New paper on fish collection in Sulawesi

[Jay Hemdal]

This paper came out today:

Swanson, S.S., Gutierrez, E., Moore, A.M. et al. Catching Dory: selling aquarium fish supports coastal livelihoods in Indonesia. npj Ocean Sustain 3, 5 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44183-023-00033-7

Some takeaways for me: Of the two species examined, P. hepatus tangs were reported to be collected with cyanide, but yellow Gobiodon (80% of the fish traded) were not. I think that is incorrect. I cannot imagine catching Gobiodon that pays pennies and lives deep in coral colonies, without using cyanide. I did read later on that the gobies are sometimes collected by lifting the entire coral head into the boat and shaking it out - not very sustainable either.

Fishers in this region are reported to, on average earn 20% of their income from catching aquarium fish, so kind of like Doordash for many people in the US? I think this may work against the idea that sustainability in the marine aquarium trade, includes supporting people in the range countries. That is often used as an argument against captive propagation of marine fish - that the process will take away people's livelihood. Since fishing for aquarium species only makes up 20% of the income of the few people in the area who do participate in the process, captive raised fish being sold would have minimal impact on the GDP of these people.

Jay

 

[cdemoss01]

What does this mean exactly?

 

[Js.Aqua.Project]

So it's a long read, trying to summarize it simply isn't quite as succinct as I'd like it to be but here goes...

The article follows a bunch of fishers, buyers, and traders in Indonesia (Bangaii) and their collection practices and quantities of fishes (primarily the Blue Hippo Tang Paracanthurus hepatus and Yellow Goby Gobiodon okinawae to track the income of these individuals. While they find that they collect a lot more gobies (~80% of traded fish) than Blue Tangs (~20%) -there are some others in there but so insignificant as to not include- that the Blue Tangs value still makes up 87% of the revenue compared to the Yellow Gobies at 13%.

However, they conclude that the majority of these fishers are not using the Marine Aquarium Trade as their primary means of income (as to where it seems the buyers/traders are) and these fish on average will only make up 20% of the income per fisher.

There are some anomalies though, to throw out specific numbers from the research:
Average yearly household income in USD $1470
Average yearly income per fisher $288
Highest paid fisher $6540 - so definitely can live solely on the collection for the aquarium trade
Lowest paid fisher(s) $1.74 - there were 4 who only sold once, probably incidental catches but impact the stats

In one graph in the article the top 15 (of the 100 people followed) make up 43% of the total earnings, of them 7 make more than the average yearly household income amount and the rest are very close.

I can see the usefulness of this research and data, but I would like the drill down that I haven't found yet in it of how many of these individuals are doing this for their living verse supplemental income.

They authors state "By identifying that, on average, the MAT contributed 20% of gross income for individuals participating in the trade and nearly 17% after accounting for fuel costs, we show that the supplemental income derived from aquarium fish is substantial."

Just like it would for me, as I have my primary salaried position and then other jobs I do for supplemental income. If you were to take away those supplemental jobs my lifestyle would change drastically.

For some of these people if you take away the income generated by the Marine Aquarium Trade you would take away their livelihoods altogether.

 

[areefer01]

Some takeaways for me: Of the two species examined, P. hepatus tangs were reported to be collected with cyanide, but yellow Gobiodon (80% of the fish traded) were not. I think that is incorrect. I cannot imagine catching Gobiodon that pays pennies and lives deep in coral colonies, without using cyanide. I did read later on that the gobies are sometimes collected by lifting the entire coral head into the boat and shaking it out - not very sustainable either.

The Gobies are captive bred and/or raised now I thought. I recently saw Biota offering them but I forget the source. Turning the coral upside down is, well, rather destructible and in no way sustainable as you noted. In fact the picture in my head of someone doing this is rather funny in the larger picture it isn't.

Fishers in this region are reported to, on average earn 20% of their income from catching aquarium fish, so kind of like Doordash for many people in the US? I think this may work against the idea that sustainability in the marine aquarium trade, includes supporting people in the range countries. That is often used as an argument against captive propagation of marine fish - that the process will take away people's livelihood. Since fishing for aquarium species only makes up 20% of the income of the few people in the area who do participate in the process, captive raised fish being sold would have minimal impact on the GDP of these people.

