Chiltington House
Chiltington Lane
East Chiltington
Lewes
BN7 3QU
Andrew Hill
Planning Officer
Lewes District Council
[email protected]
September 16th 2016
Subject: Planning Application LW/16/0695
Dear Mr Hill,
I am writing to express my concerns about this application and register my opposition to the scheme
it describes. The location of a development of this scale and character (a sturgeon farm with a
reservoir and 6 ponds, a caviar packaging and distribution centre, and a house) on a site next door to
my home will have a negative impact on my family, the local landscape and the character of our
small rural community. It will adversely affect the local environment including the Romans
Winterbourne, part of the Ouse River system, and introduce additional risks to transport safety for
users of Chiltington Lane. This development is contrary to Core Policy 10 of the recently adopted
Lewes District Council Core Strategy Local Plan and Lewes District Local Plan 2003 policies CT1 and
H2 (still applicable). I also have concerns about the economic viability of the scheme and the
justification for a dwelling. The application is contradictory and incomplete making it harder to
assess its impact fully. Objection to this application is widespread within the local community as a
result of these issues and the developer’s reluctance to take our concerns seriously. Every
householder in Chiltington Lane has grave misgivings about it as do many others beyond the Lane.
Our local Parish Council (East Chiltington) voted unanimously to object on grounds of landscape
impact. Neighbouring Hamsey Parish Council also decided unanimously to object. More information
regarding this venture and this new form of caviar farming is emerging as I write and I would like the
opportunity to input that information into the planning process as it becomes available and is
verified.
My key points of objection based on currently information are as follows:
Landscape Impact
•
•
This is an intensive piece of development on a sloping site in the middle of a quiet rural
community, close to the South Downs National Park, in the historic setting of a listed building
that is accessed via a narrow country lane popular with ramblers, riders and cyclists. It is alien in
character and scale to our area;
It requires massive earthworks to construct a reservoir and six ponds, a number of new buildings
and interlinking tracks on a hill, and to re-profile the landscaped areas around the site and create
bunds and flood defences. All of this could leave a permanent scar on the landscape. It is
estimated that 4,200 m3 of earth would be required to be moved to construct the farm - some
7265 metric tonnes of material or over 400 eight wheel tippers. The scale of the plan relative to
the site can be seen in figure 1 (see fig 1 – aerial photograph with developer’s plan
superimposed). This transformation will be visible from surrounding houses and land, from
public footpaths within the South Downs National Park and from my own home (see figures 2-4);
Page 1 of 10
Figure 1 Aerial Photograph of application site with the developer's plan superimposed
Site of the proposed
fish farm site
Figure 2 From inside my sitting room towards the proposed fish farm (taken on April 15th 2016)
Page 2 of 10
Proposed site of farm
buildings and dwelling
Figure 3 From my garden towards the proposed fish farm (taken April 29th 2016)
Lower field of
application site
th
Figure 4 From footpath 45D In the SDNP just north of the railway line (taken on September 15 2016)
•
This is in direct contradiction to relevant planning policies:
o The National Planning Policy Framework (para 109) refers to protecting and enhancing
valued landscapes such as ours. The Local Plan (Chapter 19) states that ‘East Chiltington
is one of the most thinly populated parishes in the District. Its “poor” road access by
narrow lanes helps to maintain its quiet and remote character. The key issue will be to
retain this relative isolation in the future.’
o Lewes District Council Core Strategy Policy CT10 (Natural Environment and Landscape
Character) which places a responsibility on the Council to seek ‘to conserve and enhance
Page 3 of 10
o
the natural, locally distinctive and heritage landscape qualities and characteristics of the
district’ and to ‘ensure that water quality is maintained or improved (including during
any construction process) and that watercourses (including groundwater flows) are
protected from encroachment and adverse impacts’. The Policy also refers to resisting
development in the setting of the National Park if it “fails to conserve and appropriately
enhance its rural, urban and historic landscape qualities, and its natural and scenic
beauty, as informed by the South Downs Integrated Landscape Character Assessment.”
The Lewes Core Policy 11 (Built and Historic Environment and High Quality Design)
places a responsibility on the Council to ensure that the design of any development
‘respects and, where appropriate, positively contributes to the character and
distinctiveness of the district’s unique built and natural heritage’ and ‘responds
sympathetically to the site and its local context and is well-integrated in terms of access
and functionality with the surrounding area.’
Environmental impact
•
•
•
•
The Planning Statement for this application states, ‘The ponds will be gravity fed from both
rainfall and an existing watercourse with sufficient capacity to extract 20,000 litres per day’. The
watercourse concerned is the Romans Winterbourne. It is part of the Ouse River system and
rarely contains much water outside of the winter months. The Ouse and Adur Rivers Trust
(OART) has expressed concern with regard to both excessive extraction and run off, and the
consequent impact on the health of this watercourse, the Ouse River system it feeds into and
the sea trout that spawn there. They question the scheme’s reliance on a reed bed for water
purification and say, ‘Although the current application states that a "closed-loop" system will be
in operation and that there will be no discharge into the stream, we believe that the setup is
infeasible because there is no mention of any system for phosphorus removal’ and ‘Without the
means to strip out the phosphorus (not mentioned in his application)’ the developer ‘will have
no recourse but to tanker away large volumes of water on a regular basis and there appears to
be no mention of this in the planning application.’
