Reef Ramblings

In this article I’m going to discuss a few commonly available species that are difficult, if not impossible, to maintain in captivity.

People often complain about the cost of the reef aquarium hobby, well one way you can save a little money is by only buying species that are within the capabilities of you and your reef system, avoiding those that are more difficult to maintain and, to be blunt about it, destined to die prematurely in captivity. Some more advanced reefkeepers may quibble with my views and there is always that exception to the rule, the aquarist who has managed to keep some impossible to maintain species for many years. That does not negate the fact that the vast majority of these species will die in the hands of less experienced reefkeepers.

Why Don’t These Species Thrive in the Aquarium?

Nutrition

In nearly every case, the problem is one of nutrition. The majority of the species listed below are heterotrophic, that is organisms that, unlike photosynthetic (or zooxanthellate) corals cannot manufacture their own food. This can be further broken down into the amount of food required by a particular organisms or whether there is a specialised feeding requirement.

Quantity.

It may be possible to maintain some heterotrophic species long-term if they are fed large quantities of planktonic food, phytoplankton and or zooplankton, but this has the downside of producing a polluted environment requiring an onerous amount of tank maintenance.

This mitigates against keeping these organisms with nutrient sensitive corals species.

Specialised Feeding Requirements.

This includes many factors: particle size, diets restricted to a single food source often a specific algae, sponge, or other invertebrate such as a coral species.

Specialised System Required.

In particular, this applies to jelly species; with one exception, all jelly species need to be kept suspended in the water column. This requires the use of a specially designed system known as a Kreisel, which imparts a circular flow to the system, keeping the jellies in suspension.

Short Life Span.

Many of the animals discussed in this article have a short life span, depending on species this can be as short as a few months up to a year, possibly two, as a maximum. Although some aquarists may accept keeping an animal with a short life span, the major problem here is that is almost impossible to tell how old these organisms are; you may find you’ve been fortunate enough to have purchased a juvenile but you’re just as likely to have bought a specimen on the verge of senescence.

Commonly Available Species to Avoid.

Porifera - Sponges

The majority of the decorative sponges do poorly in captivity, they are heterotrophic animals i.e. organisms that, unlike photosynthetic (or zooxanthellate corals) cannot manufacture their own food. The exceptions to this tend to be the autotrophic sponges coloured green, through blue, to purple, that contain symbiotic blue-green algae which can utilise light, contributing towards the sponge’s nutritional requirements much as in zooxanthellate corals.

Heterotrophic sponges however are filter feeders and are reliant on a combination of dissolved organics, bacteria, and phytoplankton. For their aquarium maintenance, I would suggest feeding with a quality live phytoplankton such as DT’s.

Many sponges produce toxins as a form of defence, hence limiting the number of animals that predate on them. Dead sponges can release these toxins to the detriment of soft corals.        On the whole it’s difficult to say which sponges are heterotrophic, which are autotrophic, which are toxic, etc as, with the exception of a handful of distinctive species, these are difficult animals to ID with any certainty. This also makes it difficult to make recommendations on placement, although many sponges will benefit from lower levels of light, there are also those which can be found in shallow water even though they have no photosynthesising symbiont.

A further factor in lack of success with sponges may be that of Silicate limitation owing to the widespread use of RO water in reef aquaria.

Cnideria

Hydrozoa.

Stylaster and Distichopora species. Common Name: Lace Corals

These hydrozoan corals don’t have as powerful a sting as their close relations, the Fire Corals, what they do have though is vivid colouration making them attractive to aquarists. Unfortunately, these azooxanthellate corals are very difficult to maintain owing to their dietary requirements of plankton and possibly nutrients absorbed directly from the water. The colours, blues, violet, pink, through to red are derived from foods rich in the caratanoid, astaxanthin, so perhaps CyclopEeze FreezerBar may be a useful addition to their diet. They are also adapted to strong current, which may also be a factor in their poor survival in the aquarium.

Scyphozoa

Cassiopaea species. Common Name: Upside-down Jellies. Aurelia species. Common Name: Moon Jellies.

Whereas Upside-down jellies can be accommodated in a conventional aquarium if attention is paid to their requirements, all other species of jelly need to be kept suspended in the water column.

Jellies have a complicated life cycle and none but the most advanced aquarists or public aquariums will have much success in raising these animals. Life span is dependent upon species and environment, can be from months up to a year in the wild. Note: Aurelia species are cold water, not tropical.

