臺灣文蛤市場的造市實作：科學知識、放養密度與市場算計能力

Abstract

臺灣西南沿海的塭養文蛤近年經常爆出大量死亡，在回應文蛤死亡問題時，農政單位認為降低放養密度是重要的解方之一，因為大量死亡總是發生在密度較高的地區，如彰化和雲林。這樣的回應暗示著雲彰地區的業者是缺乏理性算計能力的能動者，忽略了文蛤市場其實是由養殖業者與土壤、池水、文蛤等非人共同協作而成。為了解文蛤放養密度的決策過程，我從科技與社會的視角出發，透過市場化與經濟化和拼裝觀點，探討不同地區的經濟能動者如何建構出多元的放養密度實作；同時，延續科技與社會傳統實驗室研究的關懷，我也重新檢視文蛤大量死亡的發生和爭議處理過程。透過訪談與田野觀察，我發現魚塭的土壤和地下水質是決定放養密度的關鍵，雲彰地區因為有適合文蛤生長的沙質土壤和地下淡水資源，才能夠以相對集約的方式來放養文蛤。另外，農政單位之所以選擇以降低放養密度等個人化的技術建議來回應文蛤大量死亡，是水試所的組織定位和智慧農業的政策脈絡使然，而非根據實務現場需求提出的最佳解方。本研究強調，人的算計無法與市場中的其他實體脫鉤，養殖科學應更加關注養殖的社會物質差異，才不會忽略能動者理性計算的一面。以及，文蛤大量死亡不單是一個科學或技術問題，農政單位選擇科學解方乃是反映複雜的組織、行政過程。

In recent years, the cultivation of hard clams along Taiwan's southwestern coast has frequently resulted in mass deaths. In response to the mass deaths, agricultural authorities have considered reducing stock density as one of the important solutions, since large-scale deaths often occur in regions with higher densities, such as Changhua and Yunlin. This response implies that farmers in these regions lack rational calculation abilities, and overlooks the fact that the clam market is a collaboration between farmer and non-human agents such as soil, water, and clams. In order to understand farmers’ decision-making process, I approach the issue from the perspectives of marketization and economization and assemblage thinking, exploring how economic agents (including human and non-human) in different regions construct various stock density practices. Additionally, continuing the tradition of laboratory studies in science, technology and society, I re-examine the occurrence and the dispute resolution process of clam mass deaths.

Through interviews and field study, I find that the properties of soil and groundwater in fish ponds are the key to determining stock density. In Yunlin and Changhua, the presence of sandy soil and fresh groundwater allows for relatively intensive clam cultivation. Moreover, the choice of personalized technical advice by agricultural authorities in response to clam deaths, such as reducing stock density, is shaped by the organizational positioning of Fisheries Research Institute and the policy context of smart agriculture, rather than being the best practical solution based on field needs. Overall, this study first points out that calculations cannot be detached from other entities in the market, and aquaculture science should pay more attention to the social-material difference to discover the rational side of market agents. Secondly, clam mass deaths are not merely a scientific or technical issue; the choice of scientific solutions by agricultural authorities reflects complex organizational and administrative processes.