Some Inconvenient Truths about California Squid Marketing
Background:On July 11 the Los Angeles Times carried an opinion editorial “The long journey of local seafood to your plate”, by author Paul Greenberg, who made a pitch for local seafood while lamenting the volume exported overseas. Seafood News picked up the story, but with a twist.Indeed, Greenberg could have dodged some critical misstatements, particularly about marketing California’s largest catch, market squid, if he had checked local sources, including the California Wetfish Producers Association, which represents the majority of squid processors and fishermen in the Golden State. CWPA submitted the following op ed to the LA Times, to set the record straight.First, here’s the story as it appeared in Seafood News:
Paul Greenberg makes case for locally caught fish while trashing global seafood supply chainSEAFOODNEWS.COM [Los Angeles Times] by Paul Greenberg [Opinion]- July 11, 2014Copyright 2014 The Los Angeles TimesAnother glorious Golden State summer is upon us. San Joaquin Valley peaches are at their height and rolling in to farmers markets from Silver Lake to Mar Vista. Alice Waters' foragers are plucking Napa zucchini blossoms for the chefs at Berkeley's Chez Panisse. Barbecues in Sonoma are primed for grilling Niman Ranch grass-fed steaks. And California squid are being caught, frozen, sent to China, unfrozen, processed, refrozen and sent back to the United States in giant 50,000-pound shipping containers. That's right: Every year, 90% of the 230 million pounds of California squid (by far the state's largest seafood harvest) are sent on a 12,000-mile round-trip journey to processing plants in Asia and then sent back across the Pacific, sometimes to seaside restaurants situated alongside the very vessels that caught the squid in the first place. Even as the locavore movement finds ever more inventive ways to reduce the distance between farm and table, the seafood industry is adding more and more food miles to your fish. And it's not just squid. Overall a third of what is caught in American waters -- about 3 billion pounds of seafood a year -- is sold to foreigners. Some of those exports, such as California squid, wild Alaska salmon and tons and tons of Bering Sea pollock, make the round trip to Asia and back into our ports, twice frozen. Why? To begin with, Americans want their seafood recipe-ready, and seafood distributors here don't want to clean it. It's messy, it takes time and, of course, it costs money. For many processors, the much lower labor costs in Asia make it less costly to pay for transporting squid to China and back than to clean it here. Moreover, seafood processing plants are typically located close to the shore, which is exactly where well-heeled people like to build homes. Across the country, processing plants, oyster farms and canneries have been pushed out of their valuable shorefront locations by residents who didn't want them next door. As a fisherman in Gloucester, Mass., told me recently: "Fish houses are getting turned into hotels all the time. But you never hear about a hotel getting turned into a fish house." So are we to let our seafood production infrastructure vanish entirely and watch dumbly as American fish and shellfish slip down the maw of the vast churning seafood machine of Asia? Moreover, do we really want to intermingle our food supply with the apparatus of China, a nation that is cruelly stingy with its labor force and that had such severe problems with food safety in 2007 that it executed the director of its food and drug administration for accepting bribes? I would argue no. And there are finally starting to be opportunities for keeping our seafood here -- from net to table. In the last five years, dozens of community-supported fisheries, or CSFs, have been formed along U.S. coasts. Like community-supported agriculture co-ops, CSFs allow consumers to buy a share in the catch at the beginning of the season and receive regular allotments of guaranteed local seafood. CSFs help fishermen enormously by giving them start-up capital before they get out on the water. They also lock in a good price for fish that helps fishermen exit the ruthless price-crunching commodity market. A few CSFs are even taking on squid. Alan Lovewell of Local Catch Monterey Bay CSF is collaborating with Del Mar Seafood of Watsonville to micro-process 1,000 pounds of squid for the Local Catch buying coop. This summer, for the first time, Local Catch members will get fully fresh (instead of double frozen) squid tubes and tentacles that make for fabulous grilling, stir-fries and Italian zuppa di pesce. Yes, they'll pay more for it. But if all Californians were to do it this way, economies of scale would prevail. It costs processors about $1.50 extra per pound to process squid here in America. Wouldn't you be willing to pay that kind of premium to keep your squid fresh and out of China? And even if you don't have access to a CSF, there's always the option of cleaning the squid yourself. Currently, the 10% of unprocessed squid that doesn't go to China often gets used as bait. If you ask your fishmonger, you might be able to get some of that whole squid yourself. It's really not that hard to clean it. And if you mess up the first time around, it's not a big deal. Squid are actually incredibly cheap compared with most seafood, and it is high in omega-3s and minerals to boot. The next time you fire up the backyard barbecue, consider buying a pound or two of California's tentacled native seafood, getting out your knife and cutting board and experiencing squid as it's meant to be eaten: fresh from the ocean and bursting with flavor.