Is it worth considering growing oysters for food instead of fish that are in danger of extinction, which would make it possible to feed 9 billion people?
Much has been written and said about the increasing difficulty of feeding the growing world population. One of the sources of food that until a few years ago was considered rich and "inexhaustible" was the sea, but it turns out that wild fishing is depleting the fish population to such an extent that species that were a central component of the food basket are becoming extinct.
The alternative that would ease the pressure on the fish populations in the days was supposed to be cultural breeding of fish in cages in the sea, it turns out that when the cages are close to the shore, the marine environment is damaged due to the abundance of food materials (nutrients) and due to secretions. On the other hand, growing far from the coast in deep water is not free of damage, fish that escape change the natural balance and spread diseases.
Another source that exists in the sea and can be a basis for food supply is algae, but to this day algae is only eaten as a supplement and does not constitute actual food. Recently, oyster farming has been rising and flourishing. Oysters have always been food for connoisseurs, an expensive product that is served as an appetizer and not as a main dish, there are indeed huge oysters that can each constitute a complete meal, but these are rare and are not found as a cultured crop.
The most common cultured oyster is the Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas More and more farms are being established in all parts of the world, so much so that there are those who say that the oyster will be the silver bullet that will solve the problem Hunger in large parts of areas where residents suffer from malnutrition."
Supporters of the industry say that "Crystal farming is the serious future possibility for feeding a human population that will soon reach 9 billion".
Unlike the environmental pollution caused by fish farming, the oysters do not cause environmental pollution, on the contrary, the oysters filter artificial (and natural) pollutants, sediments and phyto-plankton from the water column and thus clean the marine environment and improve the water quality. One mature oyster filters 200 liters of water every day.
Oyster farming is the food industry that is growing faster than any other (agricultural) industry, today the cultivation of algae is estimated at 100 billion dollars, an industry that in the last three decades has grown by 8 to 10 percent per year.
Growing oysters is considered sustainable since there is no need to feed them. On the contrary, the oysters remove the excess nitrogen and the accumulation of organic matter from the water, thus preventing the development of harmful algae "blooms".
The oyster originated on the coast of Japan and over the years it has been grown in many places where the local oysters have been affected by diseases or overfishing. The oyster is resistant to disease and develops quickly which makes it perfect for culture in existing breeding farms and development of new farms.
According to the World Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), there are currently oyster farms on the coasts of South America, the United States, the Virgin Islands, Brazil, the Philippines, Malaysia, Romania, Ukraine, Seychelles, Fiji, Polynesia, Palau, Samoa, Vanuatu and also in Israel.
Breeding farms are now also being developed on the coasts of South and West Africa after a breeding company identified the "inexhaustible" possibilities for breeding in Africa. From 2 million oysters harvested in 1970, production rose to 8 million in the XNUMXs, and production continues to rise, yet still does not meet demand.
The Food Organization considers the large and nutritious oyster to be a significant component in the (partial) solution to the malnutrition situation in which many of the continent's residents find themselves. This is despite criticism of "introducing a foreign clam into the environmental system",
The oyster survives and grows in different salinity levels and in a wide temperature range, which allows it to grow in all temperate and temperate regions. The oyster placenta can be reached about six months after the "sowing" in temperate areas and as the temperature rises, its development is faster. Breeding farms can be developed in bays, near the coasts and in deep water,
Growing oysters on an ever-expanding scale will make it possible to fill the place of the dwindling fish and at the same time raise the quality of the water.
So far everything sounds and looks great, will the oyster be the silver lining of the food problem?
to her and a thorn in her. A large and poisonous thorn, since the oyster filters the water and collects and concentrates heavy metals, toxins, sediments and all other harmful substances. Is it correct to plan to feed large populations and many people with production that absorbs toxins?
On the same subject: by the middle of the century there will be no fish left in the sea
40 תגובות
It is known that we don't really know for sure that the warming is man-made. Known to whom? To the contenders in the Republican Party in the USA who are financed by oil money? The science on this matter is unequivocal - 98% while the other 2% are people who want to hope that in case the majority is deceived they will be able to say they were right. Very few of them are climate scientists, and as we have seen in several examples these are scientists from other disciplines.
two things
The question of the graph and the question of reference to the subject
The question of the graph - assuming that the graph is correct, why does the warming appear before the increase in the amount of carbon dioxide
The reference question - is there room for excessive confidence in the subject that my father discovers?, on the other hand, see the caution expressed on the subject by Machal and by me.
