WWW.WAS.ORG • WORLD AQUACULTURE • JUNE 2024 3 Editor’s Note In many analyses of what the future holds for humanity, a certain question arises at some point in the discussion: Where will the additional food, especially the animal protein, come from? And how will we avoid widespread famine and suffering? In the context of climate change these questions take on even more significance. This is a question that is often conveniently overlooked by those who make a living criticizing aquaculture. In some instances, hopefully, these criticisms are the result of sincere aspirations for a world that, unfortunately, is increasingly beyond our grasp. I prefer a more pragmatic approach when faced with the question. The Cambridge Dictionary defines the term pragmatist as “someone who deals with problems in a sensible way that suits the conditions that really exist, rather than following particular theories, ideas, or rules.” I will stick to my pragmatism regarding aquaculture until someone can demonstrate an alternative source of animal protein that can meet humanity’s requirements in the coming years. I have been thinking about the common criticisms aimed at aquaculture and the fact that traditional terrestrial animal production is rarely confronted with similar disparagement. I can accept that very few forms of aquaculture are totally beyond any criticism whatsoever, but as a pragmatist I understand that there are always trade-offs. In the coming decades we can take advantage of the well-documented superior attributes of many aquaculture species in terms of sustainability and efficiency, or we can acquiesce and let others try to find solutions. To be honest, some of the criticisms I regularly encounter leave me scratching my head. Let me explain my confusion… Criticism: aquaculture relies far too much on production of non-indigenous organisms. My response: Taurine cattle were domesticated in western Asia some 10,500 years ago and Zebu-based breeds originated in India sometime after that. Should global beef and dairy cattle be restricted to only those regions, and if so, how would that be done? Chickens were domesticated some 8,000 years ago in Southeast Asia. Why is no-one writing such harsh criticisms about non-indigenous chicken and egg production in places like Africa, Europe or the Americas? Pigs were first domesticated in Asia some 9,000 years ago, so should we halt all pork production in the rest of the world? Why aren’t any activists complaining about nonindigenous terrestrial animals? Where would the horse lovers weigh in on this issue? Criticism: aquaculture often results in habitat loss or modification, as well as loss of ecosystem goods and services. My response: Hasn’t this been the case for terrestrial animal production for centuries, and even more so for agronomic crops? Why are poultry and livestock producers not continuously subjected to these same criticisms? I suspect it’s because the damage those industries may have caused was done so long ago that it’s taken for granted. This is not to say the concern has no validity when it comes to aquaculture development, but we are rarely on a level playing field. THERE ARE ALWAYS TRADE-OFFS… (CONTINUED ON PAGE 76)
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjExNDY=