Just a couple of quick comments:
1. This is the kind of question that CIAC was formed to address and provide advice about.
2. The Standing Committee on the Care and Use of Animals in Research of the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine is currently considering how (and whether) to address care and use of cephalopods in research. They currently mean laboratory research, but that may expand with continuing discussions. I don't know the timeline for decisions to be made about these questions, but Roger Hanlon or Robyn Crook might.
My 2-cents worth,
Mike
Michael Vecchione
NMFS National Systematics Laboratory
National Museum of Natural History, MRC-153
Smithsonian Institution
P.O. Box 37012
Washington, DC 20013-7012 USA
phone: (202)633-1751
fax: (202)633-8848
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
________________________________________
From: Cephalopod International Advisory Council (CIAC) <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of EDUARDO ALMANSA BERRO <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, February 3, 2024 13:44
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Octopus culture
External Email - Exercise Caution
Dear colleagues,
I don’t know what has been the role of CIAC in cases similar to this one. In my opinion, this kind of governmental decisions are quite complex, as they not only include animal welfare aspects, but also others such as the demand for cephalopods, the sustainability of wild stocks or the social perception about this whole process, to name a few. Some, such as welfare, are common to all, but many others may change between countries, states or regions. In consequences, I think it would make sense for the corresponding government to form a group of expert advisors on this subject. In this case, maybe CIAC could suggest names for additional members of this group of experts or encourage its members to participate collectively or individually in any process of allegations or public consultation on this law.
Kind regards
Eduardo
Carlos Rosas Vázquez <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> escribió:
Dear all. Sorry for not getting back to you sooner, but the internet connection is intermittent in the Antarctic.
We in Yucatán have been working for years on developing an octopus farming system that helps local coastal communities raise their economic level, focusing mainly on the population of adults over 50 years old. These people, originally fishermen, are removed from the activity due to the wear and tear that this activity produces on the artisanal fishermen in the area. However, they are people strong enough to carry out activities on land, such as octopus farming. Until now, we have managed to grow animals at relatively high densities (25 animals/m2) with survival rates of 50%. There is undoubtedly cannibalism, but it is significantly reduced if we feed animals with food and with the appropriate frequency. It has been said that ALL octopuses are solitary, so they should not be farmed. It has been estimated that in the Yucatan Peninsula (with 2400 km2), about 20 billion juveniles hatch, of which approximately 100 million individuals are recruited to the fishery. A density of between 2 and 4 octopuses m2 has been estimated in the capture areas. This indicates that "solitary" is relative to the area, the species, and the environmental conditions. It's a shame that the octopus research center in Hawaii has closed. I had seen on their website the educational role they were carrying out, showing people the animals and precisely disseminating the fascinating biology of these animals. In that sense, aquaculture should not be conceptualized only as a large industry where animals are crowded together in intensive systems. Also, it is an activity that can be carried out by people at production levels high enough to keep families in productive activities and improve their living standards. Also, it can be seen as we see aquariums today. Farming centers could be places where people can enter to learn about the life cycles of marine species and the best way to maintain and feed them for the benefit of the people who grow them. We must change the idea that aquaculture is only profitable if done on a large scale. Economic profitability must be integrated with social profitability, including tourism and the well-being of the people who grow them; at the same time, we should be studying how to maintain animals with the greatest possible well-being.
That is the heart of our project in Yucatán.
Carlos Rosas
Laboratorio de Ecofisiología Aplicada
http://www.sisal.unam.mx/content.php?id=72&nv=Facultad%20de%20Ciencias%3EProgramas%20de%20Investigaci%C3%B3n%3ECultivo%20de%20Pulpo<http://www.sisal.unam.mx/content.php?id=72&nv=Facultad%20de%20Ciencias%3EProgramas%20de%20Investigaci%C3%B3n%3ECultivo%20de%20Pulpo>
Unidad Multidisciplinaria de Docencia e Investigación
Facultad de Ciencias
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Puerto de abrigo s/n Sisal, Yucatán
Tel. 55 988 9311000 ext 7220
El mié, 31 ene 2024 a las 21:53, Heather Ylitalo- Ward (<[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>) escribió:
Thank you everyone for the helpful responses, I will update you on whether the Bill passes or not.