Excavation of the ponds and use of land drains will seriously disrupt the water table and subsurface flow. Three adjacent houses are traditional Sussex properties lacking substantial
foundations. They are used to seasonal flexing with changes in moisture levels in the clay but
any significant disturbance of sub-surface water supply could have a devastating effect.
The proposed landscaping is inappropriate to this location using suburban-style planting and
non-native species. Para 3.72 of the Planning Statements says, ‘The remaining pasture will be
maintained by timely and regular mowing of all grassland paddocks and bunds. This work needs
to be done “in hand” rather than reliant on contractors as it is important to keep the site in
pristine condition at all times as a show case.’ It will require high levels of maintenance on a
daily basis to achieve this ‘show case’ site generating a significant amount of additional noise.
This has not been included in the Noise Assessment.
Given the degree of landscape disruption and the proposed landscaping style it is difficult to
accept that this development will result in increased bio-diversity as claimed by the developer. I
note that a full Environmental Impact Assessment has not been carried out. The Preliminary
Ecological Appraisal was conducted using desk research and a single site visit on May 13th 2016.
Sustainability of the Development
•
As stated in the application the ‘NPPF carries a presumption in favour of sustainable
development’ (my emphasis). The caviar production process proposed in this application has
never been used before in the UK and infrequently elsewhere in Europe. It uses hormone
Page 4 of 10
•
•
•
•
•
assisted massage to encourage mature sturgeon (from 8 years old) to ovulate repeatedly (once
every two years) thus avoiding the traditional practice of killing the fish to remove the caviar.
Although described as “outdated”, this seems to be the only commercially proven method of
production. The commercial benefit of such an unproven enterprise has been significantly
overplayed.
This is not a matter of simply picking up an existing well-known process and dropping it into the
enterprise proposed for East Chiltington. There are many more risks to the sustainability and
viability of this scheme than are made apparent in the application. With the extent of the
construction involved it will not be easy to return the land to traditional farming activities in the
event that the enterprise fails or is abandoned after a short period of operation. Local residents
may be left to suffer the consequences. In addition the justification for the dwelling is based on
the economic viability of the business.
The Planning Statement for this application states in section 3
o ‘Chiltington Caviar forms part of The London Fine Foods Group and is based in Battersea,
London. The London Fine Foods Group has traded since 2002 and has an existing farm in
Devon that it has operated for the last four years through a sister business Shah Caviar.
Whilst company accounts do not accompany this application as they are strictly
confidential, they will be made available to the Planning Authority to verify that this is a
profitable and sustainable company. A confidential feasibility study also accompanies
the application papers.’
o ‘The London Fine Foods Group supplies caviar through both wholesale and retail outlets,
to airlines, cruise ships, catering companies, over 400 hotels and restaurants in the UK
and many thousands of private customers throughout the UK “on-line”. The farming and
production of British Sturgeon caviar is undertaken by a company within the Group,
Shah Caviar Ltd, from its rented fish farm in Devon. That farm has not only reached full
capacity but also relies on an outdated system whereby the life of the sturgeon fish is
terminated at the end of the production cycle. The system at East Chiltington will use
modern farming methods which do not harm the sturgeon: it is therefore a more
compassionate system and one that accords with consumer welfare expectations.’
Thus the developer is using his associated businesses in London and Devon as evidence for the
feasibility of this completely new venture in East Chiltington. This scheme needs its own business
case especially as it uses an experimental caviar production process. If the developer’s existing
businesses are to be taken into consideration then it should be clarified which of these is the
commercial entity that will be operating at East Chiltington and its financial and operating
history evaluated carefully.
A request for access to the feasibility study has been made to Lewes District Council but at the
time of writing the local residents do not have access to the accounts nor the feasibility study
described in the Planning Statement. So we do not know what allowances have been made
within them for the risks of putting into practise this new process or what data have been used
to demonstrate financial health. Details of the process or the sources of technology to be used
have been not been made available so we cannot know the exact risks involved in
commercialising this new technology.
