Let's Talk About Captive-Bred Fish Prices

[Clowning_Around72]

We are quickly approaching non-fish/fish industry discussions and I am unsure if this is an appropriate topic area.

My functional opinion on this is that most hobbyist... 90+% would prefer to keep almost all captive bred fish if the available fish diversity was better (similar to the large numbers of freshwater fish available) and the last 10% would be either individuals breeding (thus need broodstock) or those keeping rare species (that are not worth breeding because demand is low and supply is low)... possibly a few common species that are so common they are not worth breeding...

The issue is, we do not the available diversity in captive bred species on the marine side of the hobby...

Plus what we do have is a lot of substitutes...

I don't need 20-30 species and endless varieties of clownfish ... I need 1 ... maybe 2 pairs across my fish room.


I don't need 10 different dottyback species, Ill probably only keep a few in my life.

What I need and the hobby needs is a greater availability of usable species that fish a decent variety of tanks.

That has gotten better with cardinalfish species beyond pajamas and bangaiis... as well as a few gobies and now rabbitfish, tangs, angels and dwarf angels...

If you look at my tanks though, it is still plenty of wild fish.

Since this hobby, more than freshwater, prizes diversity in available species.

The next step is figuring out anthias, wrasses, hawkfish, and damsels (uronema is a problem in the hobby and this is limited with captive damsels).
As well as making larger core fish (tangs and angels) reasonable affordable captive bred vs wild caught.

Otherwise, it does not make sense to expect captive bred to make a huge difference.


A hobbyist who cares to a large degree about going with captive bred options is already choosing an orchid dottyback over some harder to find wild species or even a generally preferred alternative if their true focus is captive bred first.

It is possible to do all captive bred tanks nowadays. If we wanted to, we would.

 

[Clowning_Around72]

I expect damsels, more than any other fish, to end up ultra cost effective to breed in the long run since they are already fairly cost effective captive bred. I see that being a successful avenue.

 

[Clowning_Around72]

It is not cost effective or easy to work on additional deep research projects when you already have a successful/profitable company... i.e ORA, Biota etc.

Once you have the staples and some diversity, it is hard to justify significant $$ on research if it isn't a species that you either think is very feasible based on prior work (new dottyback species for example) or is very much worth the money due to high demand and incredibly low supply...

(Yellow tang currently)

 

[Lowell Lemon]

Why do they need to be better? Maybe they are in some ways, but they do not need to be for me to prefer them.
I don't buy organic food for myself because I assume it is better for me. I think it is better for the planet.

I don't have solar panels because I think the electricity is better. And it isn't goong to be cheaper for years. I have them primarily as a way to reduce my negative impact on the planet. Same for my electric car.

I'm actually a little surprised that the hobby does not have a higher percentage of folks who agree with entities trying to conserve the oceans, such as the Sierra Club which supports the ornamentals ban.

Nice virtue signaling.

Most people I know can't afford an electric car due to the high purchase price and then add a charging station on top of that. Most of us have to buy used cars to afford our houses and families.

Again most of the people I know are lucky to cover their house payments without the added cost of a dual purpose electrical panel, storage batteries, and the associated cost of solar panels that might last 10 years in our location.

The Sierra Club is the ultimate virtue signal. Have you actually analyzed where the money goes to support them? The biggest cost is to overhead for their expensive lifestyles and often frivolous law suits. Not one lawsuit has ever extended the life of anyone on earth or made any meaningful dent in the environment full stop.

I am a vegan/vegetarian and have been most of my life for the health of it. Organic foods often are not all that beneficial unless you are plant based. Organic animal products are very expensive and use way more resources than plants in both acreage and fuel consumption.

You fit right in with the I got mine and you all should do as I do.

I find your post tone deaf and condescending.

 

[slingfox]

Randy of all people I know you comprehend what's said in those images. Biota is literally a cash grab that has zero regard for the hobby. They *only* care about making profits. You're defending the company that is taking advantage of hobbyists to make a profit. The founder of Biota says the Hawaii fishery is the best managed in the world. The singular reason they oppose opening that fishery is to protect their profits.