Jay

Seems like a time when government subsidies could be used. Also a hard look at to see what the problem or problems are. There are only so many opportunities to earn money on small islands.

 

[Js.Aqua.Project]

The Gobies are captive bred and/or raised now I thought. I recently saw Biota offering them but I forget the source. Turning the coral upside down is, well, rather destructible and in no way sustainable as you noted. In fact the picture in my head of someone doing this is rather funny in the larger picture it isn't.




Seems like a time when government subsidies could be used. Also a hard look at to see what the problem or problems are. There are only so many opportunities to earn money on small islands.

A lot of fish are being captive bred these days but most aquaculture facilities can't keep up with the demand being put on them yet.

When I think of aquacultured marine fish right now I think of ORA, Biota, Sustainable Aquatics, and POMA Labs. There are some other small ones that constantly seem to come and go but those four seem to be the main players in the industry and I don't think they could offset the demand the way we would like to think they could.

 

[areefer01]

A lot of fish are being captive bred these days but most aquaculture facilities can't keep up with the demand being put on them yet.

When I think of aquacultured marine fish right now I think of ORA, Biota, Sustainable Aquatics, and POMA Labs. There are some other small ones that constantly seem to come and go but those four seem to be the main players in the industry and I don't think they could offset the demand the way we would like to think they could.

Fully understand and hear the point you raised. Seems like a great area for tax credits or some form of assistance to put into production line improvement or real-estate. I love Biota and most of my fish today are from them. I don't have much experience with ORA but I do have a yellow assessor from them. One of my favorite fish although he or she is a bit of a recluse

But yeah - I hear and agree with you. Hope your day is going well.

 

[Doctorgori]

ghee, I thought the cyanide days were behind us

Depressing, lots of mouths to feed in that part of the world. In fact the growth has been explosive ….
Fruits, fish and whatever nature provides is low hanging economic fruit.

thanks Jay

 

[areefer01]

ghee, I thought the cyanide days were behind us

Path of least resistance...

 

[Jay Hemdal]

The Gobies are captive bred and/or raised now I thought. I recently saw Biota offering them but I forget the source. Turning the coral upside down is, well, rather destructible and in no way sustainable as you noted. In fact the picture in my head of someone doing this is rather funny in the larger picture it isn't.




Seems like a time when government subsidies could be used. Also a hard look at to see what the problem or problems are. There are only so many opportunities to earn money on small islands.

The yellow gobies mentioned in this study were wild caught, not captive raised. The fishers may earn perhaps 5 to 10 cents for each goby, given the final retail price for this species in the US. They have to catch a lot of them to make up for that low value, which indicates that destructive fishing practices would need to be used. Ironically, buying potassium cyanide is costly, and may preclude them from using it for these low value gobies - so maybe the breaking off of the coral heads is actually the cheaper method in this case (ugh).

Jay

 

[Jay Hemdal]

ghee, I thought the cyanide days were behind us

Depressing, lots of mouths to feed in that part of the world. In fact the growth has been explosive ….
Fruits, fish and whatever nature provides is low hanging economic fruit.

thanks Jay

No - cyanide use is still widespread. There have been some improvements for some areas of the Philippines, but Indonesia is still rampant with its use in most areas. Then, new countries are being suspected of using it, like Vietnam, the Solomons and even Sri Lanka (which used it back in the 1960's, then stopped, but may recently have begun again). I tried to summarize this in a recent article that I posted here (please understand that I have NOT visited these range countries to evaluate the issue, I only can observe post-collection aberrant mortality rates seen in fish from the areas).

https://www.reef2reef.com/ams/sourcing-marine-fishes-and-invertebrates.875/

Jay

 

[Tony Thompson]

Thanks for sharing the Link @Jay Hemdal

Very interesting read, always nice to read relatively current data. (2018-2019) Especially when specific to the collection end of the trade.

The relativity of the article with regards the Blue Justice Principles and economic stressors, the effects of a changing climate and alternative sources of income for the indigenous populations is one of great concern. Especially if this drives a trend for certain species and habitats and how that may cause new environmental stressors.

As mentioned in the article the creation and amendment of legislation with regards the Marine Protected Areas of Indonesia will also inevitably have knock on effect to the local fishers. Currently at 10% of national marine waters the MPA are proposed to increase to 30% by 2045.