However the information that is available about implementations of similar processes provides
grounds for concern. Vivace Caviar, based in Bremerhaven in Germany, was a pioneer of this
form of ethical caviar farming in the European Union. Vivace went into liquidation last year
according to reports in the German press apparently because of the high costs of production and
worse than expected sales due to the poor quality of caviar produced from mature sturgeon
using this new technique (see attached certified translations of the original German press report,
Page 5 of 10
accessible via the URL’s given below). These reports also refer in passing to other sustainable
caviar producers in Germany (Caviar Creator from Western Pomerania), Moldavia (Aquafuture)
and Russia. None of them are trading successfully in the EU. An impression of the risks involved
in this type of process can be gained from the following quotations:
o From Der Spiegel ‘Milking Fish - A renowned marine biologist wanted to make ethicallyproduced caviar. The fish farm has now gone bankrupt and the taxpayers' money is
gone.’ Published 22nd August 2015 http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d138273614.html and accessed on September 14th 2016
 ‘It has become clear that the idea of cleanly produced caviar was really a
dubious marketing fairytale for extracting money from donors and customers.’
 ‘These fish eggs were obviously not to the tastes of customers, even if Managing
Director Bauer raves to the SPIEGEL about a "pearly, clean product that develops
an aromatic scent." Ali Sepehr Dad, a caviar importer, sees it differently. He says
Vivace sent three samples to his company in Gauting, Bavaria. He returns a
devastating verdict: "Vivace caviar tastes like roe from fish that have been kept
packed tightly together with poor feed and terrible water quality."’
 ‘"Stripping" caviar eggs from living fish has been an established process in Russia
for centuries. There are also methods for processing mature fish eggs. As much
as it makes sense to keep using sexually mature female sturgeon rather than
slaughtering them, caviar from mature eggs has always remained a niche
product. Real food connoisseurs find the taste too bland.’
 ‘….Dietmar Firzlaff’ is ‘the owner of the company Aquafuture from Kreuztal in
North Rhine-Westphalia ….. His company designed and built a sturgeon farming
facility in Moldova….. Firzlaff, too, has his fish stimulated with hormones, which
he admits. However, he does not distribute his ovulated caviar within the EU,
but in countries that have fewer problems with hormones in food production.’
o From Die Tageszeitung (known as taz) ‘The fairy tale of the massaged sturgeon. A marine
biologist's promise of environmentally-friendly caviar first caused a stir, but now the
fraud investigators are knocking on her door.’ Published 15th February 2016
http://www.taz.de/ArchivSuche/!5274301&s=Das+M%C3%A4rchen+vom+massierten+St%C3%B6r Accessed on
September 14th 2016
 ‘Managing director Thomas Bauer blamed competition from China and a Swiss
investor, family office Wecken & Cie. The latter initially viewed Vivace Caviar as
a "sustainable investment". And emphasised that they did not simply pull out,
but rather "did not increase" their investment, as sales and costs then became
"completely out of proportion" to each other.’
 ‘The Vivace caviar was a complete and utter "dud", as a caviar expert informed
taz. The product was "inedible", indeed "an impertinence" and it was clear from
the very beginning that Vivace Caviar was "not going to work". Why? "You can't
just strip off the eggs from a sturgeon," the industry insider says, at least not just
with a gentle massage, without hormones. "There is nothing ethical about this
thing", reports the caviar merchant. He talks of "cruelty to animals".’
 ‘Ralf Bos is one of the very first people who tried Vivace Caviar. A chef and fine
foods merchant, he is one of the key players in the industry. "That stuff tasted
horrible", Bos says, also saying he "never" intended to include it in his product
range. "It was crystal clear to me that this product would never sell."’…. ‘’This
thing with the ovulated caviar is by no means new. In fact, it is "old hat", in
Page 6 of 10
•
Russia at least, and has "never made an impact" on the market. Why? "It has no
taste." And Vivace's methods "weren't very good for the fish", Bos says. "It is an
illusion to believe that you can produce high-quality caviar for culinary use
without the sturgeon dying. You can only ever harvest ovulated eggs from live
fish and they are the ones most unsuitable for eating."’
o From Weser Kurier ‘Caviar Farm in Bremerhaven Goes Bankrupt.’ Published 27th July
2015 (while Vivace were going through the liquidation process) http://www.weserkurier.de/bremen/bremen-politik-wirtschaft_artikel,-Bremerhavener-Kaviar-Farm-istinsolvent-_arid,1176061.html accessed on September 14th 2016
 "At present, we have production capacities of five tonnes per year," says
Managing Director Bauer. "But we don't have the buyers for that.” The biggest
competition comes from China, which has been flooding the market for the last
three years. Admittedly, theirs is conventionally-extracted caviar from
slaughtered sturgeon. "Lots of people only buy on based on price," Bauer says of
the market for luxury eggs, "and the price has dropped by up to 50%."
Whether or not one agrees with the palates of the experts cited in these articles this
demonstrates that there are significant practical hurdles to overcome to make this new
technology work and gain acceptance for this new type of caviar in a luxury market with
extremely discerning customers. I do not know exactly how similar the developer’s process will
be to those described in these articles. But I am concerned about what provision, if any, the
developer has made for these practical problems in his plans, for licensing arrangements with
Vivace’s liquidators or other reputable sources of relevant technology or for the necessary
technical support to make this experimental farm work.