I have my doubts, maybe Michael too, and I believe others do too.
A good week and a good year
Sabdarmish Yehuda
A quote from my father's words: "There is warming and it is man-made."
Father, would you put my life between you on this statement?
I don't, nor on a contrary claim no. Because we still don't really know for sure that the warming is man-made
People of faith have no doubts.
So again, welcome to the Shas, Reverend Rabbi Avi Blizovsky.
Yehuda and my father:
Why do you keep the lecturer's name a secret?
I am guessing that this is Gyora Shabib.
Regarding it, you should know the following:
On March 16, 2011, Professor Giora Shabib was hosted on the Galileo website.
He did this following the article he published in Galileo in which he described the theory of his son - Nir Shabiv, and explained why it is so successful.
Professor Giora Shabib is a world-renowned physicist, but that's it - he's a physicist and not a climate scientist.
I contacted Professor Pinchas Alpert from Tel Aviv University and asked him to join the discussion on the Galileo website.
He said it would be difficult to do so for technical reasons but gave me and the Galileo system a list of questions to present to Professor Giora Shabib.
The editor of the site did raise the questions and Gyura Shabiv tried to answer some of them.
The truth is that it was quite embarrassing because one of the questions describes findings that completely (but completely!) disprove the theory and Professor Shabib did not answer it until this writing.
Here is a link to that section of the discussion:
http://forums.ifeel.co.il/forum_posts.asp?TID=197629
No, it wasn't Professor Nathan Faldor, it was another name
and my father
We may not be talking about the same professor, but,
It doesn't seem like you found an easy solution to killing the professor:-
"He is no longer a scientist and the rest of his findings cannot be trusted...?"
Well, it will heat up, it will cool down, what does it matter.
The barren that the USA will veto!
Happy New Year
Sabdarmish Yehuda
No. Someone else.
Are you talking about Prof. Natan Faldor from Earth Sciences, Hebrew University?
He has a great lecture on the university's YouTube site:
Global climate change - myths and facts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCl-L0K9IRY
As soon as a person discovers unscientific behavior, and criticizes instead of scientifically proving that he is right, he is no longer a scientist. The rest of his findings cannot be trusted, especially when it comes to a problem with the underlying model
My dear father
For the example I gave about tens of thousands of years or hundreds of thousands of years. There is no connection between the crossing of the sun between the arms of the galaxy which happens once every tens of millions of years depending on the number of arms.
He talked about cosmic radiation which is the cause of heating and it comes from super novae and solar activity and more.
In the graph that he will show us about maximum points over a period of about a hundred thousand years, there were a number of maximum points, as far as I remember about ten, and the differences of 1400 years between the graph of warming and the graph of the increase in the amount of carbon dioxide always appeared when the warming preceded the increase in carbon dioxide, so maybe if there was One case of difference you can say is a random deviation but when it repeats itself about ten times it means preachy.
It is possible that an error of a few thousand years could fall in determining the date of occurrence, but not in the fact that the warming always preceded the increase in carbon dioxide.
Why is it similar? Let's say you have a tape measure 100 meters long that has a large deviation of five meters. Really a huge deviation. Nevertheless, we can distinguish distances of about ten centimeters between nearby points and the deviation in determining the distance will not exceed five percent! And we can always say that the eightieth centimeter appears before the eighty-one centimeter, and the two hundredth before the two hundred and two, etc.
The logic he showed in his lecture regarding the conduct of things was also convincing, that is,
First stage the warming of the atmosphere (and it really doesn't matter why at the moment), second stage, the ocean starts to warm, third stage the warm ocean currents penetrate to the bottom of the oceans and release the carbon dioxide and release the treasures in it in huge quantities. This process is known to last about 1400 years. In the fourth stage, the carbon dioxide reaches the atmosphere, causing cloudiness, blocking the sun's radiation, and cooling the earth so that the process stops. That is, there is a mechanism that every time the Earth warms up, a reversible cooling process is created.
The same professor whose name I forgot for some reason, his opinion was not comfortable with the increase in the amount of carbon dioxide that comes from human activity because this gas eventually melts in the oceans in the upper layers and destroys the plankton and the fish in the oceans.
Why am I still very careful?, because I ask myself:- What if I'm wrong?, after all, I'm lending a hand to the destruction of the earth. Could I not consciously cause our planet to become compatible with Venus?, where everything boils at about five hundred degrees Celsius!
