Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => Fishing-related Issues & News => Topic started by: mykisscrazy on March 31, 2009, 12:21:48 PM
-
CANADA - Marine Harvest has retaliated to claims that Fraser River sockeye are at risk from salmon farms, saying that their practises ensure that the effects are kept to a minimum.
What Marine Harvest say they do
Sea lice numbers on farmed salmon are monitored and managed to minimise possible transfer to wild populations. This work is audited by provincial authorities.
BC salmon farms can only be sited in areas where water currents provide optimal conditions for fish well-being and environmental sustainability. This includes avoiding sensitive wild salmon habitat, such as coastal fish spawning and nursery areas.
To limit nutrient pollution, salmon farmers employ state-of-the-art feed monitoring systems that use real-time technology, such as underwater cameras and sensors, to detect uneaten feed and adjust feed delivery to the appetite of the salmon.
What you should know about sockeye and other Pacific salmon species-
Research shows that, except in their extreme infancy when first leaving their natal rivers, Pacific salmon are resistant to damage from sea lice.
Sockeye salmon spend much of the first year of their life in freshwater and have fully developed immune systems by the time they migrate to saltwater.
Sockeye fry linger in the Fraser Delta for up to 5 months until they (as underyearlings) emerge from the Fraser River plume in late July. Since wild salmon populations are either collecting in the delta or beginning their migration up the Fraser during this time, these adult wild salmon returns are a likely source of sea lice on juvenile salmon emerging from the river.
As the closest salmon farm is 110 km away from the Fraser River's mouth, there is no opportunity for outmigrating Fraser River salmon fry to come into contact with farmed salmon during the early stages of their life cycle.
-
logical.
-
Makes sense to me. Thank you Mykisscrazy.
-
"except in their extreme infancy when first leaving their natal rivers, Pacific salmon are resistant to damage from sea lice"
They are, then there not resistant to Sea Lice? Dosen't make any sense. Obviously they are.
What about Salmon leaving rivers closer by than the Fraser?
Are the fish farms getting Sea Lice on adult fish that then get them on the juviniles?
Why has there been well documented issues with Sea Lice in other Countries as well as here?
-
Studies have shown that smolts under 10 grams have a harder time dealing with lice than smolts over 10 grams. It would think it is much wiser to look into what the problems my be that salmon are leaving the rivers into the marine environment under 10 grams than it would be to point a finger at salmon farms. Many studies with 3rd party reviews and proper science etiquette have shown us this since the early 1900’s.
Why do U.S funded activists or any anti-farm group looking for donations keep turning studies around to meet their own agenda with bias studies? Could it be the millions of dollars they are funded to denounce farming and promote wild? From all the digging I have done, I can only think the activists are in it for the money whether they truly believe in what they are saying or not.
Troutbreath Could you please link your “ well documented issues with Sea Lice in other Countries” It would be very interesting to see where your information is coming from. I for one do not like to educate myself on speculation.
-
Studies have shown that smolts under 10 grams have a harder time dealing with lice than smolts over 10 grams. It would think it is much wiser to look into what the problems my be that salmon are leaving the rivers into the marine environment under 10 grams than it would be to point a finger at salmon farms. Many studies with 3rd party reviews and proper science etiquette have shown us this since the early 1900’s.
Why do U.S funded activists or any anti-farm group looking for donations keep turning studies around to meet their own agenda with bias studies? Could it be the millions of dollars they are funded to denounce farming and promote wild? From all the digging I have done, I can only think the activists are in it for the money whether they truly believe in what they are saying or not.
Troutbreath Could you please link your “ well documented issues with Sea Lice in other Countries” It would be very interesting to see where your information is coming from. I for one do not like to educate myself on speculation.
I just did a Google on it. Try Norway in your search line.
-
He could try Scotland, Ireland and Chili too. But I think he'd rather carry on with his own agenda.