Justification for a dwelling
•
•
•
•
The developer wishes to build a large three bedroomed house on this site and claims to have
passed the requisite functional and financial tests to gain planning permission. It is not proven
that there is a viable enterprise for such a dwelling to support or that it cannot be supported by
housing in the wider local area.
The financial viability of the proposed scheme is unproven. There are significant risks associated
with this new venture as described above. The developer says the financial test has been met as
‘the applicant company is sound, having traded for 14 years. The application draws upon the
applicant’s successful and profitable production of caviar from a similar site in Devon.’ As shown
above the site in East Chiltington will not be similar in process or construction to that in Devon
and the accounts relevant to this application have not been made available.
Regarding the functional requirement – with modern telemetry this site should be manageable
using remote monitoring and normal daily visits. Why can’t the one additional worker and any
part-time staff live in other local accommodation?
The suspicion cannot be avoided that this is an excuse to build a home where otherwise none
would be allowed. Mr. Benning’s family (previous owners of the land) made no secret of their
wish to build a house on the application site. This concern has not been allayed by the style and
size of house proposed nor by his comments (see figure 5 below) about his architectural
ambitions for Chiltington Caviar’s new ‘abode’ which bears a resemblance in shape to the
lengthy description of the dwelling in the last (withdrawn) application, which tested the
boundaries of the definition of ‘mobile’.
Page 7 of 10
Figure 5 New Abode for Chiltington Caviar from My Benning’s Facebook page
Physical Viability
•
The mass of water in the ponds on a steep slope is a potential danger to stream, road and
houses as weathering takes its toll of ponds and bunds. Part of my property is immediately
below the proposed reservoir and its enclosing bund. I am concerned about its stability during
construction and over time. The authors of the developer’s Geotechnical Assessment Report
draw attention to the need for careful specification of the works to be undertaken to ensure
slope stability and safety. In para 5.2.1 General Earthworks Specification Requirements state,
'the earthworks specification should require the groundworks contractor to submit a detailed
method statement of their proposed earthworks operation to include specific details on the
compaction, excavation and haulage plant to be used, proposed haul routes and if necessary a
detailed earthworks balance. In the event that a performance specification is adopted it is
strongly recommended that the contractor should be required to undertaken trial compactions
and testing to demonstrate that their proposed method of placement of soils will meet the
specified performance criteria.’ The gaps in the application and the developer’s dismissive
attitude to our reasonable concerns so far, leave me uneasy about the quality of construction
work which will take place on this site if the application is permitted.
Traffic
•
Chiltington Lane is a narrow country lane popular with ramblers, cyclists and riders. There are
already difficulties navigating the lane when, for instance, the level crossing at Cooksbridge is
closed and the Lane is used as an alternative route for cars and other vehicles traveling along the
A275. Passage down the lane can get especially difficult if this coincides with movement of
Page 8 of 10
agricultural vehicles as is necessary from time to time for the local farmers. We had an instance
of that only yesterday when the crossing was closed during harvest.
•
•
The developer’s Transport Statement minimises the additional traffic movements necessary for
this site stating ‘The site will not be open to the general public, and only a few daily trips are
expected, associated with routine site maintenance, security and refuse collection.’ It does not
consider:
o
Movements necessary for those living or working full or part-time at the site
o
The necessity for frequent tanker movements to remove waste products from the ponds
as described in the comments submitted by OART previously quoted’
The statement that the site will be closed to the public does not seem consistent with the
requirement for it to be maintained as a ‘showcase’ site.
Effect on my own residential amenity
•
•
•
•
•
This development will have an impact on my own residential amenity as a neighbour to the
application site. The proximity is illustrated in figures 2 and 3.
The noise assessment in the application does not consider the impact of noise from machinery
required for the constant, daily maintenance to this site due to the style of landscaping, the
requirement to keep the site as a show case and the decision not to use contractors. The
Planning Statement says, ‘The remaining pasture will be maintained by timely and regular
mowing of all grassland paddocks and bunds. This work needs to be done “in hand” rather than
reliant on contractors as it is important to keep the site in pristine condition at all times as a
show case. There will be additional noise generated by the pumps and the wind turbine. Local
experience with the wind turbine at Beechwood Hall suggests that this may be a problem.
I am also concerned about the smell coming from the farm from rotting food and fish faeces
Given the nature of the sturgeon (a bottom feeder which consumes only 20% of the feed
provided) there will be a lot of waste food.
The farm is likely to attract increased numbers of vermin including mink and rats.
I share ownership with the developer of the portion of the Romans Winterbourne which borders
the application site. I am concerned that extraction or run off into the Winterbourne or any
instability in the construction of the reservoir will affect my property and the health of animals,
plants and people on my property.
