V
Valeria101
Guest
That is: the beauty of the pearl, happiness of the bivalve making it happen, and the karma of the folks involved 
Couldn't count the threads 'round here with at least some recoiling remark about the gory details of pearl culture. Questions of whether and how the animals suffer, whether species dwindle, whether the environment is hurt for the sake of pearls. This morning I've had yet another friendly debate with a pearl detractor. Enough is enough!
It might just be my skewed view of things, but in the recent past since I've got the pearl bug posting here, a few things stood out:
- that pear culture depends on environment quality allot and often cannot fight itself environmental damage caused by competing water users (Japanese stories of sea pollution, the demise of Biwa and Kasumiga). Even lax standards become self-defeating faster then elsewhere (China) and even so, pearling is not at the soft end of environmental constraints (e.g. the new 'Thirst comes first' water allocation policies away from aquaculture). All in all, if only humanity was conscientious enough to allow such a sensitive industry be sustainable Thank goodness for those small pacific Islands
- that pearling is a development treat not therat. A crop of gems doesn't seem to suffer the same economic sustainability problems as mining (including for precious items) does. Another good thing.
however,
- it has been stated more then once that the quality of the pearls is strongly related to the state of health of the bivalves producing them. That Australian pearls owe their quality in part to the quality of the environment and the lesser stress on the mollusks in cause. That pearls from the first crop of black pearls are better because they stress the mollusks the least. That cultivation methods that keep the animals in good shape make the most economic sense: say, the use of hybrids to produce intensely colored freshwater pearls in animals that do not reject nuclei rather then forcing pearl production. And so forth.
So far, the sketchy 'big picture' doesn't look any worse than, say, the practice of traditional agriculture. Some ways of food production are way more gory, and with worse impact on the environment and society (think, intensive agriculture and the farm subsidies that go with it). For better or worse, pearls are a 'crop' that moves from low income production regions directly to the top of the human 'food' chain. Perhaps because there is so much less processing involved. And less mystique. Not many things do, unfortunately.
The bad part seems to come from things that pearl makers like even less then anyone else: unsustainable use of environmental resources, demand pressure for low quality goods that stretch the biologic capacity of the shells...
So far, I feel good about pearls. I'm leaving the list open for the good, the bad and the ugly. Keeping an open mind too. After all, I am not writing from authority here as many on this forum involved with the pearl trade could. Just trying to open the case
Couldn't count the threads 'round here with at least some recoiling remark about the gory details of pearl culture. Questions of whether and how the animals suffer, whether species dwindle, whether the environment is hurt for the sake of pearls. This morning I've had yet another friendly debate with a pearl detractor. Enough is enough!
It might just be my skewed view of things, but in the recent past since I've got the pearl bug posting here, a few things stood out:
- that pear culture depends on environment quality allot and often cannot fight itself environmental damage caused by competing water users (Japanese stories of sea pollution, the demise of Biwa and Kasumiga). Even lax standards become self-defeating faster then elsewhere (China) and even so, pearling is not at the soft end of environmental constraints (e.g. the new 'Thirst comes first' water allocation policies away from aquaculture). All in all, if only humanity was conscientious enough to allow such a sensitive industry be sustainable
Thank goodness for those small pacific Islands - that pearling is a development treat not therat. A crop of gems doesn't seem to suffer the same economic sustainability problems as mining (including for precious items) does. Another good thing.
however,
- it has been stated more then once that the quality of the pearls is strongly related to the state of health of the bivalves producing them. That Australian pearls owe their quality in part to the quality of the environment and the lesser stress on the mollusks in cause. That pearls from the first crop of black pearls are better because they stress the mollusks the least. That cultivation methods that keep the animals in good shape make the most economic sense: say, the use of hybrids to produce intensely colored freshwater pearls in animals that do not reject nuclei rather then forcing pearl production. And so forth.
So far, the sketchy 'big picture' doesn't look any worse than, say, the practice of traditional agriculture. Some ways of food production are way more gory, and with worse impact on the environment and society (think, intensive agriculture and the farm subsidies that go with it). For better or worse, pearls are a 'crop' that moves from low income production regions directly to the top of the human 'food' chain. Perhaps because there is so much less processing involved. And less mystique. Not many things do, unfortunately.
The bad part seems to come from things that pearl makers like even less then anyone else: unsustainable use of environmental resources, demand pressure for low quality goods that stretch the biologic capacity of the shells...
So far, I feel good about pearls. I'm leaving the list open for the good, the bad and the ugly. Keeping an open mind too. After all, I am not writing from authority here as many on this forum involved with the pearl trade could. Just trying to open the case
