Strong letter from an Argentine engineer to chefs who say "no" to salmon

Since the possibility of installing salmon farms and cages in the Beagle Channel – which already existed in Chile but which had been stopped on the Argentinian side – was known, a group of leaders criticized this initiative and s & # 39; 39 is pronounced against. In fact, a strong campaign on social networks was launched with the hashtag #noalasalmonicultura. This whole movement, which began a long time ago, was updated a few days ago when Francis Mallmann decided to go to Usuahia and to bow to protests from people who do not want these salmon farms materialize, also announcing that he had withdrawn all his restaurants.

Once again, many leaders have echoed the situation. Faced with this panorama, Lucas Maglio, an Argentine aquaculture engineer, responded bluntly to the renowned chef: "Francis, now … what have you become! What do we do with" 7 fires "? "Such radical positions !!", he wondered; and then he gave his opinion on one of Mallmann's statements regarding the protest – he said: "The future is vegan". "The future is in balance – basically in the open sea," he said on Twitter.

The professional, who has been working in Chile for 10 years but aims to arrive in Argentina and develop aquaculture in our country, wrote a letter in January refuting several fundamental principles of gastronomy and sent it to Narda Lepes . , another of the most visible faces of this campaign. Acting on the "revival" of the controversy, he explained in his social networks that he had responded in the same way to Francis: "I leave my letter to Narda, which applies to Francis Malmann, "he wrote on Twitter.

Then the strong defense against salmon farming and the sharp letter with the refutations of the Argentine engineer:

Dear Narda.

My name is Lucas Maglio (Argentina) and I am an engineer in aquaculture (Universidad Austral de Chile). I have been in Chile for 10 years in two periods. I've been involved with salmon farming since I started in aquaculture. Among other things, I worked at Marine Harvest and I eat salmon and trout every week with my family, trying and dreaming for years to develop this activity in my country. Can you imagine why I write to you, I can not help it. Imagine if tomorrow started a #NOALOSCHEFS campaign on social networks, adding people, providing erroneous information, fragmented truths, poorly targeted statistics and fundamentally damaging to an activity that you are pbadionate about, I have no doubt you will do like me At this point, try to defend in the clearest and clearest way the mistake you make. The #NOALASALMONICULTURA touches me and touches us with the thousands of people who devote our lives to it, but I think it concerns us much more as a society.

It scares me, it worries me, it saddens me, it's "campaigns", I do not say everything, obviously, but to generate a campaign from unfounded comments, from a point of view questionable, and automatically form a "Campaign" with a remarkable diffusion, with symbols, flags of war, in short, it seems very dangerous. Not only for the one who promotes it, but also for the followers who join without badyzing much information. To be in order, I first want to answer each of the postulates that I see on Instagram, citing reliable sources, which I suggest respectfully please, then I invite you to another campaign .

1- "It's an exotic species." It is true that salmonids (trout and salmon) were introduced by John Ticomb in Argentina in 1903 from the United States, followed by other imports from Europe, of the genera Salmo, Salvelinus and Oncorhynchus, for a total of 8 introductions.

So we should be starting a campaign of #NOALAGANADERIA cows now: they are also exotic (horses too and hundreds of examples). A few years before the entry of salmon into the country, in 1879, the first emblem of Aberdeen Angus, with emblematic dimensions, intended for Argentine cattle breeding. Just as you promote it with salmon, I imagine that you will now go out the recipes and the menus; beef, pork, among another long list of "exotic" foods.

2- "Environmental impact and use of antibiotics" What you say is true. Salmonids in intensive production need, if necessary, antibiotics, and also generate an environmental impact, but let me go back to the cows for a moment.

Cows (chickens and pigs) also need antibiotics when they get sick, which is why and for that, some vets prescribe treatments as doctors do with us. With regard to the impact on the environment, I tell you that the situation of sheep farming is extremely more delicate than the impact of salmon farming. According to the FAO (Long Term Livestock 2006), livestock is one of the main causes of the most pressing environmental problems in the world. such as global warming, soil degradation, air pollution, water and biodiversity loss. With a methodology that encompbades the entire product chain, the report estimates that livestock is responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions !! #NOALAGANADERIA takes shape, right?

If you follow the same path of thought, I hope that after this letter you will start the #NOALAGANADERIA. Just do not count on me, I love the emptiness and the heart. For all this, no fish culture generates greenhouse gases. As if that were not enough, a cow consumes between 20 and 30 liters of drinking water a day (Luke 1987), which means that for every kilo of beef you use for your recipes, livestock needs a little more than 15,000 liters of water. soft. I also tell you that a cow needs 10 to 15 kilos of food to produce a kilo of meat, which are also raw materials that have been planted in fields that have moved forests or natural forests and plants treated with herbicides and pesticides. . Ready, no more cows. In the case of salmon farming, we can achieve a yield of 1 to 1, that is to say a kilo of food and a kilo of fish (World B. 2007 Change of face of the # 39; water). Now I have read in your blog something that concerns the use of fishmeal in salmon feed. This is also true, but it is important to note that the decrease in the use of fishmeal in salmon feed has decreased significantly, from 45% to 20% respectively between 1995 and 2008 (FAO 2011) and that it is currently in progress. diets containing less than 10% fishmeal and other flours, such as insects or microalgae, are already being used.