Inconsistencies and information gaps
•
•
•
There are a number of inconsistencies within the plan and between the plan and Mr Benning’s
statements to the press. This makes it more difficult to accurately assess the impact this venture
will have.
The plan includes reference to a wind turbine that Mr. Benning has stated in public will be 11m
high. Surely it needs more information than that provided to get permission to build an 11m
high turbine placed on the highest point of the site, which will be clearly visible and once again
within the historical setting of a listed building? As there are no existing buildings I understand it
does not come within permitted development.
There is no information or timeline provided in the application with regard to construction and
this would be vital to the successful and safe functioning of the site.
Page 9 of 10
22.08.2015 Food Milking Fish A renowned marine biologist wanted to make ethically‐produced caviar. The fish farm has now gone bankrupt and the taxpayers' money is gone. Many technological revolutions started life in a simple garage. History could have been made in a windowless hangar in the Loxstedt‐Siedewurt industrial estate on the edge of the port of Bremerhaven. The innovation that was puzzled out there could at least have eased the conscience of wealthy foodies all around the world. A bleak structure next to a concrete factory is home to the firm Vivace. The owner's great aim was to produce caviar in an ethical way. "Until now it has only been possible to extract caviar from immature sturgeon eggs," says Angela Köhler, a researcher at the renowned Alfred‐Wegner‐Institut in Bremerhaven, explaining her requirements. That means that the prehistoric sturgeon, some varieties of which are at imminent risk of extinction, have to be slaughtered. But thanks to a new patent, that was developed by her and is now protected in 99 countries, Köhler says that these animals no longer need to die. Mature fish eggs from living sturgeon can now be hardened and processed later. Instead of a bloodbath, this luxury product can now be extracted by gently massaging the belly of the fish. Sturgeon can continue producing caviar again and again throughout their long life. But now the touching story of fish that can be milked like cows has come to a sad end. 14 months after production started in Loxstedt, the sturgeon farm has run out of money, allegedly because its main investor from Switzerland has bailed. Since July, a preliminary liquidator has been in charge of 10,000 fish in 77 tanks. The European Union and the Federal State of Lower Saxony pumped €667,000 into the scheme as recently as June, but officials are now worried about that aid money. And since then it has become clear that the idea of cleanly produced caviar was really a dubious marketing fairytale for extracting money from donors and customers. The State Government in Hannover also takes some of the blame for all too trustingly believing the scientist's assurances that she could revolutionise the production of this globally sought‐
after delicacy. The mission to save the sturgeon began in Iran in 2005. As Professor Köhler was keen to emphasise until now, that is when she had a pivotal experience of sorts. At a specialist conference she says she saw how a female sturgeon taken from the wild was slaughtered to extract caviar. But because the eggs were said to have already been too mature for processing, the entire fish carcass was discarded. She says she was appalled and dedicated herself scientifically from then on to sturgeon eggs. The marine biologist developed a patent for hardening fish eggs ‐ without this technology, mature sturgeon eggs would be much too soft. Five years later, she took her patent and set up Vivace GmbH to profitably market her idea. That worked with resounding success in the media: "This is what happens when luxury, animal rights and the spirit of research meet," the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung raved a year and a half ago. "Caviar without the bloodshed," ARD said of the project. "NATO caviar," was the headline in Bild: "So now you can anger Moscow and Tehran just by eating caviar. And also have a clear conscience. Exquisite." The fish farm was also joined by donors such as the Swiss investor Klaus Wecken. Even KfW Bank became a shareholder. What the journalists didn't report: "Stripping" caviar eggs from living fish has been an established process in Russia for centuries. There are also methods for processing mature fish eggs. As much as it makes sense to keep using sexually mature female sturgeon rather than slaughtering them, caviar from mature eggs has always remained a niche product. Real food connoisseurs find the taste too bland. The industry reacted with the same scepticism. "Of course it is a nice idea to let the fish live," says marine biologist Willy Verdonck from the Belgian firm Royal Belgian Caviar, "but we favour slaughtering our sturgeon only after they have had a nice life with us for seven or eight years." Caviar is expensive, and Vivace charges a princely sum for its animal‐friendly image: prospective buyers must part with €119 for 50 grams of the delicacy, for example at the fish counter of the Bremen delicatessen Lestra. US customers sourcing this Vivace caviar through their American distribution partner the California Caviar Company pay some $201 including shipping for 28 grams of the apparently fairly produced caviar. But the clear conscience bit is tricky. Because the sturgeons have to be stimulated with a hormone, otherwise the process of squeezing out the roe from the belly of the fish can end up taking hours or days, which certainly not all fish can survive. It's embarrassing for the professor that this hormone treatment for sturgeon is not permitted in Germany, as there is no permitted preparation for it. Köhler solved this problem with academic creativity, as her company registered its planned caviar production as animal testing. The purpose of which was to determine the optimum dosage for sturgeon to induce