Cheers,
Heather
----
Heather Ylitalo-Ward, PhD
On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 11:51 AM Durante, Erica Donlon - dured001 <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Thanks for the insight Jennifer,
That’s why I like to stress “properly”. There’s tons of ways to do aquaculture wrongly (just look at salmon), but I do think with the right care, it can be done ethically. Of course, it probably wouldn’t work on a large scale, but for the small islands of Hawaii with the right research before doing so (i.e., first growing your own live feed), I think its possible. All of these problems that you bring up like over crowding, food, and pollution are all problems we see with other culture such as livestock and will always be a problem with raising animals for consumption. The fact of the matter is, we cannot convince everyone in the world to go vegan and aquaculture will never replace wild catches (that’s not what its for). Rather, what the purpose of aquaculture is, is accessibility to food. Allowing others to grow their own food and protein sources and if we can get legislator on board, it can be properly regulated so that all set ups are ethical.
Cheers,
Erica
From: Mather, Jennifer <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Date: Wednesday, 31 January 2024 at 10:56 am
To: Durante, Erica Donlon - dured001 <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Subject: RE: Octopus culture
Hi Erica, I have to disagree about octopus farming being a good thing. It is probably never good for the octopuses. The planned farm by Nueva Pescanova has been challenged many times not only on the basis of the ethics of crowding a solitary animal but also on the difficulty of getting appropriate food for a predatory species, the pollution they will likely produce, and the fact that aquaculture will not replace catching wild octopuses.
I’m also total happy to talk about it and hope that we will have a workshop about ‘farming’ cephalopods in the next CIAC conference.
Jennifer Mather
From: Cephalopod International Advisory Council (CIAC) <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> On Behalf Of Durante, Erica Donlon - dured001
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2024 1:09 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Octopus culture
Caution: This email was sent from someone outside of the University of Lethbridge. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you know they are safe. Suspicious emails should be forwarded to [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>.
Hi Heather,
I think it’s a shame because octopus aquaculture could be such a good thing if done properly. I think the drama around Kanaloa octopus farm has kind of given it a bad rap. I think in your position (being withing the state system) you could be a great advocate for the benefits of octopus aquaculture. If I were you, I would bring up other successful places where octopus farming is occurring such as O. maya in Mexico (others that have first-hand experience will have details).
Totally happy to talk more about it as I’m in Hawaii too. 😊
Cheers,
Erica Durante
From: Cephalopod International Advisory Council (CIAC) <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Heather Ylitalo- Ward <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Date: Tuesday, 30 January 2024 at 7:32 pm
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Subject: Re: Octopus culture
Hi All,
Sorry to bring this controversial topic back to the table, but the Hawaii Legislature has introduced a Bill proposing to prohibit octopus aquaculture in the State and I wanted to see where CIAC landed. I know there was a suggestion of providing a set of FAQs to government agencies that asked. For the moment, I am trying to do my best with the information in these emails and cited articles, without trying to sway the decision one way or the other. Ultimately, the State will make its own decision, but I want to be able to provide facts without all the sensationalism that surrounds this topic.
Thanks so much,
Heather Ylitalo-Ward
Division of Aquatic Resources
Kauai, Hawaii
----
Heather Ylitalo-Ward, PhD
On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 9:42 AM Ryuta Nakajima <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Dear All,
Thank you for this exciting and important discussion concerning Octopus farming. I think this is a highly complex topic that involves not only the current scientific practices but also sociopolitical issues, cultural differences, environmental and conservation, climate change that is impacting the ocean as well as the future food production, increasing population and food shortages, economic stratification vis globalization of production-consumption of goods, problems related to poverty, ethics and philosophical differences, and, last but not least, one's emotional reaction.
