Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page


(Agenda item 11)

58. Eurostat drew attention to differing terminologies used to describe the practice of placing wild-caught fish in cages for a period prior to marketing. One term used for this practice was “fattening” and was applied particularly to the placing of tuna in cages for a relative short period (months) and feeding them to increase the fat content.

59. ICCAT reported that this topic had been discussed between GFCM, ICCAT and FAO and that it had been agreed that the preferred term was “tuna farming”.

60. CWP noted that there were two variants of this practice. In the first the fish were retained in cages for a relatively short period to increase the fat content prior to marketing, while the second involved placing the fish in cages for a longer period to incease the size of the fish.

61. Eurostat proposed that the term “on-growing” should be used to cover this practice. However, CWP considered that neither “fattening” nor “on-growing” covered both variants of the practice and proposed that the term “farming” would be more appropriate.

62. FAO noted that the collection of statistics to account for this practice posed problems. As already stated by CWP, ideally the mass of fish placed in the cage would be assigned to “catch”, while the difference between the final harvested mass and the catch taken from the wild would be assigned to “farming”. CCSBT reported some success in obtaining the information necessary to apply this principle. However, the CWP recognized that difficulties existed in applying it in all circumstances.

63. CWP noted that, while the terms “nominal catch”, “landings” and “product weight” have been defined in various publications of CWP agencies (including the Handbook of Fishery Statistical Standards), some of them tended to be used rather loosely (for example “catch” being used when “nominal catch” was the more accurate term). Data collators were urged to avoid confusion for the data users by applying the terms in a more rigid manner. CWP recommended the use of the term “gross removals” to cover the nominal catch (the live weight equivalent of the landings) plus the quantities discarded (also expressed in live weight) and that this also be reflected in the text of the Handbook.

64. SEAFDEC commented that standardization of aquaculture terminology is important but can be very difficult because of the locally specific nature of the aquaculture industry.

65. FAO noted that there would be development under FIRMS of concepts to cover aquaculture, including the definition of farming practices, and that the definition applicable to tunas would likely include farming, fattening and on-growing.

Previous Page Top of Page Next Page