ovulation. This request was met with scepticism at the Lower Saxon authorities. Does the production of luxury foods count as animal testing? The leaders finally agreed upon a tricky line of reasoning: The fish should be injected with a Canadian‐made synthetic counterpart of a natural hormone. Ultimately, the experiment with this preparation was said to somehow support the conservation of the sturgeon species. Because if caviar production in tanks gets up and running flawlessly, no‐one would need to hunt wild, endangered sturgeon any more. This sounds a bit like saying you want to optimise the breeding of dairy cows in order to save bison from extinction. Because the Siberian sturgeon kept by Vivace is actually classified as a straightforward farmed fish. The animal testing approval had a good effect on Vivace. Although there are still no results available from their research, the company is allowed to market caviar extracted by hormone injections. Although experts deem this to be harmless for consumers, it did give the company an advantage over competitors such as Dietmar Firzlaff. The owner of the company Aquafuture from Kreuztal in North Rhine‐Westphalia has been in the fish farming business for decades. His company designed and built a sturgeon farming facility in Moldova which is one of the largest of its kind in the world. Here, every year the 135 employees, with a covered tank area of 50,000 square metres, produce some ten tonnes of caviar of both kinds: traditional and from mature, ovulated eggs. Firzlaff, too, has his fish stimulated with hormones, which he admits. However, he does not distribute his ovulated caviar within the EU, but in countries that fewer problems with hormones in food production. Hardening the egg shells after taking the roe is far less of a problem for him. He says he does not need Köhler's invention to do that: "Renowned and experienced sturgeon farmers and profitable caviar businesses have known about these or similar methods for many years." Thomas Bauer, the Managing Director of Vivace, and the fourth head of Vivace in three years, argues that the "USP" of his company is "excellent premium caviar from living fish." The bankruptcy of Vivace could also be unwelcome news for the Lower Saxony State Agricultural Minister, Christian Meyer (Greens). Since he took office over two years ago, he has made a name for himself nationwide as a campaigner against industrial factory farming of livestock. The fact that his team could not find anything wrong with approving commercial caviar production with hormones that were not approved for that purpose does not make the minister look good. Particularly as the Cuxhaven Veterinary Inspection Office observed during an inspection that the facility was not compliant with animal rights restrictions. The aid money also appears to have been handled recklessly. The animal testing on which the entire production is based was approved for two years. It is not known whether the preparation is subsequently going to be permitted in Germany. When the €667,000 reached Vivace, the company was already in critical financial difficulties. The accounts were looking gloomy, employees were being laid off. "Sales revenues and production costs bore no relation to one another," investor Klaus Wecken complains. These fish eggs were obviously not to the tastes of customers, even if Managing Director Bauer raves to the SPIEGEL about a "pearly, clean product that develops an aromatic scent." Ali Sepehr Dad, a caviar importer, sees it differently. He says Vivace sent three samples to his company in Gauting, Bavaria. He returns a devastating verdict: "Vivace caviar tastes like roe from fish that have been kept packed tightly together with poor feed and terrible water quality." Serious farmers invest large amounts of money to wash away the luxury product's grubby image: they counter accusations of mass factory farming of livestock with spacious pond fish farms with natural flow channels, or they breed sturgeon offspring to repopulate former spawning areas. Vivace did nothing of the kind. The liquidator is not going to make life any better for the animals ‐ they may end up being slaughtered. By Fröhlingsdorf, Michael; Rehmsmeier, Andrea The fairy tale of the massaged sturgeon
A marine biologist's promise of environmentally-friendly caviar first caused a stir, but now the fraud
investigators are knocking on her door.
The research concluded: there's something fishy about sturgeon that lay eggs in a tank. BREMERHAVEN taz newspaper | Politically-correct caviar! The idea sounds tempting. Too
tempting, even for politicians, the media, investors. And at the end of the day, it looks like
the fairy tale has lost nine million Euros, including: state aid worth hundreds of thousands.
Handed out when the tempting idea was almost dead in the water. Now the public
prosecutor is investigating charges of fraudulent use of state aid.
The Loxstedt Siedewurth industrial estate, on the outskirts of Bremerhaven. Just last year,
the Vivace Caviar farm still stood here, the place where the fairy tale was supposed to come
true. The place where "luxury, animal rights and research acumen" were supposed to meet,
so wrote the Frankfurter Allgemeine newspaper, decadence without a guilty conscience. The
finest caviar was going to be harvested here, i.e. the sturgeon's eggs - while keeping this
ancient fish species, otherwise threatened by extinction, alive.
"Until recently, the idea was unthinkable" claimed the company, an offshoot of the
renowned Alfred Wegener Institute (AWI) in Bremerhaven. It is true that since 2008 a strict
ban has been in place against catching wild sturgeon. Yet in many fish farms around the
world, the fish is generally killed in order to harvest its eggs. Angela Köhler, a marine
biologist and AWI professor, then stepped up, intending to change this. The magazine
Land&Meer then distilled her idea down to a pretty slogan, "Massage, not Murder". The taz
newspaper crowned her the "sturgeon's friend". But today, Ms Köhler prefers not to talk to
the press.