***And CWPA’s response:Some Inconvenient Truths about California Squid MarketingBy D.B. PleschnerIn his op-ed to the Los Angeles Times last week, author Paul Greenberg could have dodged some critical misstatements and inaccuracies about the marketing of California squid – the state’s largest catch.All he had to do was check with local sources, including the California Wetfish Producers Association, which represents the majority of squid processors and fishermen in the Golden State and promotes California squid.Instead, Greenberg missed the boat on a number of issues, including the overall carbon footprint of seafood, but equally important, the reasons why most of the squid that California exports is consumed overseas!To set the record straight, here are some inconvenient truths you wouldn’t know about squid by reading last week’s op-ed:First, size matters and price rules when it comes to California market squid, which are one of the smallest of more than 300 squid species found worldwide. The U.S. “local” market really prefers larger, “meatier” squid, notwithstanding Greenberg’s ‘locavore’ movement.Greenberg acknowledged the labor cost to produce cleaned squid in California adds at least $1.50 per pound to the end product. In fact, local production costs double the price of cleaned squid, due to both labor (at least $15 per hour with benefits) and super-sized overhead costs, including workers’ comp, electricity, water and myriad other costs of doing business in the Golden State.Del Mar Seafood is one processor in California that micro-processes cleaned squid at the request of markets like the CSA that Greenberg mentioned. In fact, virtually all California squid processors do the same thing at the request of their customers. But at 1,000 pounds per order, we would need 236,000 CSAs, restaurants or retail markets paying $1.50 more per pound to account for the total harvest. If the demand were there, we’d be filling it!Greenberg also misconstrued the issue of food miles. Respected researchers like Dr. Peter Tyedmers, , from Dalhousie University in Canada, found that transport makes a minor contribution to overall greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, when considering the carbon footprint of seafood (or land-based foods). Mode of production is far more important.Here’s another surprise: California squid is one of the most efficient fisheries in the world – because a limited fleet harvests a lot of squid within a short distance of processing plants.Studies show that the California wetfish fleet, including squid, can produce 2,000 pounds of protein for only 6 gallons of diesel. Squid are then flash frozen to preserve freshness and quality. Keep in mind that even with immaculate handling, fresh squid spoil in a few days.As counterintuitive as it may seem, even with product block-frozen and ocean-shipped to Asia for processing, California’s squid fishery is one of the ‘greenest’ in the world. One recent survey estimated that about 30 percent of California squid is now either processed here or transshipped to Asia for processing (other Asian countries besides China now do the work) and re-imported.China, although important, is only one export market that craves California squid. With a growing middle class billions strong, Chinese consumers can now afford California squid themselves. Many countries that import California squid prefer the smaller size, and California squid goes to Mediterranean countries as well. In short, most of the squid that California’s fishery exports is consumed overseas. Why? The U.S. palate for squid pales in comparison to Asian and European demand.Also important to understand: California squid is the economic driver of California’s wetfish industry – which produces more than 80 percent of the total seafood volume landed in the Golden State. California squid exports also represent close to 70 percent by weight and 44 percent of value of all California seafood exports. Our squid fishery contributes heavily to the Golden State’s fishing economy and also helps to offset a growing seafood trade imbalance.The sad reality is that price really does matter and most California restaurants and retail markets are not willing to pay double for the same – or similar – small squid that they can purchase for half the price.Nonetheless, we do appreciate Greenberg’s pitch for local seafood. Our local industry would be delighted if, as he suggested, all Californians would be willing to pay $1.50 a pound more for California squid. We may be biased, but in our opinion California squid really is the best!