I miss them saying that Yehuda is guilty (:))
Abi, get over yourself, and let the debate proceed in a fair manner, try to get an article from the respected professor, he is not stupid and does not appear to be a person who receives budgets from Saudi Arabia to express his opinion. In the end he also opposes the burning of the fuels but not because of the warming but because of the destruction of the fish.
Happy and cool New Year to us and to all the people of Israel
and to the inhabitants of the earth
In appreciation,
And please respond gently, thank you.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Lesbadramish
I once had the opportunity to talk about the same professor when a study quoted him and showed that he was wrong about the plane of the galaxy and that it has a different number of arms than he used in his model, as a result of an improvement in the quality of the measurements. He got angry and said that his model is excellent and nothing needs to be changed. This is not how a scientist behaves. Apart from that with a resolution of millions of years, 1,400 years can also be an ambiguous figure.
To my dear father Blizovsky
The truth is that I wanted to tell you about the sufficiency I received on the subject of warming after a lecture we received from a well-known professor on this subject about two weeks ago at the Israeli Astronomical Society
But I told myself that I really have no desire to have all the commenters come down on me and tell how certain they are of the warming and this will be another proof that Yehuda just likes conspiracy. It started with a dark mass that everyone knows exists and now Yehuda doubts the connection between warming and carbon dioxide
But in a quiet voice, the same professor showed us tens of thousands of years of graphs of the temperature and the concentration of carbon dioxide. Always when the temperature was high, the amount of carbon dioxide in the air was also high. Apparently everything is fine and dandy and the connection between carbon dioxide (and also the temperature) and warming is proven!
So why am I still confusing you and the commenters' heads?, because there was another important point, the warming always preceded the increase in carbon dioxide by about 1400 years
Then explained by the very distinguished professor
that first of all there was warming that resulted from various cosmological activities, then the ocean warmed up which caused a 1400 year cycle in the water currents that released carbon dioxide and radiation from the depths of the oceans and these actually caused clouds to thicken and the earth to cool
That's why the persuasive professor said that a cooling is expected.
I'm not trying to convince you, father, because I'm also afraid of being convinced and because of that I'll be hijacked right and left by you and well-known commenters
My dear father
But, get over yourself and allow a debate without killing commenters who are not to your liking
And if you still feel like killing someone, then kill me, I'm used to it and I have a thick skin!
And by the way, it seems to me that Mihael's approach is more cautious in her responses on the subject
Happy New Year, my father
In appreciation
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Avner, as long as the trend in the scientific press is unequivocal, I will be unequivocal and it will not help you that you compare me to Shas because there is a small difference, Shas believe in something false while I believe if it can be said so in something scientifically proven. There is warming and it is man-made.
You are not comfortable, go read the black blog.
Avner:
I am not entering into a debate about warming.
There is evidence here and there and most of the experts adopt a certain theory, but personally I would not show the determination that my father shows in the fight against the opposing opinions, so I usually content myself with referring to sources that summarize the experts' words.
That's why I wouldn't even start arguing with you on this issue.
What upsets me, however, is the disgraceful generalization you made about leftists.
She may be right in relation to the global left, but in Israel the situation seems to me to be exactly the opposite and the fact is that in the end, after a long process of disillusionment, the right-wing parties are also advocating the solutions previously proposed by the left.
Although they do this in a clumsy manner and while creating maximum mistrust on the part of the rest of the world, even they have already understood that the vision of a complete Land of Israel will lead to a binational state that will eventually become a Palestinian state.
There are also delusional people on the left (extreme) but on the right the situation is much worse (and your generalization is just an example of that).
Amit, I loved it.
My father, notice that you speak like a religious person regarding global warming.
There are believers and there are unbelievers.
There is one and only truth and anyone who challenges it is ignorant, evil... an infidel...
Welcome to Shas.
As a person who doesn't understand much - if they created varieties of trees in which the amount of fruit would be double or oats in which there would be more sperms, wouldn't that be enough to catch up with the rate of growth.
Hi Avi,
Your answer touches multiple areas, so I'll try to answer to the best of my ability.
First, I merely suggested that previous temperature measurements should be cautiously considered. Hence, one shouldn't draw final conclusions just yet.
Second, what novim is trying to do, I think, is to filter out all of the "noise" in the measurements and have few solid criteria of past/present temperature measurements.