Pennatulacea

Cavernularia species. Common name: Sea Pens

In addition to being a heterotroph requiring targeted feeding of planktonic food, sea pens need a very deep substrate. These unusual and interesting soft corals dig their peduncle or “foot’ into the substrate as an anchor, this can be more than half the body length of the animal, depending on species, and considering that some species can grow to a height of 40 cms or more, we can be looking at a considerable depth of substrate, deeper than some aquaria.

Nephtheidae and Nidaliidae

Stereonephthya, Scleronephthya, Dendronephthya, Siphonogorgia species. Common name: Carnation Corals

Heterotrophic. These gorgeous, brightly coloured corals are difficult to accurately identify to genus, let alone species level. All require large amounts of food if they are to be kept alive for any length of time but all are destined to waste away over time

Poritidae

Goniopora species.

Sometime over the last couple of years a long-time US aquarium writer, I can’t remember whom, made an observation to the affect, “Back in the eighties, when corals led short lives in the aquarium, we used to feel that we’d done well when a specimen of Goniopora lasted as long as twelve months. Today we can keep most corals indefinitely, yet Goniopora still rarely survive for more than a year!”

Unfortunately, this species remains one of the corals imported in greatest quantities and one of the species least likely to last out a year.

Goniopora species contain zooxanthellae but even that is not enough for the coral to survive without wasting away. There is speculation that a large part of their food take up in the wild consists of a combination of phytoplankton and small particle zooplankton.

Caryophyllidae

Nemenzophyllia turbida. Common name: Fox Coral.

Another zooxanthellate coral that does poorly in the reef aquarium. Again, it is possible that like Goniopora it has a particular feeding requirement that cannot be easily accommodated in the aquarium, in this case the animal may be reliant on absorbing nutrients from the water.

Additionally there is concern about the restricted distribution of this coral; hence, sustainability of collection is in question

Dendrophylliidae

Tubastrea species. Common name: Sun Corals.

This is a heterotrophic or azooxanthellate coral, and is completely dependent on receiving sufficient zooplankton to survive. I have mixed feelings about this coral as, although it is azooxanthellate, it is also the species I’d recommend to any one interested in trying to maintain heterotrophic corals. I would categorise it as being the easiest non-photosynthetic coral to keep alive long-term but to do this requires real dedication to its care. The finest example of an aquarium featuring this species belongs to Swiss aquarist, Daniela Stettler; her dedication is such that she feeds each individual polyp with artemia every evening.

Platyhelminthes

Pseudoceros species. Common name, Flatworms

Gastropoda

Phylidiidae species, Hexabranchus species, Chromodoridea species. Common Name: Nudibranchs, Sea Slugs.

Both Flatworms and Nudibranchs are often difficult to identify. They share the two main limitations of diet and longevity. They may have very specific diets relying on one single species of algae or animal and these foodstuffs may not be present in the aquarium. Although some of these animals may have vivid colouration making them attractive to aquarists, they appear to have short life spans so, even if you were fortunate enough to have the appropriate diet available, you may be dealing with a species that lives for six months or less. Some species may also be toxic with the potential to pollute the tank when they die.

Bivalvia

Lima scabra. Common Name: Flame Scallops. Spondylus species. Common Name: Thorny Oysters.

Heterotrophic. Another couple of animals that require large amounts of food if they are to be kept alive for any significant length of time. Both species feed predominantly on phytoplankton although the addition of small particle size zooplankton such as rotifers may increase survival.

Flame scallops are short lived, maximum of three years, so given retailers preference for stocking bigger animals it may be that most of those in the trade are of an advanced age, explaining why they rarely survive for more than six months.

Cephalopods

Order Octopoda - Octopuses, and Order Sepiida - Cuttlefish

These highly intelligent molluscs have specialised requirements for housing. Nearly every public aquarium, livestock supplier, and retailer that has kept octopuses will have tales to tell of these Houdini’s of the deep. These animals are master escapologists, capable of squeezing through the smallest gap and there are many stories of mysterious fish losses that have eventually been traced back to an octopus leaving it’s tank at night for a takeaway meal, then returning to it’s own aquarium afterwards.

Octopus and cuttlefish have short lives, living for one year, possibly two at the most. It can be distressing seeing these fantastic animals fade into senescence towards the end of their life and knowing that there is nothing you can do to help them.

Echinodermata

Crinoidea Feather Stars and Ophiuroidea Basket Stars

These close relatives of the more familiar Sea Stars and Brittle Stars are filter feeders that rarely survive in captivity for any length of time. It is currently unknown whether this down to lack of food or selectivity of diet.

