Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => Fishing-related Issues & News => Topic started by: alwaysfishn on January 31, 2012, 10:48:30 AM
-
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/01/30/146083919/pacific-mackerel-stocks-that-feed-farmed-salmon-in-decline (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/01/30/146083919/pacific-mackerel-stocks-that-feed-farmed-salmon-in-decline)
Pacific Mackerel Stocks That Feed Farmed Salmon In Decline
Farmed salmon, that ubiquitous pink fish decorated with ribbons of fat, can thank the forage fish of the southern Pacific ocean – like anchovy and jack mackerel – for their calorie-rich diet. Indeed, more than 5 pounds of jack mackerel typically can go towards raising one pound of farmed salmon.
But that food supply – and the ocean ecosystem that supports it — may be in peril, according to a new report by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. According to scientists the ICIJ spoke to, "supertrawler" fishing vessels from Asia, Europe and Latin America have contributed to a 63 percent decline in jack mackerel stocks since 2006. At the current rate of overfishing, the world's stock of jack mackerel, which is largely located off the coast of Chile, could collapse soon.
"This is the last of the buffaloes," Daniel Pauly, an oceanographer at the University of British Columbia, told ICIJ. "When they're gone, everything will be gone ... This is the closing of the frontier."
Concerns about the environmental impacts of feeding and raising farmed salmon are one reason Target has eliminated the product from its stores. Instead, the big-box chain sells wild-caught salmon in all its stores nationwide.
ICIJ says that the Southern Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organization, the organization responsible for managing jack mackerel stocks, has been unable to stop overfishing. Only six countries have ratified an agreement it formulated to protect the fish. The group is holding its annual meeting in Santiago, Chile, this week.
Two Chilean fishing companies are some of the most powerful players in the jack mackerel trade — they control 29.3 percent of the jack mackerel quota set by the Chilean government, ICIF says. And they supply 5.5 percent of the world's fishmeal.
As NPR's Kristofor Husted has reported, some scientists are exploring ways to make new fish feed using renewable sources, such as biofuel co-products, poultry by-products, soybeans and so on.
The investigation is the third in ICFJ's series "Looting the Seas," which has also looked at the black market in bluefin tuna, and how fishing subsidies in Spain have built up a bloated fleet that is partly responsible for the depletion of Europe's fish stocks.
-
Local herring population at risk
But DFO officials insist new quota allotment is well below recommended take
December 23, 2011
Goodbye herring, goodbye salmon, goodbye dolphins.
With the Department of Fisheries (DFO) increasing the winter food and bait fishing on herring populations, Howe Sound can wave goodbye to the resurgence of marine life it has seen in recent years, warns Jonn Matsen, co-ordinator of the Howe Sound Herring Recovery Project.
Matsen and the Squamish Streamkeepers have been trying revitalize the local herring population since the discovery of dead herring eggs on the Squamish Terminal’s creosote pilings in 2006. Chemicals in creosote kill herring eggs, so volunteers are wrapping the pilings with protective material to ensure their survival.
Their work has proved fruitful. Early this year, an estimated 600 tonnes of herring returned to Squamish to spawn. It’s a good start, Matsen said, but nowhere near the 2,000 tonnes of the silver-coloured fish that used to breed on Squamish’s shoreline in the 1960s.
“[Fisheries] are saying all runs are in good shape, but that’s simply not true,” Matsen said.
From February until the end of April, DFO officials are allowing fishing boats to haul up to 6,000 tonnes of herring out of southwestern B.C. waters, approximately 5,700 more tonnes than last year.
DFO categorizes the herring population as migratory, overlooking resident populations — such as Howe Sound’s school — that communities have been fighting to rehabilitate, Matsen said. Only one of the Strait of Georgia’s resident schools is in good shape, he said, and it’s around Denman Island. Matsen is concerned resident populations could be wiped out in the 6,000-tonne take.
“The Squamish run could easily get mixed up,” he said. “They are going to do a massacre out in the Strait.”
The new herring food and bait fisheries number is a re-allocation rather than an increase, said Lisa Mijacika, DFO’s pelagics coordinator. In the 1980s and ’90s the sale of herring roe was the fish’s primary commercial use. With the Japanese yen down and demographic in the country changing, the demand for herring roe isn’t as great as it once was. The commercial fisheries want to try and develop more of a food-based market for the fish, Mijacika said.
