importance because if fishmeal weren’t already a scarce commodity, alternatives wouldn’t be necessary, or even economically feasible. Of the 6.2-6.5 million metric tons of fishmeal produced annually, over 50% is used to produce aquafeeds, and over 85% of the 1.2 mmt of fish oil produced in the processing of fishmeal is used in aquafeeds (Hardy, 2008). To supplant this resource entirely is a daunting proposition. However, current estimations of by-product and by-catch alone are equal to the annual landings that are used to produce the current 6.5 mmt of fishmeal and 1.2 mmt of fish oil (Hardy, 2008). Thus, if by-catch and by-products were recovered we would double the amount of annual landings! The proposition of using by-catch and by-products for fishmeal production is not without obstacle however, the legality of fish by-catch as a resource, and the metabolic challenges facing animals on diets comprised of by-product need to be addressed by lawmakers, researchers and bioengineers.
By-catch is the catch of untargeted species during ocean fishing, typically dealt with by throwing hooked or netted fish (or other animals) overboard back into the ocean. This is particularly problematic for one particular reason; these animals are always dead or will die after the catch. The untargeted animal has been hooked on a long line for long hours or even days, inducing stress, and preventing respiration entirely for obligate ram ventilators such as mackerels and sharks. Fish rapidly dragged from the depths in nets bloat due to the expansion of gasses in their swim bladder, this damages internal organs and prevents the animal from diving back into the sea. It seems a real shame to fishermen to toss these animals overboard because of seasonal restrictions and laws preventing their harvest. However, allowing the capture of by-catch may lead to abuse of non-target species.
Concerning the preservation and capture of by-product fishmeal, there are both logistic and metabolic barriers to implementing effective feed production. As per metabolic barriers, the quality and composition of by-product fishmeal is significantly different from concentrated protein captured from whole fillets. Particular concern is given to the increased calcium and phosphorous constituents of by-product meal because it has high amounts of bone and cartilage. This is problematic because calcium and phosphorous are soluble in acidic environments like the stomach, but when passed into the relatively more basic environment of the intestine where absorption of nutrients actually occurs, the calcium and phosphate aggregate and fall out of dissolution. This surplus of cations concentrated in the intestinal lumen bind anions, especially zinc, and result in nutritional deficiencies (Hardy, 2008). Thus logistically, by-product must be processed in a separate fashion from whole fillet fishmeal. Consequently there must be enough by-products in quantity and continuously of which to process in order to make processing plants economical. For many localities, limited fishing seasons restricts the frequency and quantity of landings throughout the greater part of the year, and most landings are not concentrated in any specific area. This stresses the capacity of processors to build and maintain separate by-product processing plants, necessitating that seasonal whole meal processors rework existing plants to facultatively process by-product.
Plant Alternatives
The proposition of replacing fishmeal protein with plant protein feeds offer attractive cost incentives to farmers, and promising opportunities for feed developers. The protein meal alternatives include copra, cottonseed, palm kernel, peanut, rapeseed, soybeans, sunflower seed, terrestrial animal, and DDGS. The most abundant by far is soy which accounts for an annual 175 mmt, followed by rapeseed and DDGS tied for annual gross production at about 35-40 mmt each (Allen). To illustrate the cost advantage of plant derived protein feeds over fishmeal, it should be mentioned that although fishmeal trades on average only about twice as expensive as soybean meal, the soybean has traded at a relatively stable and slowly rising price of around $300/metric ton. By comparison, fishmeal trades on average near $750/mt, however the fishmeal market has been an increasingly volatile, trading as high as $2000/mt over the course of the last 5 years (Allen).
Additional consideration must be given to the fact that protein, the component of all feeds that gives rise to growth, constitutes 68% of the dry weight of fishmeal, whereas protein constitutes just 45% of the dry weight of soybean meal. Retrospective analysis yields that the market value of soybean meal then averages somewhere near $650/mt in crude protein, and fishmeal yields closer to $1100/mt respectively. This analysis still maintains a significant spread, and champions soybean protein as the economical alternative, but what about other plant derived proteins?