D.B. Pleschner is executive director of the California Wetfish Producers Association, a nonprofit dedicated to research and to promote sustainable wetfish resources.
More Big Whales in Ocean Could Mean More Fish, Scientists Find
New study reveals how scientists and fisheries managers underestimated the massive mammals.
The return of large whales—such as sperm (pictured), blue, right, and gray—could help ocean fish populations recover.Photograph by Stephen Frink, CorbisBrian Clark HowardNational GeographicPublished July 10, 2014Scientists and fisheries managers have long underestimated the valuable role large whales play in healthy ocean ecosystems, a new study suggests. And, scientists add, those commercial fishermen who complain that whales steal fish from their nets have it wrong.An increase in the number of large whales—like blue, sperm, right, and gray—around the world could lead to a healthier ocean and more fish, a team of scientists report in a review study published this month in the journal Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.The underestimation occurred because "when oceanographic studies were started, large whales were largely absent from the ecosystem—because we had killed most of them," says the study's lead author, Joe Roman, a biologist at the University of Vermont in Burlington.Large whales were heavily hunted until the 1970s. At that point an estimated 66 to 90 percent of the animals had been removed from ocean waters.But since then, great whales have been slowly recovering. There are now more than a million sperm whales, and tens of thousands of gray whales.Yet blue whales—the largest animal ever known to have lived on the planet—have been slower to rebound. In fact, they remain at about one percent of their historic range in the Southern Hemisphere. Roman says scientists think their absence may have altered the ecosystem in a way that made it harder for all life to survive there.In recent years, as whale numbers have increased and technology has advanced—especially the ability to tag and track seafaring animals—we've begun to gain a better understanding of how important cetaceans are, says Roman."Whale Pumps and Conveyor Belts"The scientists report that when whales feed, often at great depths, and then return to the surface to breathe, they mix up the water column. That spreads nutrients and microorganisms through different marine zones, which can lead to feeding bonanzas for other creatures. And the materials in whale urine and excrement, especially iron and nitrogen, serve as effective fertilizers for plankton.Many great whales migrate long distances to mate, during which time they bring those nutrients with them. When they breed in far latitudes, they make important nutrient contributions to waters that are often poor in resources. Even their placentas can be rich sources of feedstocks for other organisms, says Roman, who calls whale migration a "conveyor belt" of nutrients around the ocean.Whale deaths can be helpful too. When one of the massive mammals dies, its body sinks to the sea bottom, where it nourishes unique ecosystems of scavengers, from hagfishes to crabs to worms. Dozens of those scavenger species are found nowhere else, says Roman."Because [humans] took out so many whales, there were probably extinctions in the deep sea before we knew those [scavenger] species existed," says Roman, who adds that he's working on a new study to estimate how many of those scavenger species were lost.Maddalena Bearzi, a marine biologist and president of the California-based Ocean Conservation Society who was not affiliated with the study, calls the paper "a great and interesting piece" that could help us better understand the role marine mammals play in the ocean ecosystem.Fishers vs. WhalesFor decades some commercial fishermen have complained that whales eat the fish that they're trying to catch. Japan's government has been particularly vocal, going as far as to say that whaling is necessary because "whales are threatening our fisheries." (See "Japan's Commercial Whaling Efforts Should Resume, Says Prime Minister.")Masayuki Komatsu, one of Japan's international whaling negotiators, famously told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in 2001 that "there are too many" minke whales, calling them "the cockroach of the ocean."Roman disagrees."It's far more complicated than that," he says, referring to the whale pump and the conveyor belt. "Our new review points to several studies that show you have more fish in an ecosystem by having these large predators there."The next step, he says, is to conduct more field studies on those processes. That could help scientists better understand exactly how plankton and other organisms respond to the presence of whales.
Read original post and view the videos at: news.nationalgeographic.com
Peru downplays El Nino chances, as waters begin to cool
SEAFOODNEWS.COM [SCOM] July 8, 2014
Photo Credit: Instituto del Mar del Peru
John Sackton, Editor And PublisherSeafoodNews.com 1-781-861-1441Email comments to jsackton@seafood.comCopyright © 2014 Seafoodnews.comStory Posted: 7/8/2014 9:45:13 AM
Unraveling the Mystery of the Great White Shark
Sharks have swarmed the media this summer and it’s not even Shark Week yet.