I do not want to get into what salmon implies for health compared to beef, an omega-3 intake, prevents coronary heart disease, fights blood pressure, is excellent for brain activity, etc. ., beef does not have these benefits, it has others do, but their abuse increases the risk of certain diseases, in short many studies from the WHO.

3- "The case of Chilean salmon farming": significant impact on the environment, social disaster, low employment rate, etc.. Let me tell you that I've been very critical of the mistakes made by the industry in the beginning. Were mistakes made? Of course, in most cases, the product of the dizzying growth of a new industry where regulation was often behind production. However, I tell you that today, there are already growing centers without chemicals or antibiotics, the restrictions and controls that currently exist in the industry are very strict and allow for example to reach markets extremely nutrition and health status of products. as are Japan or the United States. In Chile, salmon are not caught today; they have not gone beyond the period of antibiotic deficiency indicated by the authorities; On the other hand, the presence of recurring traces on the markets would have caused the interruption of exports, which does not happen, the production increases sustainably. In terms of the social impact, the data are overwhelming. The three areas where salmon farming is developed are those with the lowest unemployment rate, compared to the national average. 2.7% vs. 6.7% respectively (National Institute of Statistics of Chile 2018). Eyes! Are there things to improve? Of course, but I ask you. What would be the alternative for these areas if there was no salmon farming? In the same way, I ask you what is the alternative for people who work in the Argentine agro? By following your goals and applying the same criteria, cows, pigs, soy, wheat, etc. are exotic species, there is also an environmental impact on the production of these foods, the consumption of antibiotics, deforestation, etc. etc.

So I ask you: are we eating? Only things that are not exotic and have not been treated? Our diet would then be a biological food, consisting of native animals and plants, an interecarrien yacarea with a salad of Jacaranda leaves … … we are starving.

I now want to share my eyes and invite you to the campaign #ACUICULTURAENARGENTINA. Imagine the impact of your profession! If you only use proteins from up to 5 animals (cow, pork, chicken, turkey, lamb), you potentially have more than 500 species of fish, another quantity of shellfish and you can even innovate with algae and even with microalgae !!

For such a campaign, in addition to supporting each argument with the utmost effort, I steal the following as a guiding thought: "We must cultivate at sea and stop hunting, act as farmers and not as "hunters", the author of this wonder is no less than the greatest ocean defender Jacqes Cousteau.

When you take the badysis "What are we going to eat" at the level of the planet, the reality is even worse. According to the FAO, we will be 9 billion people by 2050 and as long as we keep this habit of eating every day and proportionately more protein, we will have to increase the current food production by 70%! (How to feed the world in 2050. FAO 2009). A top-level study by Anglia Ruskin University (England) concludes that "if we do not radically alter our way of producing food, humanity will collapse in 2040," Aled Jones, director of the Institute of Sustainability). Currently, 98% of the food we eat comes from the land, there is no way to continue like this. If we add to that that 70% of the planet is an ocean, it is not necessary to be wise to realize that the future is in the water. On the other hand, the commercial fishery has no chance of providing the more than 50 million tons of fish that, according to the United Nations, are needed by 2030. Fishing is the last activity of the man in which we act as hunters. More than 80% of the species caught by FAO are overexploited or fully exploited. In this regard, a study published in Bioscience 2009 (Will the Ocean Contribute to Feeding Humankind?), In which 8 top level researchers participated: "As a society, we must be prepared to face the most important social changes needed to adapt to society. next big revolution in food production: the transfer of animal protein production from land to sea ".

Now and finally, the future is obviously in the sea, but in the open sea. All the problems you mention; Environmental, health, social and other problems arise precisely when the productions are in places that are not adapted to the environment.

I give you a very simple terrestrial example, a soybean production can be developed by deforesting an Amazon rainforest overflowing with biodiversity and natural wealth, or in a desert without life, thanks to technology and knowledge. In the latter case, not only is no negative impact generated, but a positive impact is generated, the relative humidity increases, the insects will arrive, then the birds, the amphibians and so on. It is the same as thinking of producing in a marine channel with a high biodiversity compared to production in an exposed sea, far from the coast where biodiversity and nutrient deficiencies are low. All the richness of the oceans is concentrated near the coast, as one moves away from the coast, the ocean becomes a real "wasteland" and it is there that we have to go produce! A specific case; salmon and farmed fish already include process remains of other species unfit for human consumption, and even insect and microalgae flours, fish waste increase microalgae population These microalgae are used as food for filters, mussels, clams, etc., and the soluble residues of fish and shellfish will promote the growth of macroalgae, which have 250 times more properties. of oil per unit area than soybean (Hosain and Salleh, 2008). . Offshore production could even increase the natural population of marine species. Fish raised on the high seas rarely fall ill and their yield is far superior to that of livestock in shallow areas with low environmental exposure. The case of the Beagle requires many other studies. A priori, it may be a place of empowerment for the people who really make their home, the crab collectors, to help them improve their business in order to take care of the resource and to convert them small scale marine producers. But there is no doubt that the most important cultural potential lies in the exposed sea / open sea. In an integrated way with several marine species, it is neither more nor less the only way to escape to survive as species. And why do not you know which country has the greatest potential in the world for developing this? ARGENTINA !!! (FAO "A Global Assessment of the Potential of Marine Mariculture" 2013).

I greet you and invite you to think together.

Lucas Maglio Aquaculture Engineer.