Carefully planned management will require a more definitive and detailed data set if its impact and policing is to be effective and meet a wide ranging criteria, including economic considerations.

Is the problem either an unwillingness by the trade to provide such data (from capture to aquarium)? The pure impracticality of implementing regulation that can force enough participants to create a credible data set? or both?

In my opinion the trade and hobby can not claim sustainability without a full and open set of verified data. However who wants that conversation?

IMO. Aquaculture in the Marine Ornamental Aquarium Industry is at it stands is at best a public relations tool or a alternative choice for a niche within the hobby.

To explain my comment, the percentage of animals in the trade and hobby that are aqua cultured seem extremely minimal. Despite continued advances in aquaculture science and specific species protocols, they have in my opinion made minimal impact on the actual availability as a percentage of the trade as a whole over recent years.

Over the years I have followed the many new species that have had successful protocols developed, however many of those species are never really seen available or at least in very small and infrequent intervals. A fanfare within the media and then nothing ever seen again.

Is this due to economic viability of such projects forming a commercial scale or is it just down to the economic competition from wild collected specimens of the same species that makes the economics of scaling up such operations a non starter. Is it down to a lack of demand or availability. Surely demand drives availability in an economic sense. My personal experience in the trade of aqua cultured marines, leads me to think there is a relatively minimal demand. Price is king in this trade.

My own perception is that any substantial change will be brought about through tougher legislation brought upon the trade by governments. The current legislations are but the tip of the iceberg and I perceive many more are to come.

I do believe the hobby has a future, I just don't envisage what the future will look like.

 

[Derrick0580]

My take away is that I can save my income for the next 5 years, retire, move to indonesia and live like a king!

 

[vetteguy53081]

This paper came out today:

Swanson, S.S., Gutierrez, E., Moore, A.M. et al. Catching Dory: selling aquarium fish supports coastal livelihoods in Indonesia. npj Ocean Sustain 3, 5 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44183-023-00033-7

Some takeaways for me: Of the two species examined, P. hepatus tangs were reported to be collected with cyanide, but yellow Gobiodon (80% of the fish traded) were not. I think that is incorrect. I cannot imagine catching Gobiodon that pays pennies and lives deep in coral colonies, without using cyanide. I did read later on that the gobies are sometimes collected by lifting the entire coral head into the boat and shaking it out - not very sustainable either.

Fishers in this region are reported to, on average earn 20% of their income from catching aquarium fish, so kind of like Doordash for many people in the US? I think this may work against the idea that sustainability in the marine aquarium trade, includes supporting people in the range countries. That is often used as an argument against captive propagation of marine fish - that the process will take away people's livelihood. Since fishing for aquarium species only makes up 20% of the income of the few people in the area who do participate in the process, captive raised fish being sold would have minimal impact on the GDP of these people.

Jay

Its all about income and not sustainability from what I gathered

 

[Barncat]

Huh. Super interesting, I had no idea that cyanide was involved; I really hope that the aquaculture hobby continues to expand so that these destructive tactics (including destroying presumed acropora,) become merely a historical topic.

Makes me even more adamant to fill my tank with captive bred fish instead.

 

[Js.Aqua.Project]

Thanks for sharing the Link @Jay Hemdal

Very interesting read, always nice to read relatively current data. (2018-2019) Especially when specific to the collection end of the trade.

The relativity of the article with regards the Blue Justice Principles and economic stressors, the effects of a changing climate and alternative sources of income for the indigenous populations is one of great concern. Especially if this drives a trend for certain species and habitats and how that may cause new environmental stressors.

As mentioned in the article the creation and amendment of legislation with regards the Marine Protected Areas of Indonesia will also inevitably have knock on effect to the local fishers. Currently at 10% of national marine waters the MPA are proposed to increase to 30% by 2045.

Carefully planned management will require a more definitive and detailed data set if its impact and policing is to be effective and meet a wide ranging criteria, including economic considerations.

Is the problem either an unwillingness by the trade to provide such data (from capture to aquarium)? The pure impracticality of implementing regulation that can force enough participants to create a credible data set? or both?

In my opinion the trade and hobby can not claim sustainability without a full and open set of verified data. However who wants that conversation?

