Success leads to repeated renewals

Part of the Farmed in the EU programme is dedicated to promoting the aquaculture sector among school pupils. The idea is to introduce them to the economic, social, and nutritional benefits that stem from this activity.

The Farmed in the EU programme is a comprehensive initiative aimed at promoting sustainable aquaculture and ensuring the production of high-quality food within the European Union. Established with the objective of supporting local sh farmers and fostering food security, this programme has made signi cant strides in enhancing the aquaculture sector‘s sustainability, safety, and e ciency. By adhering to strict regulations and certi cation processes, Farmed in the EU guarantees that consumers can trust the origin, quality, and environmental standards of the food they consume.

Teaching school children about aquaculture

An important aspect of the programme is to promote aquaculture and the consumption of farmed sh to school children. e programme provides young learners and schools with an introduction to aquaculture, its socio-economic importance, particularly in remote communities, and the bene ts of consuming sustainably farmed seafood. Learning about the sector may also trigger an interest in sh farming and encourage pupils to consider it as a profession when they are older. Activities, projects, and excursions are organised In collaboration with schools that expose the children to sh farming, familiarising them with sh and shell sh and hopefully inculcating a long-lasting interest in seafood, its commercial and nutritional value. In Lithuania, Gytis Virsilas and a colleague, both from the Rural Business and Markets Development Agency, a body under the Ministry of Agriculture, are responsible for the implementation of the programme. According to Mr Virsilas, Lithuania is only one of a few EU countries that have decided to use this opportunity to promote aquaculture to school pupils. e reason for the limited interest, he suspects, is the lack of nancial support from the EU to implement the programme. e funding for activities comes instead from the national budget. e EU does, however, provide an overall structure for what the programme should contain, which individual countries can then adapt to re ect their sh farming sectors, since these vary from region to region. In Lithuania, the rst year of the programme drew such an enthusiastic response from the schools that the ministry decided to continue it. is year (2023) will be the fth year that the programme has been implemented.

Schools apply to participate in the programme and are selected based on certain criteria because there is more demand than can be met with the available funding. Each year 50 classes are selected to participate in the programme, half from classes 1 to 4 and the other half from classes 5 to 8. Because the budget has remained the same, so has the number of classes that can participate despite the increased interest from schools. Schools are chosen depending on whether they have sent their applications in good time and whether they have applied before, among other criteria. Once the schools have been identi ed the pupils are sent some printed material that will help them get the most out of the activities. e material included information about aquaculture in Lithuania, in Europe, and in the world, and about farming technologies. It also contained exercises for the pupils and information for the teachers on how to use the material. e activities include visits by scientists who conduct aquaculture-related classes at the schools for the children. e scientists also introduced the children to the state hatchery where sh are bred for restocking. Here, among other experiences, they could examine the feed the sh were given and receive a little lecture about its contents and how it was manufactured. Unfortunately, the children could not visit a commercial sh farm as farmers were concerned about the impact of a large group of school children on the health and wellbeing of their stock. It might also have had implications for their customers if the sh fell ill and the farmer could not honour his contracts, a risk they were understandably not willing to run.

Practical exposure beats everything else

To get the most out of the excursion the children were given a brie ng shortly before arrival where they were told what kind of sh they were going to see. At the state hatchery the children were allowed to feed the sh and observe how they react. ey also got to see all the stages of the sh lifecycle from the larvae to the adult and, best of all, they were allowed to handle the bigger sh. In addition, the children were showed other parts of the system that was used to host the sh, such as the cleaning equipment, the oxygen supply, and ltration modules. Fish behavioural patterns were also explained to the children in simple terms—aggressive behaviour, for example, predation, and cannibalism.

Mr Virsilas explains that his agency organises the entire excursion planning it together with the school since regular lessons are interrupted when the pupils leave on a trip or when they are taught by the scientists. The agency organises the transport to and from the hatchery or other site and gives instructions to the children en route. They are told where they are going, and why, what they are going to see and do. He makes it a point to ask who among them comes from families that have something to do with fish either as fishers or as fish farmers. He also asks whether they maintain an aquarium or a small pond with carps. The idea is to establish a rapport with them, make them relax and feel comfortable. Some kids may be seeing a fish or touching a fish for the first time and may not be quite up to it. The agency is also responsible for the instruction the pupils receive at the hatchery, and also the lunch. While part of the objective is to encourage the pupils to eat fish, they are first asked about their preferences and are not compelled to eat fish. Preferences in the group vary with some pupils claiming they eat fish regularly. In fact, Mr Virsilas feels that first showing the children the fish and allowing them to handle specimens and then serving fish for lunch may be a little too much for them. They may associate the fish they are eating with the fish they have played with earlier, which I would like to avoid, so we usually do not offer them fish for lunch. On the other hand, at cooking classes in school the children are taught about fish dishes and one of the programme-related activities is to make a recipe book that includes recipes using fish. The programme is also used to overcome some children’s antipathy to fish despite not having tried it.

Material that was used in the classroom had information about aquaculture in Lithuania. It was put together by Egle Jakubaviciute and Justas Dainys, scientists from the Laboratory of Fish Ecology at the Nature Research Centre who also visited the schools.

Programme continued year after year following positive feedback

e excursions with the children were sometimes lmed and screened on public television. is often resulted in calls to Mr Virsilas from schools interested in joining the programme, and even from parents trying to nd out how their children could be part of the programme. is positive feedback was among the reasons we decided to continue, says Mr Virsilas, while another was to remedy the continued lack of awareness in Lithuania about the aquaculture sector, the bene ts it brings, and the issues it faces. Among the latter is the lack of specialists needed to develop the sector. e programme seeks to address this by showing the pupils that aquaculture is a potential career path. For Mr Virsilas the success of the programme lies not only in the interest it generates among parents and schoolteachers, but above all in the reactions of the children when they experience novelties on the excursions and their enthusiasm when they participate in the activities. For the more stone-hearted the programme’s success can be seen in the year-to-year increase in the number of schools that have been applying to participate.

Mr Virsilas draws attention to the fact that children from families that have ed Ukraine are sometimes in the groups. ey receive instructions in Russian, which is sometimes a challenge, so that they too can bene t from the programme. e bigger challenge was during the pandemic when the pupils were expected to maintain distance, wear masks, disinfect their hands regularly, and have their temperature taken which complicated the logistics especially when there were two groups in one day. During lockdowns the children were instructed online which posed its own set of issues as it was completely new way for both pupils and teachers. Some pupils adapted better than others, but in general the results were better when in-person teaching started up again. According to Mr Virsilas, one of the best aspects of the programme was the way that it combined theoretical information imparted in the classroom with practical lessons from the eld where the pupils could reinforce what they had learnt in class. e knowledge they acquire this way stays with them much longer, he feels. If it also leads to more farmed sh consumption and greater interest in aquaculture as a profession, the Farmed in the EU programme would have achieved all its objectives.