A great white shark swims off the coast of Massachusetts. Studies show the predators' population is returning to the waters in great numbers.
When men are caught taking selfies with a great white shark right outside of New York City, you know something’s a little fishy.Fisherman Steve Fernandez said he and his friends were not far from 116th Street when they caught a baby white shark. They took pictures before releasing it back into the water about a mile off Rockaway Beach June 22, Fernandez told the New York Post.“As soon as we saw it, there’s no mistaking it. It’s basically a miniature version of the shark you seen in the movie ‘Jaws,’” he said.This wasn't the only great white shark caught swimming just a little too close to the Big Apple.In another recent spotting, a photographer used a drone to film a young great white greeting paddle boarders in Manhattan Beach in June. But a recent study provides some insight into these occurrences: After years of decline, the great white shark population is finally on the rise.The study, conducted by researchers from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and published June 11 by PLOS ONE, analyzed shark records from 1800 to 2010 and found the abundance of great whites has increased about 42 percent in the northwest Atlantic Ocean since its predicted lowest point around 1990, according to lead author Tobey Curtis.Curtis tells U.S. News researchers think there may be a white shark nursery in the waters off New York, which could explain why the city seems to be a hangout spot for young sharks. Conservation efforts are largely to thank for the predators’ return over the past couple of decades, he adds.But while the great white shark population is rising, other shark populations are dropping, Curtis says. Their decline is partly due to lack of conservation efforts, but some species also fall victim to fisherman more easily than white sharks because they are less resilient. Larger white sharks are able to escape and survive nets and hooks more easily than other sharks, such as hammerheads, he says.A separate study published by PLOS ONE in June suggests the great white shark population is also surging in California waters.
The recent research contradicted a previous study published in the journal Biology Letters suggesting there were only 219 mature and sub-adult white sharks in “central California” and only about 438 in the entire eastern North Pacific Ocean. After finding such low numbers, the researchers tried to get the sharks protected under the Endangered Species Act, which would help prevent the species from being traded, sold, captured or disrupted, according to the National Wildlife Federation.The newest research published in PLOS ONE suggests there are actually 2,400 white sharks just in California waters, meaning that the species is not in danger of extinction.“That we found these sharks are doing OK, better than OK, is a real positive in light of the fact that other shark populations are not necessarily doing as well,” George Burgess, director of the Florida Program for Shark Research and the study's head author, told The Los Angeles Times.
Among the great white sharks dominating the waters is a 14-foot, 2,300-pound fish dubbed “Katharine” by the scientists who are tracking her, reported ABC News.
Greg Skomal, a program manager and senior biologist at the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, says Katharine is one of 39 great white sharks he and other researchers are watching in the Atlantic Ocean.Sharks like Katharine, who was tagged off Cape Cod last August, provide critical information about great whites' breeding habits so people can learn how to protect them, says Chris Fischer, another one of the scientists tracking her.Skomal says they began the study in 2009 and for a while they believed they had figured out the sharks’ migratory pattern: In the summers, they moved north and in winters, back down south.But some, like Katharine, have broken this rule: Instead of moving north this summer, Katharine traveled to the Gulf of Mexico. Skomal says roughly 25 percent to 30 percent of the great white sharks they are tracking have more complex behaviors and follow more dynamic movements than once thought.
“I just felt like something bumped into my back,” she said.One day later, a 16-year-old boy was reportedly bitten by a shark at Cape Henlopen State Park in Delaware.According to the International Shark Attack File, directed by Burgess at the Florida Museum of Natural History, Texas and Delaware are not common states for shark attacks. Of the 47 unprovoked attacks in the U.S. last year, almost half occurred in Florida. Most of the others took place in Hawaii and South Carolina, according to the research.