This year 23,000 tonnes of herring has been allocated for commercial purposes. Of that, 11,500 tonnes will come from the roe fishery — down 2,000 tonnes from last year — and 6,000 tonnes will come from food and bait fisheries, Mijacika said, noting the total sum is still below the allotment.
“From a management point of view we are staying well below that maximum yield that science has recommended to us,” she said.
DFO officials estimate 150,000 tonnes of herring make up the Strait of Georgia stock. So far 1,400 tonnes have been caught, Mijacika said.
“The resident stocks that people are concerned about are generally the smaller fish, which they are not trying to catch,” she added.
In old literature, local or resident herring stocks are referred to as “stay behinds” and “homesteaders,” said Jake Schweigert, DFO herring biologist at Nanaimo’s Pacific Biological Station.
“There is a thought that some of these fish may not have enough energy to migrate out to the West Coast,” he said.
It’s difficult to say whether resident schools exist or not, Schweigert continued. The herring in Howe Sound may be a more local population, as it’s his understanding that the runs spawns at a different time than the migratory group. This would allow for genetic differences because the school is not interbreeding, Schweigert said.
That also boosts their rate of survival, as they likely won’t be with the migratory group during the fishing-season opening, he noted.
Every year, DFO officials estimate the herring population size by sending a team of divers into the water to survey herring egg beds. They estimate the density, width and length and then estimate the number of female herring needed to produce those eggs. That number is doubled to give scientists the minimum population size. Fishers is allowed to harvest 20 per cent of that quota.
“Twenty per cent is a recommended maximum, but in the last few years we haven’t fished the 20 per cent,” Schweigert said.
http://www.squamishchief.com/article/20111223/SQUAMISH0101/312239960/-1/SQUAMISH/local-herring-population-at-risk-matsen (http://www.squamishchief.com/article/20111223/SQUAMISH0101/312239960/-1/SQUAMISH/local-herring-population-at-risk-matsen)
-
Local herring population at risk
But DFO officials insist new quota allotment is well below recommended take
December 23, 2011
Goodbye herring, goodbye salmon, goodbye dolphins.
With the Department of Fisheries (DFO) increasing the winter food and bait fishing on herring populations, Howe Sound can wave goodbye to the resurgence of marine life it has seen in recent years, warns Jonn Matsen, co-ordinator of the Howe Sound Herring Recovery Project.
Matsen and the Squamish Streamkeepers have been trying revitalize the local herring population since the discovery of dead herring eggs on the Squamish Terminal’s creosote pilings in 2006. Chemicals in creosote kill herring eggs, so volunteers are wrapping the pilings with protective material to ensure their survival.
Their work has proved fruitful. Early this year, an estimated 600 tonnes of herring returned to Squamish to spawn. It’s a good start, Matsen said, but nowhere near the 2,000 tonnes of the silver-coloured fish that used to breed on Squamish’s shoreline in the 1960s.
“[Fisheries] are saying all runs are in good shape, but that’s simply not true,” Matsen said.
From February until the end of April, DFO officials are allowing fishing boats to haul up to 6,000 tonnes of herring out of southwestern B.C. waters, approximately 5,700 more tonnes than last year.
DFO categorizes the herring population as migratory, overlooking resident populations — such as Howe Sound’s school — that communities have been fighting to rehabilitate, Matsen said. Only one of the Strait of Georgia’s resident schools is in good shape, he said, and it’s around Denman Island. Matsen is concerned resident populations could be wiped out in the 6,000-tonne take.
“The Squamish run could easily get mixed up,” he said. “They are going to do a massacre out in the Strait.”
The new herring food and bait fisheries number is a re-allocation rather than an increase, said Lisa Mijacika, DFO’s pelagics coordinator. In the 1980s and ’90s the sale of herring roe was the fish’s primary commercial use. With the Japanese yen down and demographic in the country changing, the demand for herring roe isn’t as great as it once was. The commercial fisheries want to try and develop more of a food-based market for the fish, Mijacika said.