-
Speculation perhaps. I would like to know how many sea lice Alaska produces on thier salmon farms. Although I still beleive sea lice is NOT the problem of poor salmon returns. To me it is just a marketing strategy by anti-farming crusaders.
http://alaskasalmonranching.wordpress.com/ Are the salmon you buy at the store realy wild? Also please let me know if you can find an add for donations, or how to join us on this site.
And I apologize to any Canadian commercial fisherman that I may have offended. It seems the only fish I can find in the stores comes from Alaska.
-
I would like to know how many sea lice Alaska produces on thier salmon farms.
There are no fish farms in Alaska-none.
-
I beg to differ with you Troutbreath, but I do appreciate your response. If you go to this site you will see that there are fish farms in Alaska. Only in Alaska it is called salmon ranching.
http://alaskasalmonranching.wordpress.com/
-
I beg to differ with you Troutbreath, but I do appreciate your response. If you go to this site you will see that there are fish farms in Alaska. Only in Alaska it is called salmon ranching.
http://alaskasalmonranching.wordpress.com/
Not the same as in bc "Ranched salmon are raised in hatcheries and net pens and then released into the ocean basin to compete for food with wild salmon."
Much different the waste and fish will not be concentrated
-
I beg to differ with you Troutbreath, but I do appreciate your response. If you go to this site you will see that there are fish farms in Alaska. Only in Alaska it is called salmon ranching.
http://alaskasalmonranching.wordpress.com/
Growing out Smolts is not Salmon Aquaculture-you have no clue
I doubt you have ever seen/smelt a Salmon Farm/worked on a fisheries enhancement project or for that matter ever held a fishing rod.
-
Salmon in the wild are known to school in higher densities then that of a salmon farm in the winter feeding grounds of the north Pacific where all Pacific salmon migrate to. If the wild salmon do not hit their optinal size in the first winter, their chance to spawn is greatly reduced. As you can see this is no different in what Alaska is doing putting over 1.5 billion salmon into the ocean than putting millions of cattle on the buffalo range. I am sure we know what happend there. Over grazing.
Yes I have donated my time to a fisheries enhancement project Sam Salmon. And yes I have seen a fish farm and have caught salmon on a rod. I also at one time thought salmon farming was bad.
Shmertis. there is no difference from ranched raised salmon and farmed salmon, unless a B.C. farmed salmon escapes. Is this a double standard?
-
Sea Ranching is just another form of Fish Farming. It too has it's problems. Our own DFO hatcheries do it. One just has too look at the Alberni Canal. At one time there were quite a few Chinook stocks that went to quite a few smaller streams. Then Robertson Creek Hatchery came along and started pumping out hundreds of thousands chinook smolts. Well, there is now a really good run of Chinook back to the Stamp/Somass, but the rest of the streams feeding into the canal have seen a drastic decline. Then look at the Chum production in the Fraser and what it has done to the Thompson Steelhead. Same goes for the Ranched Sockeye production on the Skeena and what it has done to the Steelhead up there. Same goes for Alaska - Bristol Bay is a great example - Yes there are tons of Sockeye that come back there, but they are now all cookie cutter fish hatchery fish and the local wild stocks are suffering.
For the Pacific Coast I feel that this issue (Alaska' Sea Ranching) has the ability to ruin not just BC Salmon but also Washington's, Oregon's, and California's salmon stocks. There is only so much food in the ocean - the offshore area where a lot end up - the Alaska gyre seems to be shrinking (global warming). The Alaska's and the Northern BC (Transboundry stocks) get there first and have a head start feeding. The rest are at a bit of a disadvantage. Just look at the sizes of returning fish over the last 20 to 30 years. Overall the further south one goes the smaller the fish are becoming.
But I am sure many of you will disagree...
-
This whole attack on growing out Smolts has it's origins in PETA fantasy world-which is where the blog that one newbie keeps trying to flog here comes from.
They are desperately trying to sabotage the USDA Organic label designation for Alaska Salmon-I did some searching some sites say Alaska has it others not I have no idea right now but I know they're close.