What a joke. Either you're in on it or it's over your head.

The companies capturing fish from the ocean and selling them to aquarium owners are doing it for money too. That is how business works.

Would you prefer Biota to capture yellow tangs from the ocean instead? What if they sold it at a slightly lower price but made the same gross profit per fish? Would that make you happier even though Biota makes the same amount of profit?

 

[MasterClassReefs]

I've been thinking about something, and I thought I'd post it here and get some feedback from the community on it. I've heard some people say that captive-bred fish are just going to be perpetually expensive. I'm thinking about yellow tangs, which we used to be able to pick up for $40 (or less) at the LFS, but they now retail for at least $200-$300. Other CB fish are even more expensive than that!

Photo by Frags2Fishes

However, I got to thinking about this, and I got a bit hopeful...because the trend is not always toward expense. For example, designer clownfish have been notoriously (dare I say OBNOXIOUSLY) expensive in the past, but today you can pick up a lot of those same designer clownfish at a lot cheaper prices than you could before. My LFS has a whole slew of them right now for $39.99 each. (And yes, I do know that specific "ultra cool" designs still go for a lot, but I'm talking about general trends.) And before anyone calls me out on clown breeding being easy and that breeding these happens in hobbyist homes (and so the market floods...), I'd like to point out that mandarin dragonets are another example of a CB fish that isn't super expensive despite their breeding being beyond most of our hobbyist capabilities.

Photo by Biota

So...what do you think? Are captive-bred fish going to be perpetually expensive, or can I hope to buy the ones that are currently expensive at cheaper prices in the future? I'll tell ya, my dream fish is a yurple tang...I know, I know...for some of you those are an abomination, but I love 'em, and I hope maybe someday they'll be within my budget range. ...a guy can dream...

Photo by Quality Marine.

I believe prices will go up and stay up as long as people keep shelling out the dough.

 

[Jimbo327]

I think Biota is doing a great job offering CB fish. It's a service and product that some reefers will pay for.

Just like QT'ed fish, people are willing to pay for this...as it is a benefit for them if it can save them time or effort, and potential loss.

Also, it is not easy to captive breed a fish, it takes years of research and losses to reach success. You should expect to pay a premium for CB fish. Biota is offering a fish that currently the hobby cannot get because that fishery is closed.

One can argue how much of a premium, sure, I get it. I think as soon as wild yellow tangs are offered again, the prices of CB fish will come down. And no one is forcing anyone to buy a CB yellow tang. I don't own a yellow tang. We can all decide for ourselves where we want to spend our money.

I just got a Biota CB mandarin goby through a local store. It eats pellets because it is raised that way. That's a huge plus over wild that may or may not eat pellets, and you may need to supplement pods if you have a smaller tank. You also can get small fish that can grow for many years to come. Same with the CB pipefish. I can get a wild one for 1/2 the price, but I chose CB because I know the CB will more likely eat pellets/prepared food. And also less chance of pests or diseases.

I'm actually quite offended that anyone would call Biota a cancer to the hobby. CB is such an advancement for the hobby. We are now able to breed fish without needing to go to the ocean.

 

[Hawaiian AQ]

Why do they need to be better? Maybe they are in some ways, but they do not need to be for me to prefer them.
I don't buy organic food for myself because I assume it is better for me. I think it is better for the planet.

I don't have solar panels because I think the electricity is better. And it isn't goong to be cheaper for years. I have them primarily as a way to reduce my negative impact on the planet. Same for my electric car.

I'm actually a little surprised that the hobby does not have a higher percentage of folks who agree with entities trying to conserve the oceans, such as the Sierra Club which supports the ornamentals ban.

They also support banning the hobby. Do you also support that?

