Dear colleagues

Thank you very much for this interesting and necessary discussion.

Although the decision belongs to the CIAC council, I think it would be  
important at institutional level (CIAC or any other institution) to  
provide objective information on the state of the question (state of  
the fisheries, ecology, market demand, risks and benefits of farming,  
etc.) but without taking a position/side. I think this would be  
important to counteract a lot of false information that is  
circulating, as well as to support possible political decisions, as  
Mark rightly says. I would like to clarify that, regarding the legal  
section, as far as I know, it is the regional government of the Canary  
Islands who has to take a decision on the octopus farm and ensure that  
it complies with the legislation.

I broadly agree with the ideas exposed, especially by Angel, Mark and  
Ian, as well as the concerns expressed by Jennifer and others. The  
problem of octopus production is a very complex one with no simple  
solutions. I think it is still not clear, at society level, that we  
must choose between looking for alternative ways of octopus production  
or changing our eating habits.

In relation to welfare, progress has been made in recent years in  
validating what have been called operational welfare indicators (OWI).  
However, much remains to be done in this regard and there are no  
studies in industrial production conditions. In my opinion, without  
knowing the farming conditions it is not possible to say whether the  
animals are suffering or not. In this regard, I would like to  
emphasise that we only know the larval culture and on-growing  
protocols that have been published at laboratory scale. From there on,  
the tests done to scale up these processes to industrial or  
semi-industrial scale have been carried out by the company and their  
potential results or modifications are confidential. For this reason,  
we do not know the final details of the protocol. I am not an expert  
on this subject, but I understand that the company is only obliged to  
communicate the production protocol to the competent authority to  
obtain the necessary permission (which in theory should also ensure  
the welfare of the animals). Another issue is that this authority  
decides to be advised by a group of experts, but I imagine that it  
would be always under conditions of confidentiality.

Continuing with this issue, two aspects, in my opinion, should be  
considered. On the one hand, the on-growing trials carried out and  
published to date did not include any reference to OWI (there were not  
many at that time either) but only to growth and survival (the results  
of which did not suggest that the animals were stressed, although this  
does exclude the opposite). On the other hand, these tests were  
carried out with wild-caught specimens weighing more than 1 kg.  
However, those born in captivity will share the same tank through  
their development and will not know other environmental conditions.  
Therefore, there are a couple of questions; are these specimens going  
to show the same behaviour as wild specimens whose development and  
social interaction is completely different? Are they going to be  
stressed by the same factors and with the same response thresholds? My  
opinion is that only by analysing in depth the cultured specimens can  
we have an approximation of the stress or suffering of these animals.

Another criticism is the lack of sustainability of this culture due to  
the carnivorous nature of this species. This problem also occurs in  
the vast majority of culture marine fish, being most of them  
carnivorous or omnivorous and also are the most demanded, at least in  
the European market. In this regard I would like to emphasise that the  
research carried out in recent decades has managed to significantly  
replace fishmeal and fish oil with alternative sources such as  
vegetables, insects and microorganisms. To give some examples, the  
percentage of fishmeal in salmon feed has decreased from 90% to 20%  
from the 1990s until now and if we look at a global scale, the fish  
feed production for aquaculture has increased threefold in the last  
decade, while fishmeal consumption for this purpose has decreased by  
40% (Kaiser et al., 2021. Rev. Aquac. 14: 1887-1911; Naylor et al.,  
2021. Nature 591: 551-563). The solution is not perfect, but it  
contributes to improving sustainability. The question here is whether  
something similar can be achieved in cephalopods.

We don’t know when the octopus will be commercialised or in what  
quantity (keep in mind that all this fuss has been made when there is  
still no culture octopus on the market). However, I believe that  
sooner or later there will be commercially produced octopus or other  
cephalopods and this problem needs to be addressed as soon as possible.