Things were so different back in 2014, when broadcaster ARD filmed an exclusive
documentary about her. Just massage the fish while it is out of the water, it was claimed in
that piece, and then you can simply "strip off" the eggs. After that, it was claimed on TV,
the fish were "fit as a fiddle". And best of all, according to the company's PR: "the quality
and size of the caviar increases with each harvest". Now, it's important to understand that
the sturgeon gets very old, but it takes years until they produce eggs for the first time. "The
idea of protecting the species is really at the heart of everything", Köhler told the ARD.
What she didn't mention, and was later reported by Der Spiegel magazine, was that Vivace
Caviar was treating its sturgeon with hormones that are not even approved for use in
Germany.
And the whole thing was her idea: Angela Köhler actually has a patent for it, in almost 100
countries worldwide, all paid for by AWI. Vivace Caviar, the company with exclusive
worldwide rights to that patent, filed for bankruptcy in the summer.
Why? In the Weser Kurier newspaper, managing director Thomas Bauer blamed competition
from China and a Swiss investor, family office Wecken & Cie. The latter initially viewed
Vivace Caviar as a "sustainable investment". And emphasised that they did not simply pull
out, but rather "did not increase" their investment, as sales and costs then became
"completely out of proportion" to each other.
For good reason: The Vivace caviar was a complete and utter "dud", as a caviar expert
informed taz. The product was "inedible", indeed: "an impertinence". and: it was clear from
the very beginning that Vivace Caviar was "not going to work". Why? "You can't just strip
off the eggs from a sturgeon" the industry insider says, at least not just with a gentle
massage, without hormones. "There is nothing ethical about this thing", reports the caviar
merchant. He talks of "cruelty to animals".
The end result of the bankruptcy is several jobs lost and ten million Euros in debts, as
confirmed by bankruptcy administrator Edgar Grönda. He is expecting to recover around
one million Euros from the company assets. It is true that live sturgeon are extremely
expensive. But since commercial production at Vivace Caviar was officially operated as
"animal experiments" on account of the hormones, the fish can only be sold off as cheap
animal fodder or as an ingredient for cosmetics.
That is not only a concern for the investors, but also for the public authorities, who
subsidised Vivace Caviar just before the insolvency to the tune of almost 670,000 Euros.
The Lower Saxony Ministry of Agriculture approved the state aid. The Ministry has now filed
charges against Bauer - for fraudulent use of state aid. And that isn't the end of her legal
woes: The Stade public prosecutor's office has confirmed that Bauer is also under
investigation for the withholding and embezzling wages.
This isn't the first company that has set out with a vision of producing sustainable caviar:
Caviar Creator, from Demmin in Western Pomerania was the other company. They also
promised double-digit returns to investors and planned to produce several hundred tons of
caviar per year. In 2010 the company boss was sentenced to three years and eight months
in jail for investment fraud running into the millions.
Ralf Bos is one of the very first people who tried Vivace Caviar. A chef and fine foods
merchant, he is one of the key players in the industry. "That stuff tasted horrible", Bos says,
also saying he "never" intended to include it in his product range. "It was crystal clear to me
that this product would never sell."
And that is saying something: The caviar market is small - if production increases, the price
falls. In 2014, 240 tons of farmed caviar were produced worldwide, with the majority
coming from China. By 2019, the amount of caviar harvested is forecast to double. But
prices are currently falling by about 10% per year. According to Bos, the wholesale
restaurant price of caviar today is a good 500 Euros, with "sensational quality" product
costing as much as 800 Euros. In 2004, the price was still as high as 4,000 Euros.
It's usual to harvest the eggs before full maturity for this kind of caviar, then the little black
eggs are firmer. Vivace Caviar used ovulated eggs, meaning: ready to be fertilised. "It looks
like a mass of jelly which has been churned up with a fork", says Bos. "It was then reformed
back into balls using molecular cooking methods". For Rolf Bos, Vivace Caviar was "dead in
the water after the first spoonful".
ROLF BOS, CHEF AND CAVIAR MERCHANT
"It was crystal clear to me that this product would never sell."
Bos also soon realised that the caviar made in Loxstedt Siedewurth was not quite as
innovative and ethically unimpeachable as was being claimed and reported. "Fantastic fairy
tales" was what Ms Köhler was telling him, he said, also mentioning that the people at
Vivace Caviar were "not honest". Because: This thing with the ovulated caviar is by no
means new. In fact, it is "old hat", in Russia at least, and has "never made an impact" on
the market. Why? "It has no taste." And Vivace's methods "weren't very good for the fish",
Bos says. "It is an illusion to believe that you can produce high-quality caviar for culinary
use without the sturgeon dying. You can only ever harvest ovulated eggs from live fish and
they are the ones most unsuitable for eating."