I understand that CIAC was initially funded to "advise" countries interested in cephalopod fishery as an alternative source for protein harvest. In this way, its' primary mission was to provide scientific advice to the world cephalopod fisheries. In this way, it is different from other scientific organizations and conferences. The CIAC website states, "Founded in 1983, the aims of CIAC are to stimulate, accelerate and influence the direction of cephalopod research, to provide help and advice on aspects of cephalopod biology, including those relevant to the management of the increasingly important cephalopod fisheries and to spread information on past and current research." Although such a mission can be reviewed occasionally to serve more current social conditions better, it is important to acknowledge the founders' original intentions.
If there is significant interest in this topic, proposing a workshop during the CIAC Okinawa 2025 might be a good idea. The organizing committee of the meeting is working on the basics right now. After that, we want to form a scientific committee with more specifics to share with the community.
I hope everyone has exciting adventures planned for the summer. Perhaps, I will see some of you in Okinawa.
Best
Ryuta
On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 12:22 PM Mather, Jennifer <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Thanks, Eduardo, that is a lot more information than we have previously had access to.
I have a question for you. You patented a process? How is that done, and how does it prevent others from using similar procedures? Do I understand that you, as part of a government research institute, sold the right to use this process to a commercial enterprise?
Jennifer
From: Cephalopod International Advisory Council (CIAC) <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> On Behalf Of Andrew Packard
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2023 4:34 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Octopus culture
Caution: This email was sent from someone outside of the University of Lethbridge. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you know they are safe. Suspicious emails should be forwarded to [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>.
Thank you very much, Eduardo. Especially for the links to references.
Andrew
On 17/05/2023 18:56, EDUARDO ALMANSA BERRO wrote:
Dear Andrews, Jennifer and colleagues,
I would like to clarify some aspects and misunderstandings.
Regarding to the Andrews sentence:
I take that to mean that you are actively engaged in BIOMAR's research program into commercialisation of the common octopus.
I am not collaborating with the BIOMAR research program (which belongs to Nueva Pescanova, the company that is trying to culture octopus). I belong to a public research organization (IEO-CSIC) where in 2017 we developed a patent on octopus paralarvae culture, which was later acquired by that company. You could say that we have developed the first phase, published a patent, and the company used these results to develop the second phase which consists in validating its industrial viability. There has been no collaboration beyond the transfer of results from this first phase. However, because of these precedents, I do not intend to be part of a possible advisory group or similar on this subject and for the same reason, anyone can take the reservations they consider about my opinion. In my view, octopus farming can be positive, but as long as it can be achieved in a sustainable manner and ensuring their welfare as Camino described in her previous message.
At this point, I would like to respond to Jennifer's comment about commercial interests. If it is a reference to the work of groups like ours, I have to clarify that logically, one of our goal is to study the biology of animals in order to improve their production as food through alternative techniques that are sustainable and ensure welfare (among other more basic science objectives). Part of this knowledge is obviously transferred to any company interested on farming and that is where the commercial interests appear. If we are accused of having commercial interests as a research group, the same could be said of all those who work in areas related to food production (including livestock, agriculture and fisheries (e.g. improvement of fishing technology) and I do not think this is the case. We cannot mix scientists trying to find sustainable forms of production with the commercial interests of companies.
I think that another misunderstanding concerns the sentence of Andrews:
Arguing from the assumption that "sooner or later there will be commercially produced octopus or other cephalopods", you call it a "problem [that] needs to be addressed".
Perhaps I did not make myself clear, I am not referring to solving the problem of production, but to the problem of the lack of objective data in the social debate. This is what I believe should be addressed by experts in each area who should provide unbiased information on whether this production is suitable at this time, whether animal welfare can be ensured and whether it is sustainable. I do not belong to CIAC, but I think that this or any other institution should provide this information to the society (whether or not these data support its culture).