Best wishes

Eduardo Almansa PhD
Senior Researcher
Oceanographic Center of the Canary Islands (IEO-CSIC)
Spain








Ian Gleadall <[log in to unmask]> escribió:

> OnOctopus Aquaculture - some thoughts (Ian Gleadall)
>
> After reading the comments so far, I note that thereare a number of  
> confounded issues to tease out and address, involvingmuch nonsense  
> and lack of understanding, ignorance of facts and thescience  
> involved, knee-jerk reactions against the eating of octopusper se,  
> along with anything to do with the aquaculture industry ingeneral.  
> It seems that all members of the aquaculture industry arelabelled  
> automatically as cruel and wicked exploiters bent onprofit-making  
> alone while treating animals inhumanely and pollutingthe environment  
> irreversibly, feeding their animals on fish meal and(for octopuses)  
> lots of live crustaceans.&nbsp;
> People with these attitudes need first to educate themselves by  
> going andfinding the latest version of SOFIA and looking up the  
> section onaquaculture, to see how much it has improved and how much  
> good it isdoing in the world, particularly so-called developing  
> countries (onegood example being the Tilapia industry). There  
> are&nbsp;certainlyboth good and bad examples within the industry,  
> and&nbsp;a number ofissues still to resolve, but progress is being  
> made rapidly,especially since most of the people involved are well  
> aware of the problems andissues.&nbsp;Most detractors seem ignorant  
> of this, and have amindset dated several decades ago when the first  
> (often misguided)steps in large-scale commercial aquaculture were  
> made. What should beborne in mind is that human society has been  
> farming land animals fortens of thousands of years, while  
> large-scale farming of the sea hasonly just begun.
> Commercialoctopus aquaculture currently exists nowhere but the  
> anti-octopus-aquaculture lobby already has its claws out  
> accusingthis non-existent industry of all sorts of ridiculous,  
> unfoundedatrocities. A similar group of lobbyists recently destroyed  
> theInternational Whaling Commission by turning it into the  
> InternationalNo-Whaling Commission, retarding whaling regulation by  
> more than halfa century (currently the whalers are self-regulating,  
> for better orworse). Preventing similar actions on aquaculture in  
> general and octopusaquaculture in particular will require a large  
> effort at educatingthe public with more accurate information,  
> probably beginning with aFAQ on the facts and fantasy of the animals  
> and the industry.&nbsp;
>
>
> Thecurrent attitudes against octopuses in science and aquaculture  
> seemto have begun some 7 years or so ago with authors such  
> asGodfrey-Smith and outrageous claims such as (and I quote): "Quitea  
> lot of the early work done in the Naples Zoological Station  
> treatedoctopuses badly. . . . Until recently, octopuses could be  
> operated onwithout anesthetic." This is clearly nonsense from  
> someone who wishes tocomment on, but has no clue about laboratory  
> science and handlingoctopuses. Physiological experimentation without  
> anaesthetics isunthinkable - to ANY human, including any scientist,  
> but scientists(other than those observing the animals in the wild)  
> are, it seems,labelled automatically as cruel, sadistic and  
> unfeeling. However,people who make such accusations clearly have had  
> few trueinteractions with octopuses. I have, and my mind boggles at  
> theimages brought to it by someone trying to "operate" on anoctopus  
> without the intervention of an anaesthetic. Good luck withthat! So  
> this is the kind of accusation and mind-set that has to berectified  
> first in any interactions with the ignorant web bloggersout  
> there.&nbsp;
>
>
> Amajor source of disinformation arose from the London School  
> ofEconomics (LSE). An essay on octopus intelligence, with inferences  
> tooctopus aquaculture, was written by a student, reviewed by  
> thatperson's supervisor in LSE, released in an LSE publication,and  
> publicized as a series of sensational LSE press releases. Aclassic  
> case of bias and conflict of interest if ever there wasone.&nbsp;The  
> original essay itself is full of broad generalizationsabout  
> “scientists” and what they are purported to think or sayabout  
> octopuses and octopus aquaculture.
>
>
> Thearguments against octopus aquaculture per se are also difficult  
> tojustify. Setting aside the massive farming of cattle, pigs and  
> sheep,for example, as cognitively aware creatures, one wonders if  
> thedetractors are aware of the existence of other animals in  
> theaquaculture industry that perhaps fall into a similar category.  
> Tuna,for example, are cultured in some countries, and these of  
> course areintelligent, warm-blooded predators that generally feed on  
> largenumbers of smaller live prey. Perhaps rather less appealing to  
> theanti-octopus-aquaculture activist are the efforts to culture  
> eels,which are endangered because of overfishing and like many  
> octopusspecies have planktonic larvae and an even more complex life  
> cyclethan the octopus, with perhaps more challenges to be overcome  
> thanfor octopus. But then, the average anti-octopus-aquaculture  
> activistwould not be interested in demonstrating against eel  
> aquaculture,certainly not wishing to eat an eel, any more than an  
> octopus,especially since they presumably perceive eels as less  
> ‘cute’ or‘intelligent’ than octopuses.
>
>
> Someonestated that octopus is "cheap" but that is not so. The  