IMO. Aquaculture in the Marine Ornamental Aquarium Industry is at it stands is at best a public relations tool or a alternative choice for a niche within the hobby.

To explain my comment, the percentage of animals in the trade and hobby that are aqua cultured seem extremely minimal. Despite continued advances in aquaculture science and specific species protocols, they have in my opinion made minimal impact on the actual availability as a percentage of the trade as a whole over recent years.

Over the years I have followed the many new species that have had successful protocols developed, however many of those species are never really seen available or at least in very small and infrequent intervals. A fanfare within the media and then nothing ever seen again.

Is this due to economic viability of such projects forming a commercial scale or is it just down to the economic competition from wild collected specimens of the same species that makes the economics of scaling up such operations a non starter. Is it down to a lack of demand or availability. Surely demand drives availability in an economic sense. My personal experience in the trade of aqua cultured marines, leads me to think there is a relatively minimal demand. Price is king in this trade.

My own perception is that any substantial change will be brought about through tougher legislation brought upon the trade by governments. The current legislations are but the tip of the iceberg and I perceive many more are to come.

I do believe the hobby has a future, I just don't envisage what the future will look like.

I think it comes down to the basic supply-demand problem.

1 - Right now there aren't enough aquaculture facilities to keep up with the demand so that they're prices are competitive with the wild caught specimens.

2 - There are a lot more diverse species of wild caught specimens than there are aquacultured

3a - Start up of an aquaculture facility requires a significant upfront investment whereas this article shows (at least for the gobies) anyone with a canoe and a small net can go collect
3b - Research to start a new species is also a big investment as it takes a lot of man hours and supplies to figure out the circumstances to get the creature to: spawn, settle, eat, then survive shipment (this is why some companies will make donations to universities to do the research for them)

So if we want an aquacultured future, we need a lot more people to get into the business not for mere profit, but for the point of sustainability.

The draw back then is, doing it on land requires a lot of power and material consumption - there's always a catch .

 

[GARRIGA]

Perhaps train the locals to purse seine zooplankton from their waters then learn to grow to market size would be an equitable replacement. I understand this is something being practiced and to my untrained mind seems more feasible long term then the continue use of cyanide or shaking corals like I did seaweed as a kid. Foreign investors could implement the facilities needed and pay the locals to bring zooplankton vs deep dive caught fish. Would also be a safer living for those divers. Unfortunately, those investors might just automate the process and leave out the middle man although that's where government steps in and demands local labor is used as often the case in the Bahamas.

 

[alton]

In the 90's you stayed away from Philippines due to cyanide use. Today I own two Imperator Angels that where caught in the Philippines last year.

 

[areefer01]

I think it comes down to the basic supply-demand problem.

1 - Right now there aren't enough aquaculture facilities to keep up with the demand so that they're prices are competitive with the wild caught specimens.

2 - There are a lot more diverse species of wild caught specimens than there are aquacultured

3a - Start up of an aquaculture facility requires a significant upfront investment whereas this article shows (at least for the gobies) anyone with a canoe and a small net can go collect
3b - Research to start a new species is also a big investment as it takes a lot of man hours and supplies to figure out the circumstances to get the creature to: spawn, settle, eat, then survive shipment (this is why some companies will make donations to universities to do the research for them)

Good points.

So if we want an aquacultured future, we need a lot more people to get into the business not for mere profit, but for the point of sustainability.

If I might add we also need a lot of hobbyist education on the Herculean effort that goes into these businesses. Small business that more often than not have little to no government or shipping subsidies.

The draw back then is, doing it on land requires a lot of power and material consumption - there's always a catch .

True. On the other hand this isn't a big problem to solve. Some areas this would be a good reason to implement solar and batteries for power use. Water would be the bigger concern but again location may solve this.

Hope your morning/day is going well.

 

[areefer01]

In the 90's you stayed away from Philippines due to cyanide use. Today I own two Imperator Angels that where caught in the Philippines last year.

Location aside are these not captive bred now?

 

[ISpeakForTheSeas]

When I think of aquacultured marine fish right now I think of ORA, Biota, Sustainable Aquatics, and POMA Labs. There are some other small ones that constantly seem to come and go but those four seem to be the main players in the industry and I don't think they could offset the demand the way we would like to think they could.

Just to add a fifth to that list here - Bali Aquarich.