There may be some problems with outgrowing Smolts but that's completely different than Salmon Aquaculture as practiced in places like Norway, Scotland, Chile and BC-which is what the wingnuts want you to forget.
Hey-they're wingnuts-whaddya expect? ::)
-
PETA is another donation asking NGO that only a couple of years ago took animals out of a shelter in Virginia U.S. claiming that they found, or are finding homes for them. The animals were later found in a dumpster behind a toy store. Charges were laid. Its a sad story. What is also sad is that good people thought they were donating to a worthy cause with honesty and trusted the information that was given to them. I think Peta has made many people look into the information on an issue before donating. I always question where and who is a NGO groups major funder and what the possible motive could be. Also and most of all. How they act, and present themselves.
-
I'm the first guy to say that there are two sides to every story and that we should be skeptical of any information we receive regardless of the source....BUT....I can't help but feel that you guys are basically planted here to counter the bad PR surrounding fish farms right now. Your arguments seem so rehearsed and recited with so much spin that I'm having a hard time buying anything that is coming out of your mouths.
It's either that or you are somehow dependent on aquaculture for your income.
It doesn't make sense any other way....the province has nothing but some revenue and jobs to lose by ditching fish farms like every other intelligent proactive government out there has, we have a lot more to lose if we don't. There is a lot on the line and I can't see anyone without something to directly gain from having farming around defending its practices.
Come clean already.....I don't mean to offend but I just do not understand how somebody can defend farming with so much at stake.
-
There is no offense taken Marmot. I fully understand how you feel. I felt the same way over 10 years ago. I thought farming was bad. Only I had to ask myself if it is so bad then why is it going strong? One reason is that there is major investment from wild fisheries that can not sustain themselves on the wild stocks alone. Also I once saw a nature of things episode on fish farming. Suzuki said this could be the saviour of wild salmon. But I guess he changed his tune when the money started flowing in from the Moore foundation. I am sorry but my argument now comes from studies and science that started in the early 1900's long before fish farming and not from NGO misinformation from the last 13 to 20 years that spin the known studies for their own agenda.
Farming is not the cause of a decline in fish stocks. Farming is the result of the fish stock decline.
I am sorry you feel my arguments seem rehearsed and recited. People can take anything anyone says in a different way. Its all how you want to read it.
Also I am not trying to sell anything for you to buy Marmot. I am only passing information that I have found on to others. Its up to the reader to decide for themselves. If I was selling the info I would be asking for donations.
-
I do agree that farming is a result of declining fish stocks. No argument there. If our stocks were healthy, we'd have no need for farmed fish....unless it was cheaper to farm an amount of fish than harvest that same amount commercially...?
So you don't work for the industry and you have nothing to gain from its survival? I mean, I'm no better in that regard, I suppose. I fish and I enjoy nature so I want there to be wild fish around for my kids to see one day....selfish reasons as well for wanting every little bit of impedement to wild stock recovery removed.
Have a good one in any case :)
-
So you don't work for the industry and you have nothing to gain from its survival?
That's not what he stated in his posts marmot. Folkboat is a farmer.
-
http://www.bluefish.org/fifarmbc.htm seems to tell a different story than some would claim.Or this- http://www.raincoastresearch.org/research.htm
-
That was in 2001 Nova. Practicates have changed since then. And please remember the industry has only been around for about 40 years.
" But, McMullin says, the province is already implementing a new policy framework for salmon farming, including new regulations to address fish health, waste management and farm escapes. The industry has also invested millions of dollars over the past year in a series of pilot projects to test new environmental technologies and husbandry practices, she said." Your conserns have been and always will the same as the salmon farmers.
-
So you don't work for the industry and you have nothing to gain from its survival?
That's not what he stated in his posts marmot. Folkboat is a farmer.
Sry I missed that part I guess..... A different thread maybe ...that or I am blind! Thanks though.