> highdemand for octopus and pressure on wild stocks is driving the  
> pricesteadily higher, to a level where octopus aquaculture is  
> becoming anincreasingly attractive proposition.&nbsp;What many  
> people do notrealize, for example, is that the USA is a major  
> importer of octopus. Feeding that demand is attractive to industrial  
> playersin many other parts of the world.
>
>
> Theridiculous accusations against octopus aquaculture, such as  
> keepinglarge numbers of octopuses together in large pools and then  
> packingthem after putting them on ice and freezing them alive, need  
> to bedealt with by whatever means are possible to present true  
> factsagainst all the 'fake facts' out there. As ever, good education  
> iswhat is required but that is something currently in very short  
> supply(a different issue in itself).&nbsp;
>
>
> Educationalso requires people to first go and find out the true  
> state ofaquaculture generally. For example, an acquaintance of mine  
> here inJapan is a shrewd businessman and a genius at aquaculture. He  
> is ableto raise coho salmon from eggs to adult salmon fillets in  
> thesupermarket within a year (which, as you know, generally  
> requireseveral years to reach maturity). He also developed the feed  
> himself,which is based on plant carbohydrates and waste brewer’s  
> yeast, andhe soaks the pellets first in fresh water so they float  
> and don’tmerely sink uneaten to pollute the seabed. He has  
> relatively few pens, which are movable, and when harvesting the fish  
> they are eachkilled by hand, swiftly and humanely. The flesh is  
> completely clearof parasites and tasty enough to eat as sashimi  
> (which in Japan is amajor achievement because of the public demand  
> for high quality andtaste in food).
>
>
> Asmost aquaculturists know, keeping the animals in good condition  
> andkilling them humanely greatly affect the taste, which in turn  
> greatlyaffects the price the fish can fetch. So accusations about  
> crueltyand poor feeding in aquaculture make no sense, because after  
> raisingan aquaculture product you need to get someone to buy it, and  
> thebetter the product, the higher the demand and the higher the  
> profit,so it pays people in the industry to feed and treat the  
> animals well.These aspects are, as we know, also major issues for  
> successfuloctopus aquaculture, and without first resolving those  
> issues it willnot be commercially viable. So, commercial viability  
> is a driver, butquality, taste and humane treatment, are in turn  
> drivers ofcommercial success.
>
>
> Asfor using CIAC as a conduit for educating the public, well that  
> mightseem like a reasonable avenue except for the fact that CIAC  
> basicallyfunctions as an oversight committee for conferences,  
> particularly thetriennial series of international conferences. I am  
> unaware of any major statements or press releases by CIAC since its  
> inception. However, Imust declare my ignorance since despite much  
> personal involvement inrunning conferences over the years I have  
> never been directlyinvolved with the CIA Committee or its inner  
> workings.&nbsp;
>
>
> ConcerningAndrew’s suggestion to go through the Royal Society of  
> Biology(RSB), the point would seem to be that, in the UK, many  
> othersocieties involved with biology have an affiliation with the  
> RSB,which is thus able to bring considerable weight to bear in  
> advisingthe British Government on issues involving the biological  
> sciences.The RSB is also heavily committed to various outreach  
> projects to thegeneral public. Concerning the issues and accusations  
> of octopusaquaculture, the RSB might be a useful avenue, since many  
> of themisunderstandings and accusations have originated in England.  
> Ifsuitably publicized, truthful and factual information and  
> educationmay then spread to the international community. However,  
> the currentso-called ‘woke’ attitudes of many UK residents  
> (presumablyincluding a cross-section of RSB members) suggest an  
> unpredictableoutcome from using this particular avenue.
>
>
> Finally,what I must disclose, of course, is that I am involved with  
> a numberof different groups (in science and in industry) working  
> ondeveloping octopus aquaculture. However, from my experience  
> andknowledge of current developments, the world is still very far  
> fromhaving a viable octopus aquaculture industry, despite all the  
> rumoursabout the Canary Islands (I’m on the waiting list for a visit).
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> Bestregards,
> Ian.
> ----------------------------------------------
> IanG. Gleadall&nbsp;
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ########################################################################
>
> To unsubscribe from the FASTMOLL list, click the following link:
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=FASTMOLL&A=1
>
> This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/FASTMOLL, a  
> mailing list hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are  
> available at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/

########################################################################

To unsubscribe from the FASTMOLL list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=FASTMOLL&A=1

This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/FASTMOLL, a mailing list hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are available at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/