Despite the odd locations of the attacks, Burgess says there seem to be fewer attacks worldwide this year compared to last year.He says there have been 26 attacks so far this year, with two fatalities, one in South Africa and one in Australia. Sixteen of the attacks were in the U.S., with no fatalities. The ratio of attacks each year is low compared to the amount of times humans and sharks are near one another.Humans and sharks are actually very close to each other on a regular basis, says Burgess.“Certainly anyone whose spent any time in the sea, just recreationally in the surf zone, has been within 10 or 15 feet of a shark at some point in their lifetime,” he says.At any given time, "hundreds or perhaps thousands" of people are that close to a shark, he adds.In fact, statistics show that sharks have a lot more to fear than humans do.Burgess says humans are killing about up to 37 million sharks per year, while sharks only kill around four or five humans each year. Most sharks are dying when fisheries aiming for another type of fish catch them by mistake and have to throw them overboard, he says.However, Burgess warns that if people do not learn more about shark safety, the number of shark attacks on humans are sure to increase. Naturally, a larger population, increased tourism and water activities means more bites, even if the shark population remains the same, he says.
Humans are not a normal part of a shark's diet, he says, but sharks can mistake people for fish in certain situations.One way of avoiding an unexpected encounter is to stay in a group. Sharks, like other predators, look for the weak stragglers in the pack who linger behind, and tend to attack prey that looks to be alone, Burgess says.And if your parents have ever told you not to take a midnight swim in the ocean, they were right. Sharks feed the most from dusk until dawn – and you don’t want to end up being a midnight snack.The last bit of advice Burgess provides is to ditch your rings and bracelets before hitting the waves. To sharks, shiny jewelry can look like fish scales, reflecting light as you move in the water. Burgess urges people to remember that, when they enter the ocean, it’s like entering the wilderness. Most people don’t think about it, he says, but they are invading other species’ territory.“Can you imagine walking into the Serengeti in your bikini, barefoot and not worrying about the big animals that can do you harm?” he asks.Still, he adds, the ocean is a “pretty nice host.”“Although we wander in their naked and stupid, most of us come out just fine,” he says.
Original story: www.usnews.com
Vampire squid spotted in Gulf of Mexico depths
Rare sighting of deep-water denizen, which does not actually feed on blood, is documented via remotely-operated vehicle
A group of scientists exploring the depths of Gulf of Mexico on Friday videotaped a rarely observed vampire squid.Watch the video here.The sighting was made via remotely-operated vehicle (ROV) and documented by the crew aboard EVNautilus. The footage (posted here) shows the vampire squid moving slowly, yet gracefully, in the gentle current.Stated Nautilus Live on its Facebook page: “We had a surprise visit from a Vampire Squid last night, perfect timing for the end of #Cephalopod week. Check out this eerie video as it drifts into the cameras of the ROV Hercules. Beautiful!” According to the Monterey Bay Aquarium, which last month acquired one of these amazing critters, vampire squid are an ancient species that possess characteristics of a squid and an octopus.
Its Latin name, Vampyroteuthis infernalis, translates to “vampire squid from hell.”Contrary to its name, however, the vampire squid does not feed on blood. Rather, it scavenges largely on marine snow—organic detritus falling through the water column—and decaying animal carcasses. The richly colored critter boasts incredibly large eyes and can turn itself inside out to escape predators.Vampire squid are thought to reside at lightless depths between 2,000 and 3,000 feet.Aside from the Gulf of Mexico, they’ve been observed in the Gulf of California (Sea of Cortez) and off Monterey Bay.The EVNautilus is studying the impacts of oil and gas inputs into the Gulf of Mexico.
View the original story on: GrindTV.com
Fresh fish versus frozen fish: Is it a fair fight?
Consumers may consider fresh fish to be better overall than frozen fish. But, the difference isn't as clear-cut as it may seem to be.
Fresh versus frozen doesn’t seem like a fair fight. Who would pick that old, damaged, nutrient-poor frozen fish when they could have a new, unblemished, nutrient-rich fresh one?In the case of seafood, the assumptions surrounding those f-words are inconsistent with the reality of getting quality fish to the dinner table in a waste-conscious way. So let’s ignore the imagery for a minute and consider some fish logistics.
From the Depths
To find, reach, fish, and return from fishing holes in the open ocean costs time, money, and freshness. Commercial fishing operations have two options:
- Store fish on ice and return before they spoil (according to the FAO, cod and haddock last 15 days or so).