Yet the AWI soldiers on, "we continue to believe in the enormous potential of the patentprotected process and its technical feasibility" states an AWI spokesperson. "Initial contacts
we have recently made with interested parties confirm this belief." The AWI expects it will
be able to successfully license its patent in future. The research institute is reluctant to
reveal how much the patent cost them, "for competitive reasons". A patent lawyer
interviewed by taz on this matter believes that on top of the official fees of around 3,000
Euros and the cost of a patent lawyer - "perhaps somewhere between 3,000 and 10,000
Euros" - additional costs "in the lower to mid five-figures" would have been required to
register the patent in other countries.
A recent report in this regard by the Swiss Tagesanzeigernewspaper stated that in 2013 a
company called "Kasperskian Caviar" paid 1.75 million Swiss francs for an "exclusive
licence" for a Russian-registered patent. For a process that is similar to the one used by
Angela Köhler. This process also involves keeping the fish alive while harvesting the coveted
eggs. According to the Tagesanzeigerthe people behind this new company are the Chairman
of the Board of Directors of Nestlé and a Russian businessman. The AWI denies that their
patent has been purchased by "Kasperskian Caviar". "We have not yet issued any further
licences", states the AWI spokesperson. The search for potential buyers continues.
Industry insiders doubt that AWI will be successful in their search. In the meantime, the
collapse of Vivace Caviar continues to generate attention: The taxpayers' federation plans to
add the case to its "black book": "Companies in financial difficulties are in principal
prohibited from enjoying the benefits of state aid."
The CDU party in the Lower Saxony parliament have referred the case to the state audit
office. "If the review indicates it was foreseeable that the solvency of the company was not
feasible", the Agriculture Minister from the Green party, Christian Mayer, "not only
supported a controversial animal experiment with public funds, but also needlessly wasted
tax monies," the CDU states.
By the way, Vivace Caviar is still available on the Amazon website: 50 grams for 107.25
Euros.
Caviar Farm in Bremerhaven Goes Bankrupt
By Justus Randt 27/07/2015 0 Comments
Caviar from living sturgeon: with their patented process, Vivace GmbH from
Bremerhaven wanted to flood the market with the luxurious fish eggs. But it didn't go
to plan. "We had to file for bankruptcy after our main investor, a Swiss gentleman of
independent means, bailed out at the end of June," says the Managing Director of
Vivace, Thomas Bauer. "We continue to be active, a receiving company has been set
up." Meanwhile, a preliminary liquidator from Bremen is examining the state of the
company. Its ten employees are continuing their work, with their salaries guaranteed
until the beginning of October.
Vivace GmbH from Bremerhaven has filed for bankruptcy. (dpa)
What Bauer is worried about are the ongoing costs for its production site in the Siedewurt
industrial estate in Loxstedt, which he indicates to be between €160,000 and €200,000 per
month. There are more than 7,000 Siberian sturgeon living in aquaculture, which represent an
investment of between five and seven million EUR. The facility was built outside the southern city
boundary of Bremerhaven because of the cheaper wastewater charges - after all, according to
earlier estimates, some 110,000 cubic metres of water per year would need to be circulated.
Vivace GmbH, a spin-off company of the Alfred-Wegener-Institute (AWI) started production last
year, about a year behind schedule. The primary shareholder Angela Köhler, a Professor of
Marine Biology at the AWI, drew on her expertise to make this reputably sustainable, patented
method of roe production fit for business: "Until our process was developed, the fish had to be
killed," said Köhler. In Loxstedt, they strip the prized eggs from the female fish whilst they are
alive. The target was to achieve annual caviar harvests of between seven and eight tonnes.
"At present, we have production capacities of five tonnes per year," says Managing Director
Bauer. "But we don't have the buyers for that. The biggest competition comes from China, which
has been flooding the market for the last three years. Admittedly, theirs is conventionallyextracted caviar from slaughtered sturgeon. "Lots of people only buy on based on price," Bauer
says of the market for luxury eggs, "and the price has dropped by up to 50%."
He said the delayed production launch had been a problem. "Positioning yourself in the closed
caviar market with a markedly unusual product," as Managing Director Thomas Bauer puts it,
"entails extreme difficulties." Their desired clientele, large-scale buyers like airlines and
cruiselines, he said, had difficulty with a player like Vivace, "that had not yet been able to prove
itself." He said that buyers of the sustainable caviar from Loxstedt currently included hotel
complexes and fine-dining establishments.
Under Angela Köhler's method, the roe harvest can - once a year, after spawning - be repeated
"in principle, as many time as you wish", as Köhler described the process. "As long as you can lift
the fish out of the tank to strip out the caviar." Sturgeon don't only grow old, they also grow
heavy - up to 40 KG.