Third, I've attended a talk by one of the people who founded the organization, and he described it as: a non profit organization that doesn't take sides but rather just does the "science." For example, all of their donors are disconnected from their projects in any shape or form. Take a look at their science board or list of authors, it's a very respectable list of scientists.
Fourth, I'm not trying to defend novim, just to convey what I've heard, and you are right, everything should be taken with a grain of salt.
Fifth, it's easy to blame capitalism/Republicans, but remember that it takes two to tango. Foreign governments purchased US bonds/assets for potentially high returns during the bubble and nobody complained back then. Furthermore, the EU added countries like Greece which cannot survive in the EU market (easy to say after the fact I know...:-) because of low competitiveness and other reasons.
I'm not a huge fan of capitalism or a devoted advocate for socialism, since I think that there should be a comfortable place somewhere in the middle (at least until we'll have other reasonable alternatives).
At any rate, I think we are diverging from the subject....
Amit, there is nothing to be convinced by a propaganda website even if it claims to present facts. There are people in the Republican party who are ready to deny global warming and they don't care that we won't be able to live on Earth in ten years, they care about the next quarter in terms of mental mortality with invasions.
I think there is no need to exaggerate where their free economy has taken us? Tycoon rule and corruption, tens of percent unemployment in Europe and the US. You have to take what they say with a lot of salt.
While I believe that the Earth is warming, to which extent the effect is man made is a different story....
Temperature readings from previous centuries should be used with extreme caution as there is a large amount of variables mixed in there (ie measurements in different hours, different location, etc); even measurements of the last couple hundred years. Here is a related nice wiki article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
Also, if you are interested in such questions, Novim (novim.org) suppose to release a rigorous report that might shed some light on the subject.
Avner, it is true that the Greenpeace people do not test themselves, but their meteorological services of all countries have been doing it for 200 years, and NASA and NOAA are doing it from space. You can argue with politicians and lawyers, but not with thermometers. So far, from all the tests I have done, the denial of warming is Pseudoscience and not as you claim.
to my petite
No one attacked personally or tried to insult as you do (and double standards and self-righteousness are really characteristic of leftists).
There was an interview I saw a long time ago with the chairman of Green Peace who crossed the lines ("betrayed") and began to act as an advocate for oil companies and corporations.
In that interview, there was some Green Peace activist who hurled accusations and described how the ecological situation is bad, etc., etc.
A former chairman said to him: "How do you know? Did you really measure it? What are you basing it on?..."
What to do, when I meet with a pseudo-science that is driven by the same beliefs and mission feelings as religious people, it annoys me.
To pettiness, John Huntsman asked whether right-wingers (or in his language members of the Republican Party) must be anti-scientific?
https://www.hayadan.org.il/jon-hantsman-against-republican-anti-science-agenda-0408116/
Abner, there is not enough knowledge about Mars before the seventies while on Earth there are 200 years of measurements.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm
I see a direct connection between a scientific lifestyle and a leftist lifestyle.
Racism, nationalism, conservatism, religiosity and aggression do not sit well with the values of the scientific community
"But hey, I know a nuclear physicist who supports Baruch-Goldstein!"
It's okay, there are also scientists who deny evolution, there are scientists who deny global warming, and there are 100-year-old grandmothers who smoke a pack a day from the age of 10.
There are many rules with exceptions.
Dear Assaf I hope you don't take to heart blunt statements that are addressed to you personally from the mouths of ignorant and foreign peoples. You are doing a great job
What is the relationship between leftism and scientific truth? Should only leftists believe scientifically proven things?
Come on father, do you really believe what you write...?
The level of solar radiation has apparently changed and this is what is responsible for the identical climatic changes (here and there)
Warming and cooling have occurred in the past.
We are scientists! Not leftists.
If I summarize everything I've learned here, maybe it's also possible (I don't know if it's economical) to act like this:
to build water reservoirs divided (by a physical buffer) into two parts:
In one part oysters will be grown - not for food but for cleaning the water.
Water cleaned in the first part will be flowed to the second part to grow oysters for food.
Surplus clean water that will be created can be used for other needs.
Gentlemen, visitors and supporters,
I write about topics that interest me, sometimes I translate, sometimes I interpret, and sometimes I write independently based on it
Preliminary information and familiarity with the subjects as suggested by a personal and direct meeting in the field.
When I translate I bring the source and sometimes I add my opinion.
