Cameron Semper ($40,000): Research funding to explore biosynthetic alternatives for the production of carmine.
I worry that this might increase rather than decrease animal suffering. Here is my old comment on it:
I just wanted to inform that I looked into the possibility of doing public campaigns against carmine and decided that it would not be a good idea. The main source of suffering in carmine production seems to be due to farmers adding many cochineal juveniles that suffer from natural deaths early in their life, just as they would in uncontrolled wild populations. However, around 80% of carmine is wild-harvested and I found out that they actually harvest pregnant females before they lay most of their eggs. Hence, wild harvesting prevents the very same type of suffering that farming introduces. And I think it prevents more suffering because the scale is bigger. I am not totally sure about all this, it wasn’t easy to find reliable information about the industry, but based on what I found I decided to not look any deeper. I also didn’t manage to come up with any way to decrease the number of farmed cochineals but not wild-harvested cochineals. If someone wanted to look into this industry deeper, please contact me and I can share sources that I found.
Interesting point and thanks for raising, Saulius. :)
That specific grant actually hasn’t been made yet. Though we approved of it, I believe it’s waiting on the university to finalize something before the funds are allocated. So, I am going to strike it from the list of grants at the top of the report (I was meant to do this before but forgot to do this even though I removed it from the paragraphs of the payout report, my apologies).
To further address your point though, I think the counterfactuals here are tricky to think about and I wouldn’t confidently claim that wild harvesting prevents more suffering than it causes. Would be keen for folks to think about both of those more!
In terms of the quick case for the grant, I think it is more exploratory and probably helpful information to have in case there are significant increases in farmed carmine production in the future. Particularly, I thought that for carmine, it was like the case for wild-caught fish. As in, demand currently outstripes finite supply, so fluctuations in demand therefore mightn’t impact current supply much. E.g.:
“However, demand is rising and because the supply is finite—it is difficult for Peruvian farmers to substantially boost supplies—the price has soared in recent years.
Back in 2013 Peru’s exports of carmine totalled 531 tonnes, which was worth $22m. So over the past four years, the price per tonne has risen by 73%.” (link)
Further to that, occasionally, I think there are big spikes in price when exogenous events constrain supply. (link)
And, if current demand were to sustain or increase it seems like a marginal increase in industry would come from the farmed side. E.g.,
“High demand is fuelling the search for innovative production techniques in order to move away from dependence on the prickly pear, which carries a number of limitations.” (link)
““Habitat for cacti is limited, growth of both host and parasite are slow, and extraction procedures are woefully inefficient,” Dapson says. “Improvements in extraction and purification have been made, but they don’t address the core problem, which is production of the insects.”” (link)
So, exploring alternatives now could more so contribute to reductions on the expansion on the farmed side in the future. Perhaps it, therefore, isn’t too dependent on views around whether wild harvesting prevents more suffering than it causes.
I think the counterfactuals here are tricky to think about and I wouldn’t confidently claim that wild harvesting prevents more suffering than it causes.
I totally agree, this is all very speculative.
And, if current demand were to sustain or increase it seems like a marginal increase in industry would come from the farmed side. E.g.,
This makes sense and substantially increases my probability that the grant is net-positive.
One thing to think about here is whether to make the research public. If it’s public, I’d still worry about it causing more suffering than it prevents because we don’t know how it might impact the supply and what will be the future of carmine. But if it’s not public, then I’m not sure how the research would make an impact. I imagine that it would be public because it’s by a university. I would consider first commissioning an economic analysis of how synthetic carmine would alter farmed and wild-caught quantities.
It took me a few rereads to understand this, but I think the claim is that wild-harvested carmine lead net negative lives because of premature death. Thus, because biosynthetic alternative exploration reduces wild-harvested cochineals, this will increase the total number of cochineals and be net negative.
yes, what Linch said is correct in terms of my reasoning. I think that collecting pregnant females from the wild decreases the number of cochineals who die young, but I imagine that it doesn’t decrease long-term cochineal populations much, otherwise it would be unsustainable. It took me a long time to get my head around all this and I’m still unsure about a lot of stuff, due to a lack of information and it being a bit confusing.
