Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[shuswapsteve]

I'm not questioning that salmon ranching has it's negatives, what I am questioning is the comments that salmon ranching is causing anywhere near the damage to BC's wild salmon than the feedlots are.

What is shows is that issues facing wild salmon in BC are not simply rested on the shoulders of the BC fish farming industry.  We need to think critically of the potential implications of pumping out billions of hatchery and ranched salmon into the ocean.

As for SLICE you might want to read up on it a bit more.....
http://www.cahs-bc.ca/SlicereportfinalMar07.pdf.pdf

[Sandman]

Once again, the statistical devil is in the details.

Yes, the details are that salmon are the third largest consumer of fish meal and the largest consumer of fish oil according to the study you posted three times.

Your argument against consuming globally damaging products applies equally to the consumption of the products of commercial fishing and the consumption of ranched salmon.

Absolutely.

[Sandman]

What is shows is that issues facing wild salmon in BC are not simply rested on the shoulders of the BC fish farming industry.  We need to think critically of the potential implications of pumping out billions of hatchery and ranched salmon into the ocean.

As for SLICE you might want to read up on it a bit more.....
http://www.cahs-bc.ca/SlicereportfinalMar07.pdf.pdf

Consider a patient beset by numerous ailments.  Is his doctor going to ignore the staff infection in her leg because she knows he has other, perhaps even more serious afflictions elsewhere?  No.  She will, in fact, probably want to treat the less serious but more easily treated infection immediately, so that the whole system is healthier and able to better deal with the other problems.  She certainly would not want the infection to spread and cause even more problems.

[absolon]

Yes, the details are that salmon are the third largest consumer of fish meal and the largest consumer of fish oil according to the study you posted three times.

Salmon are the third largest consumer amongst aquaculture uses, but there is that other 32% used in terrestrial animal feeds that you don't seem willing to acknowledge. At current levels, salmon aquaculture consumes 10 to 12 % of the world fishmeal supply, less than half of what is obtained through reducing wastes from processing of fish for human consumption. The oil is a byproduct of the reduction process that produces the fishmeal.

[Sandman]

Salmon are the third largest consumer amongst aquaculture uses, but there is that other 32% used in terrestrial animal feeds that you don't seem willing to acknowledge. At current levels, salmon aquaculture consumes 10 to 12 % of the world fishmeal supply, less than half of what is obtained through reducing wastes from processing of fish for human consumption. The oil is a byproduct of the reduction process that produces the fishmeal.

Even using the IFFO data from 2006, which is less than Naylor et al.'s findings (IFFO data lists aquaculture consumption at 57% compared to Naylor's 68%), the consumption by salmon at 525 000 tonnes is over 2/3 that of poultry (@ 739 000 tonnes) and half that of pigs (@ just over 1.1 million tonnes). However,  if we factor in Naylor's increased percentages then the numbers would likely be much closer.  Naylor et al. also assert that "the amount of forage fish used to produce feeds for salmon is driven by the need for fish oil to a far greater extent than fishmeal.  They also suggest "the use of terrestrial plant oils containing the LC omega-3 oils’ precursor, stearidonic acid (SDA, 18:4n-3), also shows promise for aquaculture feeds. For Atlantic salmon parr (freshwater phase), the use of an SDA oil has been demonstrated to maintain LC omega-3 oils at levels similar to that of salmon fed a fish oil diet" (Naylor et al., 2009).

[mykisscrazy]

The need for international cooperation to reduce competition among salmon for a common pool of prey resources in the North Pacific Ocean
Randall M. Peterman*1, Carrie A. Holt1,2, and Murray R. Rutherford1
1School of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby,
BC V5A 1S6, Canada (Email: peterman@sfu.ca; Tel: 778 782-4683; Fax 778 782-4968)
2Present address: Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Pacific Biological Station, 3190 Hammond Bay Rd., Nanaimo, BC V9T 6N7, Canada
Many populations of Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) show long-term decreases in age-specific body size, which reduce the economic value of catches and fecundity of spawners. Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain these trends, including deteriorating environmental conditions, size-selective fishing, and density-dependent growth associated with the large increases in pink (O. gorbuscha) and chum (O. keta) salmon abundance in the North Pacific Ocean. The density-dependent hypothesis related to competition for food has the greatest support, based on overlapping geographic distributions of pink, chum, and sockeye salmon (O. nerka) populations, their stomach contents, and analyses of scale-growth patterns and abundances. Some sockeye populations have also suffered reduced productivity (adult recruits produced per spawner), in addition to reduced growth, when present with high abundances of competitors, particularly pink salmon populations that vary dramatically in abundance between even- and odd-years. Hatchery-released pink and chum salmon constitute a substantial and growing portion of total wild plus enhanced salmon in the North Pacific Ocean, and plans exist to dramatically expand hatchery releases in the future. Such plans are worrisome, given the importance of density-dependent processes on the high seas that reduce body size of both hatchery-origin and wild salmon and in some cases, productivity of wild salmon stocks. Therefore, it is important that salmon-producing nations begin serious discussions on how to deal with this "common-pool resource" problem caused by competition for prey in the North Pacific. We recommend that such discussions be coordinated by the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission (NPAFC) after appropriate amendments are made to its mandate. The objective would be to develop strategies and incentives for cooperation among salmon-producing nations. The ultimate goal would be to take collective action to prevent further increases in competition among salmon from different nations or even reduce it. In an analogous situation over 20 years ago, the NPAFC reduced exploitation of salmon in the North Pacific Ocean by banning directed fishing on salmon in waters beyond territorial limits. However, there is currently no analogous measure to deal with the next lower trophic level, i.e., to restrict the "harvest" of a common pool of North Pacific prey by salmon populations from different nations. Many precedents exist worldwide for creating appropriate incentives to sustainably use such limited common-pool resources. Among other actions, such incentives include sharing of benefits and side-payments to change the incentive structure. Action on this problem of multi-national grazing of salmon food is long overdue.

[Dave]

Thanks A.  Good to see this issue is finally being discussed by people who like and excel at discussion.

[alwaysfishn]

A local fishery that we should all be concerned about is the BC krill fishery. Krill is essentially at the bottom of the food chain and is the primary food source for our wild salmon.

While Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and California have banned krill fishing (in the 200 mile zone), Canada continues to harvest krill.

The primary consumer of the harvested krill ........     salmon feedlots.     

[aquapaloosa]

The primary consumer of the harvested krill ........     salmon feedlots.

Fishmeal made from krill is used in some fish-farming operations, home aquariums and pet foods.

Russell Mylchreest, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' shellfish co-ordinator for fisheries management and assessment, said there is a small krill fishery in inlets off the Strait of Georgia and there is no plan for a ban.

"The allowable catch is a very low percentage of the total krill stock. It is a pretty precautionary approach," he said. "There has been research, but no one is recommending a ban." The krill fishery takes place in Knight, Bute, Jervis and Toba Inlets and the total allowable catch is 500 tonnes a year.

However, in recent years, fishermen have not been taking the total catch because of low prices and there is no talk of expanding the fishery, Mylchreest said.

According to this article the fishery is pretty minimal and there are many users of the product. 

[alwaysfishn]

Fishmeal made from krill is used in some fish-farming operations, home aquariums and pet foods.

Russell Mylchreest, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' shellfish co-ordinator for fisheries management and assessment, said there is a small krill fishery in inlets off the Strait of Georgia and there is no plan for a ban.

"The allowable catch is a very low percentage of the total krill stock. It is a pretty precautionary approach," he said. "There has been research, but no one is recommending a ban." The krill fishery takes place in Knight, Bute, Jervis and Toba Inlets and the total allowable catch is 500 tonnes a year.

However, in recent years, fishermen have not been taking the total catch because of low prices and there is no talk of expanding the fishery, Mylchreest said.

According to this article the fishery is pretty minimal and there are many users of the product. 

As Absolon would say....  Where's the link to your quote??

The point I was making was; why would DFO be allowing any Krill fishery when our neighbors on the entire Pacific coast have banned it? Washington, Oregon and California won't even allow Krill fishing boats to land on their shores.

From DFO's website: "Most of the euphausiid (krill) harvested in B.C. are frozen for use in the manufacture of fish food for aquaculture. A small portion of the catch is freeze dried and used as aquarium pet food." http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/species-especes/shellfish-coquillages/krill/fishery-peche-eng.htm

I guess that answers my question. DFO's partnership with the salmon feedlots means that they are willing to sacrifice the wild salmon food in order to supply the feedlots.

[aquapaloosa]

As Absolon would say....  Where's the link to your quote??

Sorry that I left that out.  Not intentional.

http://www2.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/capital_van_isl/story.html?id=3bcf856c-9656-4476-9e0d-bdc0db451e9e

[aquapaloosa]

I also would like to add that there are often complaints that salmon farms use artificial methods to put color into farm salmon but when it comes to using a natural source you complain again.  Yes I understand the environmental concern about fishing krill but it is one of the good things salmon farming has done to avoid the use of krill in their feed.  With the U.S. being so committed to the protection of this valuable krill one would think they would not release 6-8 billion farmed raised smolts into the wild consuming precious krill amongst other items out at sea that so many other species rely on including west coast salmon.
  I would say that they are fishing it heavily just indirectly.  Under the radar so to speak.

[absolon]

Any discussion of the appropriateness of commercial fishermen harvesting krill is absolutely pointless without some idea of the size of harvest compared to the size of the population being harvested from.

The standing biomass of the Georgia Strait/Jervis Inlet area has been surveyed a number of times and although the results vary, it appears to be in the range of 1,000,000 tonnes. Harvest are under 500 tonnes per year, or approximately 0.05% of the population.

World harvest of krill apparently runs 150,000 to 200,000 tons per year. MSC apparently considers it is a sustainable fishery, though not everyone agrees.

[absolon]

As Absolon would say....  Where's the link to your quote??

I only say that when I know who I'm talking to has a propensity to create facts to suit his argument.

[alwaysfishn]

Any discussion of the appropriateness of commercial fishermen harvesting krill is absolutely pointless without some idea of the size of harvest compared to the size of the population being harvested from.

The standing biomass of the Georgia Strait/Jervis Inlet area has been surveyed a number of times and although the results vary, it appears to be in the range of 1,000,000 tonnes. Harvest are under 500 tonnes per year, or approximately 0.05% of the population.

World harvest of krill apparently runs 150,000 to 200,000 tons per year. MSC apparently considers it is a sustainable fishery, though not everyone agrees.

Why don't you post the standing biomass of the Alaskan, Washington, Oregon and Californian coast as well.

Their harvest is 0 tonnes per year, approximately 0% of the population. They are doing this because their scientists have determined that harvesting any krill, has a negative effects on all sorts ocean life. I have considerably more confidence in the US scientists who seem to follow their science rather than the political whim of their employers.

I suggest that the BC salmon feedlots need the krill and DFO is providing it, ignoring the science that suggests krill should not be harvested.

Could it also be that a Norwegian company is involved in the harvest of our krill?  http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/krill-investors-lose-billions