-
And sorry nova but for the second link studies have show the same thing well before salmon farming start. This once again brings to my mind the money funded for this study was for alterior motives.
“ Lack of quality assurance in the collection of field data. Pink and chum salmon
fry were collected using beach seines and subsampled using dip nets. Sea lice on the fry were generally enumerated without regard to species (Lepeophtheirus salmonis or Caligus clemensi) and then returned to the sea offering no opportunity for independent (blind) verification of the results. No quality assurance procedures are described to insure the accuracy of the counts. A credible quality assurance program would require, at a minimum, blind counts and the recounting of lice on a subset of the fry by independent observers and comparison of the results to insure consistency. Assistance in the field work was offered to Mr. Krkosek for the 2006 field season during a conference call between Mr. Clare Backman (Marine Harvest), Mr. Krkosek and Dr. Brooks. The offer was declined with Mr. Krkosek’s statement that he neither needed nor wanted assistance in conducting the field work. No claim of intentional bias should be inferred from this. However, unintentional bias in scientific work, particularly in field-work, is something that all experienced scientists aggressively guard against.
The Standards, Protocols and Guidelines (SPG-2) developed by the British Columbia
Pacific Salmon Forum for Field Sampling Methods for Juvenile and Adult Pacific Salmon, and Caligid Zooplankton discusses the inherent biases associated with beach seining and dip netting, but fails to recommend quality assurance procedures to insure that collections represent random samples and that counts and identifications of lice are accurate.
-
"This once again brings to my mind that money motivates my posting."
and the fish be damned. You accuse people of posting their concerns about declining Salmon stocks as anti fish farmers. But your making money from it. I don't think you deserve much creedance in that case. Bias in the face of fact old boy. Isn't there a self help site for fish farmers that they can go and cry in their beer over what a bad reputation they have. May your next meal of farmed salmon be extra SLICEY. ;D
-
Troutbreath he's not slinging mud at anyone here, just stating his opinions. Folkboats take on it is obviously biased but so are yours and mine whether we want to admit it or not. We just happen to trust different sources, that's all.
Folkboat what is your take on closed containment inland farms? Do you believe they are a viable alternative?
-
I think your right Marmot, I was a little over the top. Almost letting emotions get the best of me. When all the wild Salmon are gone it will be where's my good bud Folkboat and those good deals on the farmed stuff. I may have shot myself in the foot already though. ;D
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BcRBwCh6BA
-
http://www.farmedanddangerous.org/ I guess this is all specious nonsense as well. Try again. If I seem a little obnoxious, this is a subject that goes back to the denials of John Van Dongen and Stan Hagen about escapes and about how much money was sent to the Liberals by the fish farming industry. The piles of "mistruths" are appalling. I sincerely wonder about the consequences of allowing feed lots spewing sewage laced with drugs to float away. The end result is a fish coloured with dyes and full of chemicals that depletes other fish stocks to keep afloat.
Folkboat - can you address a few of the pollution concerns?
Farm-raised Atlantic salmon, one of the world's most popular health foods, are so laced with PCBs and other pollutants that they should be eaten only infrequently because they pose an increased risk of cancer, a new study contends in the prestigious journal Science.
Salmon from Toronto supermarkets were so contaminated they shouldn't be eaten more than once every two months, while those from Vancouver were safe to eat only once a month, according to the study. Similar consumption limits, based on tests on 700 salmon purchased from nearly 40 locations around the world, were made for European and U.S. cities.
Researchers blamed the feed used on fish farms for concentrating ocean pollutants. The study, being published today, is the most extensive ever done on industrial contaminants in farmed salmon.
Wild salmon were also studied but given a clean bill of health -- they have much lower levels of pollutants and could be eaten up to eight times a month.
-
Interesting on how things are going here.
It seems the people who are "pro-farming" are using pretty effective scientific arguments, while the "anti-farming" crowd are now going for personal attacks and mudslinging.
For people who are on the fence and have not made up their mind on this issue, such behavior is not helping your cause.