As they die there is a tendency for their arms to fragment, which can often be seen to continue moving after separation.

Holothuria

Pseudocolochirus species. Common name:  Sea Apple

Heterotrophic. A brightly coloured member of the holothurids this animal is highly toxic. If not fed sufficient quantities of food it will waste away and die, this frequently results in the death of any fishes in the aquarium as the powerful toxin, holurathin, is released.

The Exception to the Rule.

There are a couple of possible explanations for those reports of aquarists having managed to keep seemingly impossible to maintain species long-term, which may hold out some hope of being able to maintain some of the animals in the future.

Identification.

Given the difficulty in identifying many reef organisms accurately there is the possibility that these species may have been misidentified and that they have different requirements to the species in question. This includes the possibility that some look-alike species that do survive longer than usual in aquaria are undescribed species.

Origin.

The animal in question may have been collected from a different part of the reef to where it would normally be found, and has adapted to conditions differing from its usual habitat making it more suited to life in the aquarium. For example, it has been reported that crinoids living in plankton poor environments may have arms that are longer and more highly branched than those inhabiting plankton rich environments.

These animals collected from abnormal habitats along with their adaptation to the environment, may mean that we are seeing organisms in the process of evolving into new species.

Afterword.

Although I have highlighted a number of factors that may improve the chances of keeping many of the animals discussed for longer periods, I do want to emphasise that the overwhelming majority of the animals listed will die in the marine aquarium within a few months of introduction.

Glossary.

Azooxanthellate coral - a coral that does not have symbiotic zooxanthellae in its tissues.

Heterotroph - an organism that cannot manufacture its own food, and therefore requires external sources of energy.

Hydrozoa - a class within the phylum Cnidaria, contains five orders that include colonial forms with massive aragonite skeletons, fire corals and Lace Corals.

Tim Hayes

Midland Reefs

©2010

One of the world’s largest coral atolls which, surprisingly, belongs to Britain, may soon become the biggest Marine Protected Area (MPA) on Earth.

A three-month public consultation is underway to persuade the UK government to protect the Chagos Archipelago, a group of 55 tropical British islands, in the middle of the Indian Ocean.

This week the 10,000th person signed up in support of the campaign.

The Chagos Environment Network (CEN) who put forward the proposal to protect the giant reef, which is twice the size of Britain, 544,000 sq km area, and boasts the cleanest seawater ever recorded on Earth.

The Chagos contain some of the world’s healthiest coral reefs and the world’s largest surviving coral atoll. It is home to over 220 coral species and 1000 fish species, including the endemic Chagos clownfish, Amphiprion chagosensis.

The pollutant levels in Chagos waters are exceptionally low. Analyses in 1996 suggested that the marine environment of the Chagos Archipelago as a whole is exceptionally pristine, and that it was the cleanest water tested in the world at that time.

In addition the Chagos is a breeding ground and refuge for important populations of sharks, dolphins, marine turtles, and other vulnerable marine and island species.

The area includes deep-sea habitats including 6000 m deep trenches, oceanic ridges, and seamounts, each harbouring specially adapted species. Despite a Fisheries Conservation Management Zone with commercial catches limited by licence, legal and illegal fishing has impacted the area. Sharks, sea cucumbers, turtles, and fish are all known to have declined as a result of illegal fishing and the by-catch from legal fishing. Protecting this area would contribute to a richer Indian Ocean, benefiting people living in and around it

This is one of the best quality reefs remaining on the planet and, from a reef science perspective, it provides a good comparison to reefs damaged by climate change, rising sea temperatures, and other anthropogenic factors. The Chagos Archipelago is an area comparable in importance to better known areas such as the Galapagos or the Great Barrier Reef.

The Chagos Environment Network (CEN) is a collaboration of nine conservation and scientific organisations: The Chagos Conservation Trust, The Linnean Society of London, The Marine Conservation Society, The Pew Environment Group, The Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, The Royal Society, The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, The Zoological Society of London, and Professor Charles Sheppard of Warwick University.

The consultation, ends on 12th February, and examines three options for protection:

• A full, no-take, marine reserve for the entire territory.
• A marine reserve of the same size that allows some seasonal deep-sea fishing in certain zones.
• No-take reserves protecting only the vulnerable reef systems.

The Moral Dilemma.

Unfortunately creating this MPA is not as straightforward as might be hoped, owing to the ongoing court case brought by relocated Chagossians at the European Court of Human Rights, which is expected to be decided later this year.