It’s possible it could keep populations at a lower average size without being unsustainable. With standard simple fishery models (Gordon-Schaefer models, no predators besides humans), there are actually equilibria at every population size below the “natural” one, corresponding to each fixed harvest rate (share of population caught per period). Any (relative) harvest rate per period less than 100% can be sustainable long term if fixed, but not every absolute catch number below the natural population size can be sustainable long term if fixed.
I worry that this might increase rather than decrease animal suffering. Here is my old comment on it:
Interesting point and thanks for raising, Saulius. :)
That specific grant actually hasn’t been made yet. Though we approved of it, I believe it’s waiting on the university to finalize something before the funds are allocated. So, I am going to strike it from the list of grants at the top of the report (I was meant to do this before but forgot to do this even though I removed it from the paragraphs of the payout report, my apologies).
To further address your point though, I think the counterfactuals here are tricky to think about and I wouldn’t confidently claim that wild harvesting prevents more suffering than it causes. Would be keen for folks to think about both of those more!
In terms of the quick case for the grant, I think it is more exploratory and probably helpful information to have in case there are significant increases in farmed carmine production in the future. Particularly, I thought that for carmine, it was like the case for wild-caught fish. As in, demand currently outstripes finite supply, so fluctuations in demand therefore mightn’t impact current supply much. E.g.:
“However, demand is rising and because the supply is finite—it is difficult for Peruvian farmers to substantially boost supplies—the price has soared in recent years.
Back in 2013 Peru’s exports of carmine totalled 531 tonnes, which was worth $22m. So over the past four years, the price per tonne has risen by 73%.” (link)
Further to that, occasionally, I think there are big spikes in price when exogenous events constrain supply. (link)
And, if current demand were to sustain or increase it seems like a marginal increase in industry would come from the farmed side. E.g.,
“High demand is fuelling the search for innovative production techniques in order to move away from dependence on the prickly pear, which carries a number of limitations.” (link)
““Habitat for cacti is limited, growth of both host and parasite are slow, and extraction procedures are woefully inefficient,” Dapson says. “Improvements in extraction and purification have been made, but they don’t address the core problem, which is production of the insects.”” (link)
So, exploring alternatives now could more so contribute to reductions on the expansion on the farmed side in the future. Perhaps it, therefore, isn’t too dependent on views around whether wild harvesting prevents more suffering than it causes.
I totally agree, this is all very speculative.
This makes sense and substantially increases my probability that the grant is net-positive.
One thing to think about here is whether to make the research public. If it’s public, I’d still worry about it causing more suffering than it prevents because we don’t know how it might impact the supply and what will be the future of carmine. But if it’s not public, then I’m not sure how the research would make an impact. I imagine that it would be public because it’s by a university. I would consider first commissioning an economic analysis of how synthetic carmine would alter farmed and wild-caught quantities.
Your comment makes sense for being wary of replacing farmed carmine with wild carmine.
Do you really mean to say that biosynthetic alternative exploration increases wild carmine harm though?
It took me a few rereads to understand this, but I think the claim is that wild-harvested carmine lead net negative lives because of premature death. Thus, because biosynthetic alternative exploration reduces wild-harvested cochineals, this will increase the total number of cochineals and be net negative.
yes, what Linch said is correct in terms of my reasoning. I think that collecting pregnant females from the wild decreases the number of cochineals who die young, but I imagine that it doesn’t decrease long-term cochineal populations much, otherwise it would be unsustainable. It took me a long time to get my head around all this and I’m still unsure about a lot of stuff, due to a lack of information and it being a bit confusing.
It’s possible it could keep populations at a lower average size without being unsustainable. With standard simple fishery models (Gordon-Schaefer models, no predators besides humans), there are actually equilibria at every population size below the “natural” one, corresponding to each fixed harvest rate (share of population caught per period). Any (relative) harvest rate per period less than 100% can be sustainable long term if fixed, but not every absolute catch number below the natural population size can be sustainable long term if fixed.
The maximum sustainable yield for fisheries occurs with the population being at or under half of the natural population. I think well-managed fisheries (with quotas) are in fact at around half their natural populations, setting natural fluctuations aside. https://ourworldindata.org/fish-and-overfishing#what-does-sustainable-fishing-mean