In terms of gross production, there are only three plant derived feeds to consider, soybean, rapeseed, and DDGS. The feed production of other crops is negligible, and the ethanol industry presents a significant barrier to harnessing corn meal as an economical alternative. However DDGS, dried distiller’s grains with solubles, is a low cost by-product from the production of ethanol, derived from spent stock of corn starch and grain sorghum. Protein in DDGS only accounts for a mere 30% of the feed, but cost on basis of crude protein is just 500/mt. Some analysts suggest that the amount of crude protein produced could be enhanced by fractionating the protein, fiber and oil prior to the distilling process.
Another promising development among plant derived feeds comes from a few small research groups suggest the culture of marine micro and macro algae as alternative sources for feed protein with the added advantage that these feeds are high in omega-3 fatty acids (NOAA/USDA, 2010). Qualitatively these studies show promising benefits of marine proteins, quantitatively, these resources are currently very small and will require much development if they are to contribute significantly as fishmeal alternatives.
Preliminary Studies
Now that we’ve established that there are quantifiable and equitable shares of plant derived protein to supplant fishmeal production, what about the qualitative, metabolic results of these feeds when used in aquaculture production? Preliminary research has been spearheaded by independent aquafarms throughout the world, as well as universities throughout the United States, including the University of North Carolina Wilmington which is home to one of the nation’s largest aquaculture laboratories. Without going into specific details, the consensus among four studies presented in a paper published by the NOAA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture was that aquafeeds must maintain some amount of fish or krill meal to remain palatable for cultured fish, and although feed conversion ratios of soy meal diets were greater than fishmeal conversion ratios, the fish in each of these studies had 10% slower growth rates compared to control groups on traditional feeds (NOAA/USDA, 2010).
Implications
Reduction of only 10% seems menial, but this represents significant logistic challenges and risks for aquaculturalists. This translates to longer turnaround time, reduces gross productivity and delays in hatchery and grow-out, and increases the input of feed, antibiotics, antiseptics, prophylactics, fuel, and electricity (Engle, 2010). Any improvements in feed conversion ratios or initial savings on feed may amount to net bust or worse, thus alternative feeds may not be enticing to established aquafarms which face recalibration in the process of converting to alternative feeds. New farms will need to take a calculative approach to make alternative feeds economical in the long run. Fortunately mass production of alternative feeds will make their use more economical for aquaculturalists.
Conclusion
While there is still much room for improvement in the formulation of plant derived feeds for aquaculture, the good news is quantitatively, the material resources are available to draw from. Some radical alternatives like algae meal may lead to development of whole new industries for entrepreneurs with true grit to expand upon. Taken together, the United States stands to gain considerably by harnessing opportunities in developing domestic aquaculture production, utilizing existing feed processing technology to supply domestic and foreign markets, and by developing new and existing agricultural resources in alternative feed production.
Based on increased demand for fishmeal over the course of the last decade, inevitably we will soon face, and in many cases already are, barriers that prevent increases of gross production from natural resources. In fact, in many fisheries annual landings are shrinking considerably. This condition will only serve to drive the cost of fishmeal and fish oil even higher, necessitating the recovery of by-catch and by-product and enhancing incentives for the exploration of alternatives. The burden will fall on everyone from small fishing vessels, feed producers, lawmakers, researchers, and independent fish farmers to make the necessary changes and developments that make the production of high quality seafood available and affordable for consumers around the world.
References
-Allen, Geoff. "Sustainable Aquaculture Feeds." NSW Government/Port Stephens Fisheries Institute. Accessed February 22, 2011. http://www.gaalliance.org/update/GOAL10/Allan.pdf.
-Engle, Carole R. Aquaculture Economics and Financing. Singapore: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.
-Hardy, Ronald W. "USDA ARS/CSREES Aquaculture Stakeholder Workshop Fish, Feed & Nutrition." Aquaculture, March 2008, 37-40.
-Hardy, Ronald W. "Seafood Processing Waste And By-Catch: Underutilized Resources Or Lost Cause?." Aquaculture, January 2008, 37-40.
-Molyneaux, Paul. Swimming in Circles: Aquaculture and the End of Wild Oceans. New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press, 2007.
-NOAA/USDA Alternative Feeds Initiative. "The Future of Aquafeeds." Accessed February 20, 2011. http://aquaculture.noaa.gov/pdf/feeds/aquafeedsrept_nov2010.pdf.
-USDA and Foreign Agricultural Services. "Oilseeds: World Markets and Trade." Accessed February 26, 2011. http://www.fas.usda.gov/oilseeds/circular/2010/December/oilseedsfull12-10.pdf.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)