Whether you like it or not Aquaculture is here it stay in BC. Even Bill Otway BC's voice for the recreational fisherman recognizes this.
The important thing now is to make sure the Aquaculture Industry is accountable if and when anything happens.
-
Hello Marmot. My view on cloesd containment is wide open. But what I have read the energy cost to move water is far to expensive. The test that was going on at Middle Bay is a great start. Although they did have an escapement during a storm. But remember this was their first stab at it. Also 60% of the water flows out the bottm and 40% over the top untreated. I have also "heard" stories but I do not think it is my place to pass on hearsay and presumptions. Enviro,s and industry need to get together and come to an agreement on just what type of closed contanment should be used that will work for both sides for a start. Land or water? If closed containment does get off the ground, I could still see some anti-farming crusaders calling it closed contaminant and continue to lobby against farming.<<just a presumption. I have tried to find imformation on the Middle bay project without much luck. If you can help me out on this one Marmot I would appreciate it.
-
Hi there Novabonker. I fully understand your concerns and I know this will be very hard for many to swallow, but the study you are standing behind appears to be bias, once again funded for an alterior motive. In B.C. feed for farmed salmon is tested for contaminants before it is fed to the fish. The smolts are tested before entering the salt water pens. The farmer salmon are then tested during and just prior to harvesting. Buyers are well aware of the level of contaminants in the fish before they recieve and distirbute the salmon to stores and restaurants. I Remember reading a report that there are more contaminants in some fruits, vegetables, and meats, than found in wild or farmed salmon. In fact if you want a contaminant free diet, dont breathe.< sorry just bad humor ;).
I thought I would pass this along for those that may be interested.
http://www.acmesmokedfish.com/wholesale/salmonfacts.html
The Facts About the Farmed Salmon Study
A study published in the January 2004 issue of Science measured the presence of chemical contaminants in wild and farmed salmon from throughout the world. The study results indicated that levels of chemical contaminants found in both farm raised and wild salmon were significantly lower than the current acceptable standards set by federal government agencies in the U.S., Canada, Europe, and the World Health Organization (WHO).
Researchers conducting the study measured average levels of PCBs in farmed salmon that are more than 50 times lower than the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) standard for PCBs in fish. Levels of other chemical contaminants measured in farm-raised salmon were also well below current regulatory levels established in the FDA and the WHO. The published study states that, “individual contaminant concentrations in farmed and wild salmon do not exceed U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) action or tolerance levels for PCBS and dieldrin.” Yet, media reports about the study have confused consumers and raised their concerns about whether salmon is safe to eat. This confusion is fueled, in part, by the researchers’ use of guidelines established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for acceptable levels of contaminants in fish. In the U.S., the FDA, not the EPA, sets food safety standards.
Acme Smoked Fish Corporation’s seafood suppliers regularly test their products for a wide range of contaminants and diseases to assure they meet very specific guidelines. The raw materials must not only meet the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s standards, but also those of local governing bodies and regulatory agencies where the fish is produced.
It is important to note that the testing method used by the researchers in this recently published study was flawed, as it did not replicate the manner in which fish is consumed. The study examined 700 samples of wild and farmed salmon procured from several sources around the world. The salmon was tested raw, with the skin on. The highest levels of contaminants in fish or animal protein are always found in the skin. By removing the skin, as consumers do before eating salmon, a significant number of contaminants are also removed. The FDA, in reviewing the study, concurred with this.
The published study failed to report that PCBS are widespread in the environment and therefore, present in many food products. PCBs, dioxins and dioxin-like compounds are also found in meat, poultry and dairy products. Because consumers eat so much more of these foods, they actually contribute more chemical contaminants to the human diet than farm raised salmon or other fish. For example, based on average American per capita consumption, PCB intake from salmon is only 1/8 the amount that people ingest from eating beef.