Between 1967 and 1971 the entire population of the Chagos islands, numbering around 2,000 people, was evicted from the archipelago to make way for the Diego Garcia military base. The islanders were forcibly relocated to Mauritius and the Seychelles, where many have lived in poverty ever since.

In 2008 the islanders lost a long-running battle with the British government when the House of Lords, the final court of appeal in the UK, overturned High Court rulings that had repeatedly found in favour of the Chagossians. Whereas the High Court found that the Chagossians, as British dependent Citizens, had been unlawfully dispossessed and ordered that they be allowed to return to their home, the House of Lords overturned this ruling in favour of the British government.

The Guardian, a UK newspaper, recently reported that Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour MP chairing the all-party parliamentary group for the Chagos islands, said he was “concerned” that the marine protection consultation had not sought the views of exiled islanders. “The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is completely at variance with UK marine conservation policy that seeks to involve the local community,” he said.

Corbyn also said there was concern among Chagos island groups over media reports that portrayed their return as a negative for the environment, that would mean the construction of an airport and town and increasing tourism.

“You will get a small number of people living [in the Chagos] who will support sustainable fishing and ecotourism. If the ‘ultras’ in the marine reserve brigade get their way they will have to have people there to protect the environment. It’s extraordinary that islanders are not trusted but the marine community is. Wealthy people land there in yachts and stay on the islands all time. They are trusted but the islanders are not. I find it patronising and extraordinary.”

It’s Your Decision.

This is not a simple clear-cut subject. As a marine aquarist I’m in favour of the MPA, given the deteriorating state of reefs around the world conserving the Chagos would be a great step forward. I’m particularly interested in the idea that it could be used as a comparative instrument against which the health of other reefs could be measured.

I do however have sympathy with the Chagossians, who I believe have been badly mistreated by the British Government, I also find myself a little uneasy with the idea of an area where access might be restricted to scientists alone. Everywhere else in the world, wherever reef conservation is carried, out it’s considered good practice to get local people involved as much as possible.

There is an alternative to just signing up to the www.protectchagos.org proposal, if you go to http://www.marineeducationtrust.org/petition/protect-chagos you’ll find a petition organised by the Marine Education Trust that is in favour of the MPA, urging the Foreign Secretary to work with the Chagos islanders and the Government of Mauritius to devise an MPA solution that makes provision for resettlement and that protects Mauritius’ legitimate interests.

To find out more about the various issues, in addition to the previously mentioned links, take a look at the following:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagos
• www.chagos-trust.org
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/27/gordon-brown-britain-great-barrier-reef

Also take a look at, “Stealing a Nation”, the John Pilger documentary, winner of the 2005 Royal Television Society Award, that tells the story of the expulsion of the entire population of the Chagos islands.

If you do decide that you’d like to add your support to the proposed MPA, visit: http://www.marineeducationtrust.org/petition/protect-chagos or  www.protectchagos.org, according to your conscience, before the February 12th 2010 deadline, to register your support for the creation of a Chagos no-take Marine Protected Area.

By the way, my conscience moved to me to sign the Marine Education Trust petition.

Tim Hayes

Midland Reefs

©2010

An Introduction to the Marine Aquarium Council.
(MAC)

In this article I’d like to tell you a little bit about MAC – the Marine Aquarium Council, its aims, and what it can mean for the hobby.

I first became aware of MAC back in 2003, subscribed to the MAC newsletter to be kept up to date, and then when I visited MACNA in 2004 I met up with some of their people for the first time. I brought back a lot of their material which I read with interest, but at the time, although the aims of MAC seemed very laudable, it didn’t seem that pertinent to Europe and in particular the UK. MAC has started to become more active in Europe so it seems an appropriate time to introduce more aquarists to its activities.

The Marine Aquarium Council (MAC) is an international, non-profit, non-governmental organization. Its aim is to bring together conservation organizations, the aquarium industry, public aquariums, hobbyist groups, and government agencies to ensure that the marine aquarium trade is both responsible and sustainable.

MAC’s mission is “To conserve coral reefs and other marine ecosystems by creating standards and certification for those engaged in the collection and care of ornamental marine life from reef to aquarium.” MAC is trying to accomplish this mission through a number of different activities: By the establishment of independent certification of best practice standards. By raising the public awareness of the conservation role of the marine aquarium industry and the hobbyist. By providing objective, accurate data on the marine ornamental trade. By promoting the sustainable use of coral reefs and other marine ecosystems though the responsible collection of marine ornamental life. By ensuring the health and quality of marine ornamental life through responsible collection, handling and transporting practices. And by encouraging responsible husbandry through education and training.