When I interpret I do so based on information from many sources as well as personal information.
Defining a personal opinion based on knowledge of the material as "delusional fanaticism" (H.P.) must rely on information
And no... This is simply ignorance.
As a matter of fact:
The suggestions of Ami, David and my father are correct and are implemented in Israel as well,
However, the application so far is on a tiny scale as it is to prevent environmental damage and the accumulation of toxins in oysters
The system must be closed when the water is clean,
To make such systems commercial they must be large, large systems on land will receive seawater that contains heavy metals and toxins, even more so large systems in the sea,
So that the oysters will concentrate toxins again.
Therefore, the beginning of the process for a correct solution is the cessation of the poisoning of the marine environment,
Stopping the flow of heavy metals, hormones, excess nutrients and toxins into the oceans.
In other words, a complete stop to the poisoning of the environment by the human race.
to cast
The real solution is not a limitation, but the expansion of the remaining space at our disposal - the rest of the planets, asteroids and so on. With any luck, we'll also discover a real method of interstellar travel so we can find new Earth-like planets
The bottom line in the article will leave all the lines above it.
I know that in fish spawning, hundreds of fry are born, only a few of which reach adulthood.
Perhaps the right integrated solution is to spawn fry in human-managed farms, and disperse the fry into the sea once they are better able to survive. It seems to me that such actions are done in Kinneret.
Such actions on a much larger scale could possibly return the fish to the oceans.
For the limited person who 'thinks open': the solution is to limit the insane growth of the human race! If the growth does not stop (probably the malignancy...) no 'solutions' like your proposal for "turning the oceans into habitats" will help... the arrogance of humans over the life support systems (yes sir 'open minded' !!) will ultimately only bring about the extinction of the arrogant species ("Nezer HaBraiya" - you made me laugh!!). which to this day caused and continues to cause destruction
Whole ecosystems out of uncontrollable greed (see the oil baronies in the USA and... AI!!!!
I think they haven't thought about it enough
The oysters are considered an aphrodisiac
This will cause a population explosion which will require more oysters which will cause more culture and so on.
(-:
Growing oysters in conjunction has already been done in Israel (I think in the Yamim research laboratories in Eilat) oysters-crabs-fish and algae were combined in the "correct" order so that each one feeds on the remains of its predecessor in the chain and drives to feed the next one after it. The circle is of course not closed and feeding is required (of the fish I think)
Mars does not have a large moon that moderates its displacement relative to its axis of rotation with the Sun, so there is no comparison between the planets, except for garbage from American right-wing sites who think that the war on global warming is against the freedom to establish businesses. Yes, if businesses harm the environment and the future of humanity, they have no right to exist.
I have a better idea, humans don't need to multiply endlessly. If in the third world they are not able to understand that 2-3 children is enough and they don't need 7, then they will live undernourished and die.
What is really important is that there will be food for the developed countries
Interesting article. I actually see green potential, as David wrote.
I've already said it a thousand times, even here on the science site, the future is process coupling.
Grow oysters to purify water and reduce costs by using meat (even for composting) and using oysters (I didn't know what could be done with them... maybe bricks for construction).
The same story with harvesting light energy: open a solar panel, harvest as much as possible and reduce costs by using the heat generated there to heat water for the shower. Coupling coupling coupling! Reducing costs makes the luxury product (energy, clean water) cheaper with the help of the by-products ( heat, meat).
Greetings friends,
Ami Bachar
It sounds like religious claims.
Everything that man does is not good. Pollutes, pollutes, changes the ecological balance.
did you know The ice caps on Mars have shrunk in recent years.
A rare coincidence?
Is man also responsible for this?
Pseudoscience
Shouldn't it be useful to combine fish and oyster farms, so that the oyster beds clean the water from the waste of the fish?
Assaf Rosenthal as usual speaks according to the inclination of his heart.
The future of the oceans is as massive fish farms.
Oysters don't grow fast enough and don't have enough meat.
Yes, all local ecosystems will go to waste.
It's not what I personally would choose, but life is hard and you should face reality.
The delusional types, for example Assaf Rosenthal, mainly cause damage to the issue they are trying to promote because they usually offer unrealistic solutions or those that require the re-education of entire populations (scrambling nonsense)
The question is what happens to the toxins in the oyster's body. After all, we wouldn't even put the fertilizer with which different agricultural crops are fertilized on our plate.
The article was really encouraging and hopeful
Until….the last line
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda