…..with marine aquaculture applications possible.
…..can this stretch to shrimp in the future?
A fundamental misconception about blockchain but great long term marketing play for IBM Food Trust.
Shrimp traceability for consumers has been around longtime. I had records to farmers, processed lot codes and day codes on shrimp boxes in the 1990’s.
Then as importers and distributors we had efficient data on documentations and hosted on SAP ERP supply chain modules back in 2005.
Trace Register started out with shrimp back in 2006. At that time it was an option for SC and was supported by BAP standards. ASC did not exist.
Traceability with preferred and trusted suppliers has never been a real issue for companies with well setup supply chains.
Effective rapid traceability from supermarket shelves back to farm has been around long time for shrimp. Goes hand in hand with retailer recall requirements.
In this “blockchain” system promoted here there is nothing different but it is interesting that it is being promoted as inmutable information for consumers along each step of the way downstream. Its part of a marketing/PR program now. A future B2C program for ASC. Not just B2B.
Of course IBM wants to be storing the data. This can later be developed for insight into markets and marketing. Food Trust is a great platform but….
…. it is only as good as the data inputted.
Therefore if put in wrong…..comes out wrong. Internally if 55% of those signed on to a blockchain deal agree to a change it can be done..
….it is not a 100%. It will help traceability of packaged product (as data is accessed via code) but not necessarily the actual product.
Blockchain is nice marketing that farmers are buying into and because perhaps it is ASC supported will help get EU traction.
Imagine though that theoretically even with chain of custody a repack in the EU could result in a product switch…
Marks & Spencers shrimp DNA trace will however track the shrimp themselves.
A copyrighted (immutable information) document, holding multiple photos can be held in a third party US legally supported vault for under $1.
Hope this IBM/SSP does not raise costs on shrimp just gives consumers a rapid method to see origin product as mandatory under food.
Lastly – does not guarantee food safety at all.
Good for industry. Frozen tilapia too cheap already – regardless the way the business is cut.
Good for global aquaculture. But bearing brunt – what does that really mean… tightening belts?…..a health necessity in some parts of the world….not really a problem then is it…..
a) Most US importers of China frozen fish are China funded. Margins are large.
b) Tilapia was too cheap already but a great feed the world fish. Fresh better.
c) Other markets and species can now compete with the China output…..and reprocessing industry.
d) China tilapia all frozen. Trade to Africa growing.
e) Like Vietnam farmed catfish could tilapia protein ever have got so low in production cost to be considered a fishmeal substitute?
e) Local US aquaculture boost
f) Consumers understand that fish is healthy and will still eat their seafood.
…and I don’t mean age but male ejaculation. Yes 21 a month is the magic number to reduce cancer risks as in Spanish health article this past Friday.
Now for vannamei shrimp we know that sperm sacs, after ejaculation or removal for artificial insemination (AI), take around 10 days to regenerate.
Viability of new sperm is better if male vannamei shrimp are kept at lower temperatures during regeneration.
Interestingly when the natural growth plateau in culture hits also around the time one can noting male sperm sacs forming although sexual differentiation can be noted earlier.
….and shrimp farmed in semi intensive mode can be considered coastal blue carbon solar regenerative farming..
How – algal photosynthesis of course…
It was the early 1990’s.
I was shrimp processing plant director in Ecuador for Marine Harvest International, the first pure aquaculture play on the US stock market (AMEX) after we sold off our fishing boats, tuna operations, branded golf club manufacturer and restaurant chain.
I recall discussing with MHI President (C.F. Woodhouse) how exactly we wanted to approach the food safety angle at MHI and, of course as an aquaculture company.
MHI was once part of Unilever that had huge fishmeal and seafood interests in Chile at the time.
Of course it was very important to get the right PR as well.
On the salmon side (UK & Chile) the push was for food safety standards based on ISO. More an EU initiative.
This was also supported by the US NMFS that thought that seafood imports should be under their jurasdiction just like USDA controls beef….but or because the…..
USFDA were promoting the NASA developed HACCP program for seafood.
MHI Shrimp division in 1994 became the test bed for the US FDA HACCP program and I rolled out and commercially pilot tested and shaped the first HACCP system and also to wider shrimp and banana export industry in Ecuador pre 1997.
That was the year enacted into US National Law.
The rest is history. HACCP has been proven commercially now over 20 years at FDA. Adopted globally and rolled out across all foods.
Is that bit of the history of salmon and food safety standards/certifications recorded in the Intrafish article? Drew?
Following shrimp is a definite…..