MAC Certification.

At the heart of this is the system of MAC Certification. This is an international, third party certification system, providing the means to verify responsible, environmentally sound industry operators and healthy marine aquarium organisms.

I think the header on the MAC newsletter tells you quite a bit about the organisation:
International Certification for the Quality and Sustainability of Marine Aquarium Organisms … from Reef to Retail.

The phrase “from reef to retail” is central to MAC’s method of operation. Between the collection of a marine organism from the reef and that animal ending up in the display tanks of your local retailer there are a number of intermediate steps.
The animal is initially caught or collected and put into holding tanks on board the collection boat; from the boat it may be transferred to an interim holding facility or go directly to the exporter’s holding tanks; the exporter sorts and packs the animals ready for transport; packed boxes are delivered to the airport, loaded onto air transport and flown to the receiving country; the boxes of animals are picked up from the airport and delivered to the wholesaler’s holding facility; the animals are unpacked, acclimated, and held in quarantine; after an appropriate quarantine period the animals are transferred to sales tanks from which they are chosen by the retailer, packed and boxed for transportation; after the journey to the retailer’s shop the animals are again unpacked, acclimated, and held in quarantine; from quarantine the animals are moved to the shop’s sales display tanks where you, the hobbyist, make your purchase; your fish or coral is bagged up one last time for your journey home.

The aim of MAC is to have all the links in the above chain of custody, starting at the reef and ending up at the retailer, covered by a system of certification. Currently there are four areas of certification: the collection area; the collectors; exporters, importers, and retailers; and of course the marine organisms themselves. Further certification is planned to cover maricultured and aquacultured organisms.

Collection Areas: the MAC Ecosystem and Fishery Management Standard (EFM) covers coral reefs and marine aquarium organisms in the collection area. Certified areas must have a management plan that includes requirements such as a defined collecting area and the management and monitoring of the reefs and fishery stocks.

Collectors: the MAC Collection, Fishing, and Holding Standard (CFH) covers collection practices and handling after collection. Certified collectors must be trained divers, collect only to order, use non-destructive methods keep logbooks, segregate organisms, minimize stress, and test for water quality.

Exporters, Importers, and Retailers: The handling, husbandry, packing, transport, etc. of marine organisms by exporters/importers, wholesalers, and retailers is covered by the MAC Handling, Husbandry, and Transport Standard (HHT). Requirements here include appropriate facilities and qualified staff; suitable packing and transport; appropriate acclimation; the monitoring and recording of mortalities; monitoring and recording of water parameters; and holding documentation to ensure traceability of organisms.

Marine Aquarium Organisms: Fish, coral, other invertebrates, and live rock that have been collected in a MAC certified collection area and then been only handled by MAC certified exporters, importers, and retailers are labelled as MAC Certified on their containers and tanks.

So, when you go into your local aquatic shop in search of new animals for your reef and see fishes and corals labelled as MAC Certified, you can be assured that best possible practises have been followed in getting these animals to you.

Why the Need?

You may wonder what all the concern is about. A lot of collectors, exporters, importers, and retailers adhere to good practises that have the aim of safely bringing healthy fishes and corals from the reefs to hobbyists with minimum wastage but unfortunately these firms are in a minority.

Many firms involved in the collection and supply of marine animals to the hobby work in primitive conditions with only rudimentary ideas about how to maintain the organisms they’ve collected in good health. Feeding may be cursory, with inappropriate foods used, or even neglected. No great attention is given to water parameters. Corals that are collected for the hobby are kept out of water for longer than is wise when the shipper is choosing which corals to buy; in a recent report, part of which was presented by Rachel Jones of ZSL at the coral symposium at Burger Zoo, photographs were shown of piles of corals that had been discarded to die when not chosen to be purchased by the exporters, From what was shown in these photos it was clear that this wasn’t just a recent occurrence, but something that had been going on for sometime. Once these animals have been bagged and packed it’s not unusual for them to spend time out in the sun on the tarmac the airport while waiting loading onto their flight. All these factors, plus others I’ve not gone into, contribute to an unnecessarily high mortality rate amongst the fishes and corals handled in this way.
And where do these poorly handled organisms end up? At your local fish shop! These are the animals brought into this country (and others) through the process known as consolidation. Not all animals that come the consolidation route have been badly handled but the majority may well have been at some point in their travels. Uninformed retailers buy via consolidation in the mistaken impression that they’re saving money and are buying animals at a bargain price – the thought that there’s a reason for this low price and that a high proportion of the animals they buy are destined to die prematurely doesn’t seem to enter into the equation.

MAC Today.

At the time of writing (May 2007) MAC has been going for around 8 years. Currently their website indicates a total of 77 MAC Certified Industry Operators worldwide. Europe accounts for 14 of these with the UK containing 4. I don’t know how up to date or accurate these figures are. Although there are 4 listed for the UK this is slightly misleading as one MAC certified wholesaler no longer exists and TMC accounts for the other 3 listings, in addition there is one MAC certified wholesaler in the UK who’s not listed here and has yet to start selling MAC certified livestock. I’ll include information about this retailer in a future article once it’s up and running with MAC fishes.

One of the reasons for my doing this article is to help bring the Marine Aquarium Council and its aims to a wider audience and hopefully to popularise the idea of its certification scheme. Rather than just play lip service to the ideals of sustainability and an environmentally friendly marine aquarium hobby why not mention to your retailer that you’d like to buy MAC Certified fishes and corals?
The various groups belonging to the MAC network, be it conservationists, hobbyists, industry operators, public aquaria, etc. all have different problems to contend with and different issues to address. However, they all agree that consumer demand for environmentally sound products can motivate the industry to adopt and adhere to standards that ensure resources are sustainable, responsibly managed and supported by good husbandry and handling practices.

Problems?

Although I’m completely in agreement with MAC’s aims, I have to say that there appear to be certain problems with the organisation and the way it operates, and with the measure of success that it has had so far.
I have to question the success so far of MAC as it applies to the hobby. MAC was established some time around 1999 (at least this is the date of the earliest MAC annual report) with the first importer being certified in 2002. Today according to the website we have 13 MAC certified collection areas, 19 MAC certified collectors (companies), 20 Exporters, 15 importers, 8 (9 including the UK – see above), and 3 MAC certified aquaculture companies. Now it’s understandable that the largest amount of work needing to be done to bring this whole concept to fruition is the work in the field, without collection areas, collectors and exporters we can’t have MAC certified organisms. It’s also understandable that not every importer is going to immediately sign up to MAC, on the one hand ethics and profit don’t always go well together, on the other some companies will have already got a well organised responsible supply line in existence and may see no reason to sign up to MAC.

What I do have to question in particular is why are there so few retailers signed up to MAC? In terms of numbers retailers outnumber every other part of the supply chain added together, to only have 8 or 9 MAC certified retailers worldwide strikes me as something of a failure.

MAC appears to be an organisation taken up with bureaucracy, something that I think you’ll see reflected in the jargon-ridden style of its reports and other written material.

There also appears to be an element of secrecy about the organisation, as a writer on marine aquarium matters, and indeed as someone who has signed up as being willing to become certified, I’ve been not been allowed to sit in on a MAC meeting of certified parties.

A few years back there seemed to be a certain distrust of MAC among some in the US aquarium industry, which seemed to revolve around the idea that it was all a government plot. I believe this fear has since subsided.

What currently alarms me though are reports of discontent with MAC amongst collectors in the Philippines, this is something that has come to my attention from more than one source. I’ll report more on this aspect in due course.

In the UK, one thing that hobbyists should be aware of is that any shop that sells livestock, in particular captive bred clowns from TMC, and marks them up as being MAC certified is misrepresenting the situation. Any MAC certified livestock sold to an uncertified retail outlet ceases to be certified as soon as it leaves the wholesaler. Any retailer selling animals as being MAC certified is guilty of fraud as there is the implication that they are running their livestock system to a certified standard.

The Future.

Only time will tell how successful MAC will be in its aims. I believe that the aquarium industry need to police itself, to show a responsible attitude to the welfare of the animals it depends upon, in order to prevent legislation being forced upon us by bodies outside of the industry who may have no specialised knowledge or insight into the maintenance of captive marine fishes, corals, and invertebrates. MAC is one way that this can be done.

I intend to come back to the subject of MAC and look at various aspects of its work, and also at criticisms of the organisation, in future articles.

For more details about the Marine Aquarium Council have a look at the MAC website: www.aquariumcouncil.org

Any questions or comments, or if there are any particular topics you’d like to see covered on this site, please feel free to get in touch with me.

Tim Hayes
Midland Reefs
©2007