This year 23,000 tonnes of herring has been allocated for commercial purposes. Of that, 11,500 tonnes will come from the roe fishery — down 2,000 tonnes from last year — and 6,000 tonnes will come from food and bait fisheries, Mijacika said, noting the total sum is still below the allotment.
“From a management point of view we are staying well below that maximum yield that science has recommended to us,” she said.
DFO officials estimate 150,000 tonnes of herring make up the Strait of Georgia stock. So far 1,400 tonnes have been caught, Mijacika said.
“The resident stocks that people are concerned about are generally the smaller fish, which they are not trying to catch,” she added.
In old literature, local or resident herring stocks are referred to as “stay behinds” and “homesteaders,” said Jake Schweigert, DFO herring biologist at Nanaimo’s Pacific Biological Station.
“There is a thought that some of these fish may not have enough energy to migrate out to the West Coast,” he said.
It’s difficult to say whether resident schools exist or not, Schweigert continued. The herring in Howe Sound may be a more local population, as it’s his understanding that the runs spawns at a different time than the migratory group. This would allow for genetic differences because the school is not interbreeding, Schweigert said.
That also boosts their rate of survival, as they likely won’t be with the migratory group during the fishing-season opening, he noted.
Every year, DFO officials estimate the herring population size by sending a team of divers into the water to survey herring egg beds. They estimate the density, width and length and then estimate the number of female herring needed to produce those eggs. That number is doubled to give scientists the minimum population size. Fishers is allowed to harvest 20 per cent of that quota.
“Twenty per cent is a recommended maximum, but in the last few years we haven’t fished the 20 per cent,” Schweigert said.
http://www.squamishchief.com/article/20111223/SQUAMISH0101/312239960/-1/SQUAMISH/local-herring-population-at-risk-matsen (http://www.squamishchief.com/article/20111223/SQUAMISH0101/312239960/-1/SQUAMISH/local-herring-population-at-risk-matsen)
This topic has been discussed at length on Flybc. The concensus there is this is another poor decision by DFO.
-
This debate over local vs ocean Herring is an old one. DFO has for many years managed Georgia Strait Herring as a single stock. It is my understanding that at the south end of this Salish Sea our American cousins manage the Puget Sound Herring stocks as many individual stocks. Somebody is doing it wrong.
-
This topic has been discussed at length on Flybc. The concensus there is this is another poor decision by DFO.
Yes another and you know what one of the others is as well. ;D ;D :'(
-
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/01/30/146083919/pacific-mackerel-stocks-that-feed-farmed-salmon-in-decline (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/01/30/146083919/pacific-mackerel-stocks-that-feed-farmed-salmon-in-decline)
Pacific Mackerel Stocks That Feed Farmed Salmon In Decline
Farmed salmon, that ubiquitous pink fish decorated with ribbons of fat, can thank the forage fish of the southern Pacific ocean – like anchovy and jack mackerel – for their calorie-rich diet. Indeed, more than 5 pounds of jack mackerel typically can go towards raising one pound of farmed salmon.
But that food supply – and the ocean ecosystem that supports it — may be in peril, according to a new report by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. According to scientists the ICIJ spoke to, "supertrawler" fishing vessels from Asia, Europe and Latin America have contributed to a 63 percent decline in jack mackerel stocks since 2006. At the current rate of overfishing, the world's stock of jack mackerel, which is largely located off the coast of Chile, could collapse soon.
"This is the last of the buffaloes," Daniel Pauly, an oceanographer at the University of British Columbia, told ICIJ. "When they're gone, everything will be gone ... This is the closing of the frontier."
Concerns about the environmental impacts of feeding and raising farmed salmon are one reason Target has eliminated the product from its stores. Instead, the big-box chain sells wild-caught salmon in all its stores nationwide.
ICIJ says that the Southern Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organization, the organization responsible for managing jack mackerel stocks, has been unable to stop overfishing. Only six countries have ratified an agreement it formulated to protect the fish. The group is holding its annual meeting in Santiago, Chile, this week.
Two Chilean fishing companies are some of the most powerful players in the jack mackerel trade — they control 29.3 percent of the jack mackerel quota set by the Chilean government, ICIF says. And they supply 5.5 percent of the world's fishmeal.
As NPR's Kristofor Husted has reported, some scientists are exploring ways to make new fish feed using renewable sources, such as biofuel co-products, poultry by-products, soybeans and so on.
