Article on aquaculture

[FuEl]

The benefits and risks of aquacultural production for the aquarium trade

[blueheaven]

I somehow got the feeling that the author is trying to discourage aquaculture

Look at the statement "Aquaculture production of ornamental species should be avoided when it would replace a harvest of wild animals that maintains habitat, a cultural benefit, or an economic benefit"

How can harvesting of wild animals maintain habitat?

"Thus, public opposition will not be as great since there is no direct impact on the marine environment"

Yeah right, all of us know that wild collections are already damaging the reefs

[rustee]

i dont think u really understand what the article is about. u dont seem to understand the words and english perhaps u should re-read that abstract or better still, the full journal article instead of just criticizing. the author is trying to weigh the pros and cons (benefit-risk analysis) of aquaculturing ornamental species.

[blueheaven]

i dont think u really understand what the article is about. u dont seem to understand the words and english perhaps u should re-read that abstract or better still, the full journal article instead of just criticizing. the author is trying to weigh the pros and cons (benefit-risk analysis) of aquaculturing ornamental species.

Well, which of my statements do you not agree with?

Its very rude to blatantly say that I do not understand english at all. Come on, I top my class in English. This has already shown how you even judge things, and give statements which are unaccounted for or you have no proof against.

Furthermore, your post does not help the situation in any way. If you disagree with what I've said, you can post your side of view and we can look over it and discuss.

And lastly, I am not criticising the article. And I have not said that what the article says is wrong or untrue. I am merely giving my comments

[Achilles Tang]

Aquaculture production of ornamental species should be avoided when it would replace a harvest of wild animals that maintains habitat, a cultural benefit, or an economic benefit.

- perhaps the regular removal of certain organisms have caused the balance in a habitat to be tipped towards the favour of the majority? A certain patch of reef could be plagued by triggerfish that prevent other fishes from moving in?

Dun flame me... I only got A1 for GP... but sometimes I can't understand simple english....heehee...

[blueheaven]

But it can't be that removal by humans are of a naturally occuring process right?

I mean since when did humans step in to maintain the balance of nature?

And we are not talking about minute quantity of stuff we are taking, we have been harvesting large scale ya know

PS. And you only got A1 for GP, not enough for you ha?

[Achilles Tang]

I guess that should be applied subjectively as the scale of harvesting, the species targeted, the time frame this occurs and the recovery timeline are all undetermined.

Too bad we don't harvest Crown of Thorns starfish.

PS - no, not enough!

[AquaRa]

how do i read the full text? it asks me for some science direct password...

[Mellow]

Interesting article...Thanks fuel

BH, I guess rustee had no bad intentions. Talked to him a couple of times. Really knowledgable guy... Might be interesting to hear his opinion since, from what I remember, he is studying marine biology (aquaculture) in james cook uni...

[rustee]

BH, i did not say u dont understand english at all..what i meant was that u dont understand the english used in that abstract, dont get me wrong. dont have to get all edgy and defensive. i think u r confused with the sentence: "Aquaculture production of ornamental species should be avoided when it would replace a harvest of wild animals that maintains habitat, a cultural benefit, or an economic benefit. " i think u r confused with the word harvest. u said " how can harvesting of wild animals maintain habitat?'' what it means is that it would replace a harvest of wild animals. meaning aquaculture should be avoided when it would replace a seasons production of wild animals that maintains habitat, something along those lines. well, congrats on being top in class for english..it clearly shows.

[FuEl]

wow..din know my article created so much hoo haa..anyway..different people interpret things differently so let's just move on...

rustee...I have yet to meet up with you! Your school of marine biology is like just next school of aquaculture! Give me a pm man..I'm residing in town area.

[Voltron2000]

My English almost failed but this is how i interpret the sentence :

Aquaculture production of ornamental species should NOT be avoided when it DOES NOT replace a harvest of wild animals that maintains habitat, a cultural benefit, or an economic benefit.

[marinebetta]

It can be difficult to assess what the researchers mean just from the abstract alone....but it would seem that they reached the same conclusions as a study on the bird trade comissioned by Traffic many years ago. This kind of conclusion is counter-intuitive and most will find it hard to believe till they really look into the reasons in the full text of the paper. Needless to say, this paper is almost never quoted in most "green" arguments against wild collection.....

If I may extrapolate (based on the results of the Traffic paper):

The following may happen if aquaculture of marine ornamentals becomes widespread in the importing countries:

1) Loss of income for the collector - less export sales due to reduced demand.....(loss of economic benefit)

2) Collector becomes a regular worker - migrates to city etc to find work etc - ie loss of way of life (loss of culture?)

3) Reef habitat no longer becomes a source of income to the villagers (of no economic benefit)4) Without economic benefit, reef habitats are "useless" and thus have low or no value

5) With such low/no value, destruction and alternative uses become attractive eg dynamite fishing to increase food fish yields; coral rock mining to build houses, roads and runways!

6) Destructive uses of the reef leads to the deterioration of the habitat (no longer any maintainence of habitat)

The bottom line is that as long as there is an intrinsic economic value tied-in to an activity, even if it is collecting fauna/flora from the wild, there is a greater likelihood that the habitat is maintained to allow for this activity to keep going on.....

Sustainable use is much preferred over a total reduction or elimination of livestock collection (ie harvesting). This is, of course, dependent on the fact that proper harvesting methods are applied (kind of implied in the term "sustainable use").

[weisoon]

Agreed

Too much of anything is not good, too little is also bad, be it natural or human intervention. Everything must have a balance.

[davwong]

This is always applied to the nature reserved park where you use the predatory animals to control a certain species which is over populated or remove some predatory species to let some species to increase it population.

Hope I am not talking rubbish.