Continuing with the answer to Andrews questions:
Do you - or any colleague actively contemplating industrial production of Octopus vulgaris (species with a short life span) - have evidence that natural populations are declining in numbers due to overfishing?
I am not an expert in fisheries and that is precisely the question that would be interesting for an institution like CIAC to answer. Regarding its culture, this research has been carried out for more than 20 years in Spain since it was declared a species of interest in aquaculture by the Spanish government (I guess that in a similar way as it has happened in other countries of the Mediterranean, South America or Asia). This led to the allocation of public funds trying to cover the growing demand for octopus. I do not know the basis of this decision and I am not a market expert, but this species has experienced a strong price increase in recent years and it is expected to continue to do so in the future (EUMOFA 2020, see link below) which seems to confirm an increasingly large gap between production and demand, at least in Europe. Additionally, the option of octopus farming is also proposed in global publications related to octopus fisheries, such as the Globefish report of 2022 (see<https://www.fao.org/in-action/globefish/publications/details-publication/en/c/1635113> link below) or in the conclusions of Sauer et al. (2021), cited above by Marek. However, as I have said before fisheries are not my area of expertise and I do not enter into the latter discussion.
Finally, your message and Jennifer's are critical of aquaculture in general. In this sense, I believe that aquaculture has its advantages and problems just like any form of food production (including fisheries). However, today more than half of the production of marine species comes from aquaculture (FAO-SOFIA, 2022) and if we remove it I do not see where we can get all that animal and vegetable marine food without changing our eating habits radically. Of course, there are numerous nuances and aspects to consider and the debate on where aquaculture should be focused is intense (see references below such Belton et al., 2020. Costello et al., 2020. Naylor et al., 2021. Zhang et al., 2022, among many others). This also implies that not all species are susceptible to farming (hence the interest of the present debate). I would like to quote a recent paper on aquaculture published by FAO specialists (Troell et al., 2023) that concludes by saying that "aquaculture is not the miracle solution for global food security or for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, but it can make important contributions if properly planned and implemented".
In summary, I do not enter into the debate on whether the CIAC should include aquaculture or not, since that is the decision of its members; but I do think that aquaculture is essential to cover the current and future demand for food, although as in any area there are many aspects to improve and that is where our work is framed. For me, fishing and aquaculture are complementary (and maybe the cultured octopus meat as Jürgen mentioned)
Nothing more from me. Sorry if I have gone on too long
Best wishes
Eduardo
Some references
* EUMOFA 2020, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2771/11532<https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2771/11532>
* FAO -SOFIA 2022. https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cc0461en<https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cc0461en>
* Globefish report of 2022. https://www.fao.org/in-action/globefish/publications/details-publication/en/c/1635113/<https://www.fao.org/in-action/globefish/publications/details-publication/en/c/1635113/>
* Sauer et al., 2021. https://doi.org/10.1080/23308249.2019.1680603<https://doi.org/10.1080/23308249.2019.1680603>
* Belton et al., 2020. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19679-9t<https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19679-9t>
* Costello et al., 2020. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2616-y<https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2616-y>
* Naylor et al., 2021. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03308-6<https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03308-6>
* Zhang et al., 2022. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-04331-3<https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-04331-3>
* Troell et al., 2023, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jwas.12946<https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jwas.12946>
"Mather, Jennifer" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> escribió:
> I’m with Andrew, for much the same reasons. When CIAC invited those
> with a commercial interest in cephalopods to join the organization,
> we did the animals no favour. Studying the life history of the
> animals is a valid thing to do, whereas studying them so we can make
> money out of them is not a good scientific goal. Octopuses are not
> threatened in the wild so that we ‘have to’ cultivate them, and the
> history of human cultivation of marine species is full of human greed
> at the expense sometimes only of the species but often of the
> ecosystem as well.
>
> Many scientific organizations that focus on one animal group have
> lately moved to advocacy for their animals, discussion of ethics of
> their treatment and awareness of the peril of our despoiling of the
> environment. CIAC has not done so.