- Flash-freeze fish and return when the hold is full.
The economics definitely favor freezing, and in developed countries in 2012, 55 percent of processed fish for human consumption was frozen, up from 38 percent in 1972. But aren’t we sacrificing nutrition for convenience by choosing to freeze instead of chill?
Delaying Decay
Fish are like any other organism—when they die, they begin to decay. Immediately. Yes, chilling slows that decay as well as microbial growth and nutrient loss, but the only way to stop those processes is freezing.Aboard fish processing ships, products are flash-frozen using freezing plates, air blasts, or liquid nitrogen spray, which reduces the internal temperature of products to -20°C in minutes to a few hours. This rapid freezing preserves nutrients and decreases the formation of ice crystals that damage cell membranes and negatively affect the texture of thawed products.
Flying Fish
For a fresh fish to get from the sea to the scenic prairies, it needs to fly. But after an unknown time on a ship, an airplane, and store shelves, how fresh could that fish in your fridge really be? If you’re a skeptical consumer, you’ll try the sniff test, and if there’s any doubt, you’ll probably throw it out. What a waste! Not only the fish, but the resources used in obtaining, storing, and shipping that fish.You might be less skeptical of a thawed fish’s freshness and you’re definitely more likely to only thaw the amount you need. That reduces waste. And, because the clock on frozen seafood is ticking so slowly, products can be shipped in containers, which is a slower but cheaper method, often reflected in the product’s price at the supermarket.
The Verdict
Maybe fresh versus frozen really wasn’t a fair fight after all. Nutrients, waste, cost—frozen beats fresh on many fronts. But does that mean you should turn down your local fisherman’s daily catch in favor of a frozen filet?
Sustainable Fresh or Sustainable Frozen?
Let’s remember the big picture when it comes to seafood: sustainability. In my recent article, I discussed why sustainable seafood is important and how to find it—fresh or frozen. Because of overfishing, we should always be thinking sustainable first, but when do you choose sustainable fresh or sustainable frozen?Easy.If the fish can get from the boat deck to your backdoor in half a day without flying first class, fresh is a safe bet. Otherwise, feel confident that a conscious choice for frozen is a healthier and less wasteful one.
Read the original article here.
California congressman calls ocean acidification "the biggest thing no one is talking about"
SEAFOODNEWS.COM Press-Democrat] By Mary Callaghan - June 18, 2014 -
BODEGA BAY, It's been called the “evil twin” of climate change, an environmental peril so daunting and widespread that it could undo much of the world's food web, undermine global nutrition and devastate coastal economies.
Ocean acidification, however, is often largely overlooked outside the circles of scientists, yet North Coast Congressman Jared Huffman is seeking to somehow change that and spur action on the issue before it's too late.
Acidification of the world's oceans, said Huffman, D-San Rafael, “is the biggest thing that nobody is talking about.”
Shellfish grown off the nation's West Coast already display the ill effects of rapid changes in the ocean's chemistry, an early sign that the health of the marine ecosystem could hang in the balance, Huffman said.
“You can't really overstate the impact of this,” Huffman said at a news conference this week at Bodega Marine Laboratory that was attended by representatives from science, aquaculture and government.
“We're very, very quickly approaching the tipping point, I believe,” Huffman said.
Huffman's district runs from the Golden Gate to the Oregon border, taking in about a third of the coast of California, where seafood is a $24-billion industry, supporting 145,000 jobs.
The 2nd Congressional District is on the front lines of the issue because the shift toward ocean acidity is expected to be especially pronounced along the North Coast, said John Largier, an environmental science and policy professor at Bodega Marine Lab.
Absorption of excess carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere at historically high rates is lowering the pH of oceans around the planet, scientists say.
Its impact on the North Coast is amplified by a natural upwelling that serves as a kind of conveyor belt, bringing deep water made naturally acidic and rich in carbon dioxide by decaying organic matter toward the surface, where it absorbs still more carbon dioxide.
This dynamic effectively puts the northern California coast “at the forefront of acidification,” said Largier, who is one of several marine lab scientists studying aspects of acidification and was among those joining Huffman on Monday.