In commenting on the study, officials of the FDA said that salmon contains only “trace levels” of contaminants and that the health benefits gained by eating salmon far outweigh the risks. Hundreds of clinical studies have confirmed that the omega-3 fatty acids present in salmon and other fish can help to reduce the risk of heart disease, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, depression, premature births and arthritis symptoms. In addition, salmon is low in saturated fat and high in protein. Farm-raised salmon is one of the most available and affordable sources of these healthy omega-3 fatty acids.
“In the end, our advice is not to alter consumption of farmed or wild salmon,” stated an FDA official.
Based on an analysis of the study, the facts about chemical contaminants in food and the benefits of eating salmon, Acme agrees with the FDA. Furthermore, we find the study to have been biased and fundamentally flawed, rendering the results invalid. We feel compelled to point out that the study was funded and conducted by those with preconceived prejudices against aquaculture.
The health benefits of eating salmon – both wild and farmed – far outweigh any supposed risks.
-
That is one point where I agree with you Folkboat, concerning PCBs and dioxins. PCBs and dioxins are basically included in a wild salmons diet, and concentrate in them being "close" to top predator. None of those contaminants are found in feed pellets so they are obviously going to occur at much lower concentrations in a farmed fish. However...the feed contains antibiotics, does it not? I'm not sure how I feel about either one in my diet to be honest, but then, I don't eat a ton of salmon to begin with.
mkc, theres no mudslinging going on.....pls don't jump the gun and turn it into something it isnt.
-
Hey Marmot. I don’t think I could say, “None of those contaminants are found in feed pellets”
The feed companies although can test and source the ingredients with the least or most expectable level of contaminants. Not all farming companies find the use for antibiotics these days. I know of one company that has not used antibiotics on their own production fish since 2002. This I think is due to better husbandry leading to minimal stress on the fish. However if antibiotics are needed for the health of the stock, it is done with a veterinarians prescription. There is a mandatory withdraw period before the fish can be harvested and the fish are tested prior to harvest. This is no different that farm animals and their meat on my plate. I do not know anything about slice for farmed salmon. I have never used it never mind ever seeing it. I have while in my ranching days given lice treatments to cattle. It was mixed in a bucket and a ladle was used to put a stream of it down the length of the animals back. Now I have to admit what I am going to is hearsay. I have heard from a couple of salmon farmers, that the amount of slice administered to farmed salmon is less than the traceable amounts the Canadian food inspection agency allows in beef products. Perhaps someone with knowledge on this could confirm or prove this wrong.
I found this while browsing for feed information. I am not implying that all companies do this around the world. But it seems this Canadian one does.
“The diets are made with fishmeals and organic grains. Feedstuff from wild resources must be from wild resources, which are harvested according to the "Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries" (FAO, 1995). A farmed salmon uses less wild fish in their feed than a wild salmon would eat naturally. Feeds are produced using by-products from fish used for human consumption. This is the best use of this material because; by using this material the biological capital inherent in this material (high grade amino acids and long chain omega 3 and omega 6 fatty acids) is conserved for use in human nutrition”.
Hav a great day and happy fishing :) I think I will head out and give it a shot .
-
Same to you.. happy fishing and enjoy the sunshine.
-
SLICE is kinda like the mad cow issue. Where they put things in the animal feed that adversely affects the animal and the people who eat it. I'm sure that most fish farmers would rather not know what exactly is in the feed that they use. It could make them liable if something nasty was too happen. That is the way it works with some business's. To admit knowledge of something you know is detrimental to others puts you legally on the hook. I happened to know a person who did accounting for a large supplier of fish feed. I asked if the could see if SLICE was a product they were using and yes it was. This was after the controversy over using it. That was a few years back so maybe now it has changed, but at that time the Fish Farm industry spin doctress was saying this wasn't being used. But as far as adding antibiotics there is no rules against the use for manufaturers last time I checked.
-
I beleive all the salmon farms should be closed containment. We dont need to argue about the declining salmon number, but we can see what has happened in Europe and in south america. Of course youwill get scientists working for the salmon farms showing differing results from the studies funded by the conservation groups. One thing is clear, you can see dead zones under overcrowded farms and the farms should never have been located right in the migratory path of the salmon fry.
-
Not all salmonfarms use slice and antibiotics.
If you have ever treated your dog or your cat for flees common flee meds are the same thing as slice.
Chinook farming companies in lower salinity areas have very low sea lice counts and never use it.
Closed containment is not really a viable option in terms of cost to the producer/customer and even the environment. The carbon foot print for a closed system is so huge due to the energy costs to circulate water and oxygenate it that the cost of production would likely make the product to expensive for the public. Mandate closed containment, and salmon farms will be gone because it will not work. And thats why there are none and never will be closed containment.
Ya, There have been efforts to make it work but I do not think it is going to well. Thats what I heard. Good news is that they are trying.
-
Closed containment is not really a viable option in terms of cost to the producer/customer and even the environment. The carbon foot print for a closed system is so huge due to the energy costs to circulate water and oxygenate it that the cost of production would likely make the product to expensive for the public. Mandate closed containment, and salmon farms will be gone because it will not work. And thats why there are none and never will be closed containment.
Ya, There have been efforts to make it work but I do not think it is going to well. Thats what I heard. Good news is that they are trying.
The poster as quoted has no idea.
For info on closed containment Check out what Agrimarine proposes to do/is doing today (http://www.agrimarine.com/web/)
-
Sam Salmon. I have absolutely no problems with closed containment test facilities. But I do have to bring up, Just what will the NGOS that are funded by millions of American dollars from the Moore Foundation (who also funds millions to promote Alaska wild salmon) to shift Canadian opinion away from farmed salmon be happy with? When Do you think it will end?
Troutbreath likes to speculate slice to a mad cow issue. Can anyone please tell me how that can remotely be compared. Perhaps Troutbreath could tell what he/she would like closed containment to be. Bringing up practices from years ago is a good thing I believe Trout. It gives the Industry a pat on the back for the way it is run today. To bad the U.S $ funded ngos can’t pat them selves on the back,, Which I think they should, since they were a very big part of the changes. Personally I would not donate to a group that has not shown me that they have made a difference over the years.
As I said before. I am all for closed containment test facilities. But at the moment they really do not cover the ngos concerns at all.
WASTE NOT
The AgriMarine farm uses a form of closed-containment system that many critics would like to see replace net farms in the marine environment. Closed systems address some of the issues related to salmon farming, such as the problem of farmed fish escaping into the wild and contaminating the gene pool. But AgriMarine’s system doesn’t fully address another environmental concern: the transfer of concentrated waste from the fish pools into the natural environment. It uses a filter less, flow-through process that pumps water from nearby Stuart Channel into the tanks and then back out to the channel. A waterfall at the end of the effluent path helps break down the waste — but doesn’t contain it.
Water issues may be the main obstacles to the future of land-based salmon farms. Walker notes that if AgriMarine were to build a new site on land, it could be designed to collect the waste: “But the cost of pumping water uphill on a land farm is very expensive. It increases energy use by many magnitudes.” This is one factor, among others, that makes it economically unfeasible to build new land-based salmon farms. There are, however, the old pulp mills on the coast with large tanks that could be used for aquaculture, he says. “Land-based farming in these facilities makes sense, because the capital has already been spent.”
AgriMarine Industries is currently working on a different solution: The group is seeking funding for a closed-containment system they plan to create in the marine environment, a hybrid that would reduce operational costs and keep fish and concentrated fish waste out of the natural environment.
Walker says a focus on closed-containment marine technology for B.C. salmon farming would make the local approach unique. “Here’s an industry that has the potential to be environmentally friendly and economically positive,” he says. “When you compare that to the rest of the world, it would be a great story to tell.”
http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/Magazine/so04/indepth/portrait.asp
Sorry guys, this is a great start but we have a very long way to go. Ngos still have their feed, medication, disease ( Trouts mad cow comment), and most of all sea lice concerns. This flow thru system does nothing at all at the moment to address these concerns. Some day I hope we can come to a happy compromise and have a system that both sides can work with.
-
Sam Salmon,
The diagrams which you directed us too is kinda like a vision. A proposal of sorts.
That is not what is going on in Middle bay. But there is a big bag of fish over there that are alive. I do not believe it is closed contained or has all the bells and whistles that the diagram on your webpage shows. That diagram is an idea. What is happening over there are trials that have been going on for some time. The landbased option failed as stated on that site and remember years ago all the enviro groups were saying oh no we are not against fishfarms, we are ok with them if they are land based. Ok it took a long time for them to convince themselves that it was not viable(still though the public was sold because the public is looking for a silver bullet to the salmon problems). Now they say oh no we are not against fish farms we want them to be closed contained. And again it is sold to the (general)public as the silver bullet and everyone thinks it is.
And that is where things are at at Middle bay.
That is only research and has yet to have any positive result.
Clearly this does not mean it is imposable. I just think it will not work.
-
FYI-There are and have been ongoing experiments with closed containment for years and years now-one benefit of having been on the coast for decades is remembering them and seeing new ideas as compared to old ones.
The nonsensical idea that "Oh that's been tried it'll never work" is just ignorance disguised as fact.
The fact of the matter is that unless closed containment can be made to work There Is No Hope At All.
BTW-Chinese farmers have been operating small scale closed containment systems for at last 3,000 years now.
-
Sam Salmon. I do not disagree with you at all. “FYI-There are and have been ongoing experiments with closed containment for years and years now-one benefit of having been on the coast for decades is remembering them and seeing new ideas as compared to old ones.
#1 “The nonsensical idea that "Oh that's been tried it'll never work" is just ignorance disguised as fact”.
I truly hope you do not read this in my post’s. I would, as much as you like to see it tested. But in the diagram from the link you have posted, there is no filter system to stop Sea Lice and Diseases that are naturally found in the marine environment from entering the closed containment bag. A cross contamination is therefore inevitable since farm smolts entering the saltwater farms are disease and lice free. The filter on the outgiong looks like just strians. Does it staralize the water for diseases? Will ngos in Canada funded with U.S.$’s be happy with this?
#2 “The fact of the matter is that unless closed containment can be made to work There Is No Hope At All”.
Do you at all think the ngos in Canada that are funded from the Moore foundation in America, will lobby Alaska do the same with their over 1.5 billion hatchery raised, pellet fed, open net pen raised, escaped into the pacific, so called wild salmon, to do the same as what they are telling canada to do?
#3 “BTW-Chinese farmers have been operating small scale closed containment systems for at last 3,000 years now”.
I really have to ask. Are you talking about fresh or salt water? There is a huge difference and I am willing to go there if you like. Just not on this post since I have been long winded enough.
Please remember Sam Salmon I am not against trials. I just do not see how the site you posted will appease the ngos funded by American dollars at this time.
-
Hello Sam Salmon.
Can you respond to my last post?. I would be very interested in your view on closed containment. By the way, I was told the Middle Bay trial salmon were medicated at least once. Would the NGOS like this?
-
IMO as long as they are not affecting wild stocks most will be happy and those that want to eat medications can fill their boots.
-
Hey Eagleye. "as long as they are not affecting wild stocks most will be happy" What closed containment system would make you Happy?
-
The Fraser River is at risk. Cattle ranching, agriculture, mining, forestry, and fishing impact the salmon and their habitat where they are most vulnerable; during the spawn and migration to the sea. I've pulled many fish from the water and am having a hard time these days justifying our relentless demand on the wild salmon to provide us with our livelihood and recreation at the expense of their lives. But that's just me. Hunting and killing wild animals for fun and profit just seems wrong nowadays. God I miss those days on the river with my old man. Bob Segar said, "I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then. :'(
-
? where are these guys coming from ?