You may know chemistry but I can clearly tell you don’t have a clue when it comes to the topic of wild caught fish. You say conservation when in fact they push for preservation. There’s a difference there. Any day you would like to debate this topic, I will happily oblige Randy. I have first hand knowledge of these groups and their tactics having been on the receiving end of their antics. The sierra club are radical activists that have to use LIES to achieve their goals. If something is so noble a cause, why do they lie over and over again on record?are you aware of all this or does the truth not matter? When you’re lying, you’re losing. I’m actually a little surprised a scientist would hold such a rash position when most scientists that work with these fisheries tend to support them as sustainable and wise use of resource. Does that science matter or nah? Maybe it doesn’t when it goes against your own biases. Tisk tisk

Why do they need to be better? Maybe they are in some ways, but they do not need to be for me to prefer them.
I don't buy organic food for myself because I assume it is better for me. I think it is better for the planet.

I don't have solar panels because I think the electricity is better. And it isn't goong to be cheaper for years. I have them primarily as a way to reduce my negative impact on the planet. Same for my electric car.

I'm actually a little surprised that the hobby does not have a higher percentage of folks who agree with entities trying to conserve the oceans, such as the Sierra Club which supports the ornamentals ban.

 

[Hawaiian AQ]

Generally speaking, I like to see things work side-by-side for compromise, and reasonable solutions. I have bought two Biota fish in my life (thus far)-- two Goldline Rabbitfish that were barely the size of the cap on a yellow highlighter when they arrived! (They grew into monsters, by the way). So I'm not against the work Biota does. At the same time, if there is a game-afoot to squash wild caught fish in order to become a lab-monopoly with a chokehold over the hobby, that would be rotten in my book. As to the current 'Ban', I am in no position to know whether hobbyist are truly snatching up Yellow Tangs faster than they can reproduce in the wild-- but to me I would think that would be like saying there are so many stamp collectors out there that they are snapping up "Elvis" stamps faster than they can be printed. (?!)

Well if you would like to know the answer to the yellow tang question it’s the most studied question in aquarium fishing worldwide. The short answer is no. The fishery is beyond sustainable, it has a comprehensive science based management program that’s been in place for 26 years. The yellow tang numbers have steadily increased to the point of saturation or carrying capacity all while fishing was occurring. The new proposed rules further safeguard the resource to the point of absurdity.

 

[TangerineSpeedo]

Are all the clownfish breeders in the hobby a "cancer"?

I am going to take this statement slightly out of context to make a point. Truthfully, are clownfish breeders a cancer? They are. If you look at the fact that many people that get into this hobby, "Nemo" is the first fish they get. In fact it is even encouraged with AIO tanks like Hello Reef. But the fact is clownfish are among the oldest living fish in our hobby. Yet they are pushed on to new hobbyist that may only have their first tanks less than a year. Think about the thousands and thousands of CB clownfish that are brought to the market each year, vs the amount of new hobbyist, vs the amount of hobbyist that stick with their tanks for the next 10+ years.
Most of the clownfish have a death sentence percentage wise. Is that the responsible thing to do?

 

[Hawaiian AQ]

The companies capturing fish from the ocean and selling them to aquarium owners are doing it for money too. That is how business works.

Would you prefer Biota to capture yellow tangs from the ocean instead? What if they sold it at a slightly lower price but made the same gross profit per fish? Would that make you happier even though Biota makes the same amount of profit?

The problem is they have an exclusive advantage that no one else is allowed access too. The fishery isn’t a consolidated private entity, instead it’s spread throughout the hands of many local families throughout Hawaii’. The Hawaiian fishery built the market for decades, not biota. Why shouldn’t we have access to our resources when the science and management says we can? Why should one corporation be the only game in town? Why is Biota actively campaigning against the fishery right now and throwing in with radical activists that want to not only shut down the trade but the hobby itself? Seems like a misguided priority.