And yet, while global warming has a high degree of public recognition, ocean acidification is a less familiar phenomenon, Huffman said.
Terry Sawyer, owner of Hog Island Oyster Co. on Tomales Bay, put it this way: “We're dealing with something that's hard to touch. It's hard to see, hard to taste, smell, etc.”
Huffman organized the event in part to highlight bipartisan legislation that he is co-sponsoring with Washington state Congressman Derek Kilmer. The Ocean Acidification Innovation Act is intended to spark new research and innovation in adaptive strategies through X-Prize-style competitions. The bill would leverage existing federal funds to create competitions for research into solutions, Huffman said.
But he said he also wanted to awaken public awareness to an environmental threat that has yet to receive the attention given to climate change. “This one has a potential to just be enormous and overwhelming,” he said.
“Nothing is quite as scary as acidification,” said Zeke Grader, executive director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations.
Scientists say the oceans absorb a quarter or more of the carbon dioxide humankind puts into the atmosphere — about 22 million tons a day, on top of the estimated 525 billion tons absorbed over the past two centuries. What exactly that means for the planet is still not known, Largier said, though “it doesn't look good.”
Shellfish, however, and particularly West Coast oysters, are providing some clues. Scientists are looking at reproductive failures in their midst in recent years — problems they ascribe to the interference of low pH water with the synthesis of calcium carbonate through which oyster larvae, and presumably other shellfish, develop hard, protective shells.
Sawyer and other West Coast purveyors of farm-raised oysters have seen “complete crashes” at some hatcheries in the Pacific Northwest, where he and other producers obtain the oyster larvae to seed their farms. Sawyer has had similar die-offs at his Tomales Bay operation, enough so that he's building a new hatchery in Humboldt Bay to provide seed for his farm. He and his staff, meanwhile, are working closely with the marine lab to monitor and document conditions at his facility and develop strategies to try to adapt.
The entire fishing industry is at risk, given the role of calcium carbonate synthesis in skeletal development, potentially disrupting the entire food web, from the lowest phytoplankton on up, Largier said.
Largier and his colleagues emphasized that the world's oceans are already contending with pollution, areas of low oxygen and rampant over fishing. Those problems are likely to compound any effects of acidification.
“The science is really early days,” Largier said.
UC Davis researcher Daniel Swezey, said one of the alarming features of ocean acidification is that a certain amount is inescapable, given the volume of past and current carbon dioxide emissions. “We're kind of locked in to a certain amount of change,” he said. Largier said reducing carbon dioxide emissions is the only real fix but conceded that even large-scale, global changes in human behavior might not be evident for decades.
But that's “no reason not to start acting now,” Largier said.
“Even if we completely adapt,” said Grader, “if we don't start changing the ways we're doing things now, we're going to lose our ocean. We're going to lose the planet.”
Posted by permission from SeafoodNews.com. Subscribe to their seafood industry news here.
Regional Fishery Management Councils call on Oceana to retract bycatch report; Cite "substantial errors, omissions"
WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) -- June 18, 2014 -- The Regional Fishery Management Council Coordination Committee, representing all eight U.S. regional Fishery Management Councils, has recommended that environmental group Oceana retract its March 2014 report on fisheries bycatch, "Wasted Catch," that was widely reported in the press without independent verification of its allegations.
The Councils contend that "misinformation in reports like Wasted Catch undermines those productive relationships between industry, management, and NGOs that have been effective in reducing bycatch." They are especially critical of the fact that Oceana relied heavily on only one document, the National Marine Fishery Service's "National Bycatch Report," and in doing so has left the report "unlikely to result in a full representation of the best available science."
The Councils recommended that for future reports, Oceana should adopt "a standardized peer review process to ensure that reports like this accurately and objectively represent the best available science."
The analysis by the Councils lists general issues with and critiques of the report, followed by a region-by-region analysis of errors and omissions identified by Council staffs.
The Councils conclude by acknowledging, "there are no laws requiring Oceana reports to accurately represent the best available scientific information or to undergo peer review." But they urge that "to do so would be in the best interest of all involved parties."
Read the full letter from the Regional Fishery Management Council Coordination Committee here