>
>
> Jennifer
>
>
> From: Cephalopod International Advisory Council (CIAC)
> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> On Behalf Of Andrew Packard
> Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2023 11:38 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Octopus culture
>
> Caution: This email was sent from someone outside of the University
> of Lethbridge. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you
> know they are safe. Suspicious emails should be forwarded to
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>.<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
>
> Thank you Eduardo
>
> As I hope to have made clear to everyone taking part, my own
> contribution within this discussion - apart from triggering it - has
> been primarily with Two Major Issues:
>
> 1) The negative upstream effects of mariculture generally
> which in plain speaking is a planetary issue,
>
> 2) That of octopuses in particular
> which, by comparison, is a local issue
>
> On Major Issue 1), your penultimate paragraph gives a clear picture
> of your own position and some of the sources of information on the
> question of sustainability.
>
> On Major Issue 2), our local problem, your final paragraph reads :
>
> 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.
>
> I take that to mean that you are actively engaged in BIOMAR's
> research program into commercialisation of the common octopus. (Whose
> objective, according to the website is "the study of key biological
> parameters to describe the life cycle of commercial species"). And
> that you are in general a supporter of large scale artificial
> cultivation of Octopus vulgaris.
>
> Arguing from the assumption that "sooner or later there will be
> commercially produced octopus or other cephalopods", you call it a
> "problem [that] needs to be addressed".
>
> The 'problem' of how to achieve your goal - is the exact opposite of
> the 'problem that CIAC members have been discussing: namely, what
> position our organisation should take on the question.
>
> We had been making some progress in that direction. I came in with a
> practical suggestion: that CIAC should seek the advice of the Royal
> Society of Biology. I know that that is a British institution. But so
> also, in its origins, is CIAC
>
> Over the past 50 years I have killed many hundreds of O. vulgaris.
> Each point on these two curves is one such.
> [cid:image002.png@01D98754.1D49AAB0]
>
> All wild caught. Brought into the lab (Naples) by local fishermen
> using the same capture methods as the Minoans and ancient Greeks. For
> the spots at the origin of the curves the fishermen even obliged by
> looking for settling stages still clambering on at their pelagic nets!
>
> For the 7-10kg spots on the brain/body weight curves the lab paid for
> animals they would otherwise have marketed locally.
>
>
>
> I was present at the cephalopod meeting at which CIAC was set up and
> automatically joined. Though never elected to its Advisory Council -
> only, later, to Honorary Life Membership - I have consistently argued
> through its Presidents and council members that the role of CIAC
> should not include encouragement of, or participation in, cultivation
> of cepĥalopods.
>
> That opinion is not academic. It is based on long observation and
> contacts with the tragedies still being acted out in the commercial
> exploitation of Atlantic salmon. I wonder how many Salmo salar (a
> northern hemisphere species) are presently introducing their Chilean
> farm version of viral diseases into the Pacific Ocean; and how many
> farm escapees still possess the instinct to enter its rivers to breed
> when swollen with eggs thus interfering with local fish populations
> etc.!
>
> These rhetorical questions represent only the tip of the iceberg in
> mariculture.
>
> My final question is a concrete one. Do you - or any colleague
> actively contemplating industrial production of Octopus vulgaris
> (species with a short life span) - have evidence that natural
> populations are declining in numbers due to overfishing? [N.B. Last
> year's CIAC Symposium (Sesimbra, Portugal 4th-8th April 2022) was
> titled: Cephalopods in the Anthropocene: multiple challenges in a
> changing ocean]
>
> Along with cultivated filter-feeding oysters, wild caught O. vulgaris
> from the Mediterranean is my favourite luxury food. But no way,
> either as scientist or consumer, should it be industrially cultivated
> for that reason.
>
> Which is why some of us are making a fuss.