Why are some aquaculture entities attacking sustainable fisheries? Seems self serving and inappropriate. They’re riding on coattails and they don’t even realize what happens to the hobby when the trade implodes

 

[Hawaiian AQ]

I am going to take this statement slightly out of context to make a point. Truthfully, are clownfish breeders a cancer? They are. If you look at the fact that many people that get into this hobby, "Nemo" is the first fish they get. In fact it is even encouraged with AIO tanks like Hello Reef. But the fact is clownfish are among the oldest living fish in our hobby. Yet they are pushed on to new hobbyist that may only have their first tanks less than a year. Think about the thousands and thousands of CB clownfish that are brought to the market each year, vs the amount of new hobbyist, vs the amount of hobbyist that stick with their tanks for the next 10+ years.
Most of the clownfish have a death sentence percentage wise. Is that the responsible thing to do?

You should see how many get culled. Brought to life only to be destroyed because they don’t make the cut

 

[Hawaiian AQ]

Almost exclusively every single outfit to come into existence in the last ten years to breed marine fishes has been driven overwhelmingly by greed. Nobody is in it for the science anymore.

If you only knew how true this was

 

[Doctor Derp]

If you only knew how true this was

I know exactly how true it is. These people are the worst.

 

[Hawaiian AQ]

Wow. No one is making anyone buy a captive bred fish. It's an option that some, like me, will pay a premium for.

If you choose not to, good for you.

But to call them a cancer for providing some folks an option is just ridiculous.

You sure about that Randy?

They are in fact, trying to make you buy a captive bred, over priced fish that there’s literally ZERO reason to even be cultivating. Especially since there are other fish that are way better candidates to culture for actual valid reasons, but why do that when you can attack sustainable, well-managed fisheries….thats way cooler and makes perfect sense

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I find your post tone deaf and condescending.

Ok, thank you for that. I will keep that in mind next time I am talking to someone spending money on a hobby, and then complaining it costs too much to do it in a way that doesn’t hurt the planet, and so proceeds to ignore the environmental costs of their fun.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

You sure about that Randy?

They are in fact, trying to make you buy a captive bred, over priced fish that there’s literally ZERO reason to even be cultivating. Especially since there are other fish that are way better candidates to culture for actual valid reasons, but why do that when you can attack sustainable, well-managed fisheries….thats way cooler and makes perfect sense

I am sure no one is making anyone buy any fish. Must you have a fish? Regardless of the side effects?

 

[Hawaiian AQ]

I am sure no one is making anyone buy any fish. Must you have a fish? Regardless of the side effects?

The question isn’t are they making you buy A FISH, the question is if you were to buy one, are they trying to control the market so you have to buy theirs. And in that circumstance, yes they are

Now why don’t you address my other comments to you

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

They also support banning the hobby. Do you also support that?

You may know chemistry but I can clearly tell you don’t have a clue when it comes to the topic of wild caught fish. You say conservation when in fact they push for preservation. There’s a difference there. Any day you would like to debate this topic, I will happily oblige Randy. I have first hand knowledge of these groups and their tactics having been on the receiving end of their antics. The sierra club are radical activists that have to use LIES to achieve their goals. If something is so noble a cause, why do they lie over and over again on record?are you aware of all this or does the truth not matter? When you’re lying, you’re losing. I’m actually a little surprised a scientist would hold such a rash position when most scientists that work with these fisheries tend to support them as sustainable and wise use of resource. Does that science matter or nah? Maybe it doesn’t when it goes against your own biases. Tisk tisk

I disagree with your opinions, and see little reason to debate with you. There are always strongly different opinions when it comes to using natural resources we all share. History does not suggest that those wanting to use such resources will not overuse them if given the opportunity, to all of our detriment.

 

[Hawaiian AQ]

I disagree with your opinions, and see little reason to debate with you. There are always strongly different opinions when it comes to using natural resources we all share. History does not suggest that those wanting to use such resources will not overuse them if given the opportunity, to all of our detriment.

Of course you don’t want debate because the science doesn’t support your flimsy and woke position. You appeal to authority, in this case history, to support your argument but again even that doesn’t support your conclusion. There are examples of overuse, but there’s also corrections and proof that as humans, we can manage things. This is what science plays a large role in.