>
> Perhaps look at the website of the 87year-old NGO 'Oxford Farming
> Conference' currently concerned with both Major and Local Issues
> under the mnemonic "for need, not greed" .......
>
> Andrew
> On 01/05/2023 17:37, EDUARDO ALMANSA BERRO wrote:
> 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]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>><mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[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.
> 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 certainlyboth good and bad examples within the industry,
> and 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. 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.
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> 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. 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. 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).
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ########################################################################
>
> To unsubscribe from the FASTMOLL list, click the following link:
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=FASTMOLL&A=1<https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=FASTMOLL&A=1>
>
> This message was issued to members of
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/FASTMOLL<http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/FASTMOLL><http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/FASTMOLL<http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/FASTMOLL>>, a
> mailing list hosted by http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/<http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/><http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/<http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/>>,
> terms & conditions are available at
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/<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<https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=FASTMOLL&A=1>
>
> This message was issued to members of
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/FASTMOLL<http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/FASTMOLL><http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/FASTMOLL<http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/FASTMOLL>>, a
> mailing list hosted by http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/<http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/><http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/<http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/>>,
> terms & conditions are available at
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/<https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/>
>
> --
>
> Andrew Packard
>
> La Goure
>
> Chemin de l'Avelan 1066
>
> LA GARDE-FREINET
>
> 83680
>
> France
>
> Tel 0033 (0)494436658
>
> 648333719
>
> https://gillylab.stanford.edu/packard<https://gillylab.stanford.edu/packard>
>
> ________________________________
>
> To unsubscribe from the FASTMOLL list, click the following link:
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=FASTMOLL&A=1<https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=FASTMOLL&A=1>
>
> ########################################################################
>
> To unsubscribe from the FASTMOLL list, click the following link:
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=FASTMOLL&A=1<https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=FASTMOLL&A=1>
>
> This message was issued to members of http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/FASTMOLL<http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/FASTMOLL>, a
> mailing list hosted by http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/<http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/>, terms & conditions are
> available at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/<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<https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=FASTMOLL&A=1>
--
Andrew Packard
La Goure
Chemin de l'Avelan 1066
LA GARDE-FREINET
83680
France
Tel 0033 (0)494436658
648333719
https://gillylab.stanford.edu/packard<https://gillylab.stanford.edu/packard>
________________________________
To unsubscribe from the FASTMOLL list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=FASTMOLL&A=1<https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=FASTMOLL&A=1>
________________________________
To unsubscribe from the FASTMOLL list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=FASTMOLL&A=1<https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=FASTMOLL&A=1>
--
<=:{......<=:{......<=:{......<=:{......<=:{......<=:{...<=:{......<=:{......<=:{......<=:{......<=:{......<=:{...
Ryuta Nakajima, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
University of Minnesota Duluth
Department of Art and Design
School of Fine Arts
312 Humanities
1201 Ordean Court
Duluth, Minnesota 55812
<=:{......<=:{......<=:{......<=:{......<=:{......<=:{...<=:{......<=:{......<=:{......<=:{......<=:{......<=:{...
________________________________
To unsubscribe from the FASTMOLL list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=FASTMOLL&A=1<https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=FASTMOLL&A=1>
________________________________
To unsubscribe from the FASTMOLL list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=FASTMOLL&A=1<https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=FASTMOLL&A=1>
________________________________
To unsubscribe from the FASTMOLL list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=FASTMOLL&A=1<https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=FASTMOLL&A=1>
________________________________
To unsubscribe from the FASTMOLL list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=FASTMOLL&A=1<https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=FASTMOLL&A=1>
________________________________
To unsubscribe from the FASTMOLL list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=FASTMOLL&A=1<https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=FASTMOLL&A=1>
________________________________
To unsubscribe from the FASTMOLL list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=FASTMOLL&A=1<https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=FASTMOLL&A=1>
________________________________
To unsubscribe from the FASTMOLL list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=FASTMOLL&A=1<https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=FASTMOLL&A=1>
########################################################################
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/
|