The investigation is the third in ICFJ's series "Looting the Seas," which has also looked at the black market in bluefin tuna, and how fishing subsidies in Spain have built up a bloated fleet that is partly responsible for the depletion of Europe's fish stocks.
I suspect that you haven't bothered even reading the investigation behind that news report you're quoting just as you didn't bother reading the information on fish meal production and use I provided for you in post 644 of the ISA thread the last time you made specious comments about salmon farming's use of fish meal. http://www.fishingwithrod.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=28342.msg278681#msg278681 (http://www.fishingwithrod.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=28342.msg278681#msg278681)
If you had gone back to the source, you would have realized the investigation pointed out that the problem is caused by overfishing by the commercial fishing industry, not by the salmon farming industry that uses about 12% of the world's fish meal production.
-
I'm never sure about your comments..... Are your blinders limiting your view of the big picture, or is everything you post dictated to you by the salmon feedlot business?
Overfishing is a big problem (and getting bigger) with respect to catching fishmeal for the aquaculture industry of which salmon farming is a significant portion. Of course the commercial fishing of these feed fish is a problem. Only about 1% of the world's oceans are regulated.... that leaves 99% of the oceans as a free for all with no limits on the amount of fish that they catch. If the aquaculture industry (including the salmon feedlots) didn't require the fishmeal, there would be no incentive for the commercial fleets to catch increasing numbers of fishmeal stock. As demand grows, the prices rise, creating more pressure on these feed fish.
While the majority of the aquaculture industry raises fish that take less than a 2:1 ratio of wildfish per kg of fish produced, the salmon feedlots are using wild fish on a ratio as high as 7:1. While many forms of aquaculture are using increasing amounts of grains as fish food, the salmon feedlots will always require fishmeal, otherwise their product wouldn't resemble a salmon.
That is a grossly inefficient use of a resource and is having a devastating effect on all ocean's fish.
-
I'm always sure about your comments. They're always a mile wide and a quarter inch deep.
Fish meal comprises roughly 30% of the diet fed with the balance being not fish meal. Conversion ratios can be as good as 1.2 units of diet fed to weight gained. At 1.2 to 1 conversion, the fish get fed 0.36 units of fish meal for every unit of weight gain. Obviously, your suggestion that fish are fed up to seven units of fish meal for every unit of growth is right out to lunch.
As you would realize if you had followed up on the information I provided you in the first place, terrestrial livestock feeding consumes many times the amount of meal as salmon feeding and yet has no need for the constituent amino acids that are the reason the meal is fed to fish. Other forms of aquaculture also consume many times the amount of meal fed to salmon and that consumption is growing, not shrinking. The amount of meal produced from the waste from fish processing for human consumption is more than twice the amount of meal fed to salmon.
Instead of complaining about the smallest user of meal, you should be complaining about the largest users, and you should be asking yourself why the pigs and chickens you eat are being fed many times the amount of fish meal that is fed to salmon. You should also ask yourself why commercial fishermen are allowed to destroy the fishery while you, rather than blaming them, blame the salmon farms. Oh wait! That's what you reactionaries are doing in BC. It's what you know how to do; you've had lots of practice and you're pretty good at it even if you aren't very accurate..
-
Fish meal comprises roughly 30% of the diet fed with the balance being not fish meal. Conversion ratios can be as good as 1.2 units of diet fed to weight gained. At 1.2 to 1 conversion, the fish get fed 0.36 units of fish meal for every unit of weight gain. Obviously, your suggestion that fish are fed up to seven units of fish meal for every unit of growth is right out to lunch.
I was going to ask you to provide links to your numbers, but I'll spare you the embarrassment. I realize there is a lot of controversy about how inefficient the salmon farming industry is in converting wild fish to feedlot salmon. Because of this the industry seems to use a variety of ways to express the ratios.
It takes 5-6 kg of wild fish to make 1 kg of fishmeal. http://www.thefishsite.com/articles/200/the-benefits-of-fish-meal-in-aquaculture-diets (http://www.thefishsite.com/articles/200/the-benefits-of-fish-meal-in-aquaculture-diets) The Global Aquaculture Alliances certification conversion standards are currently set at 2.5 to 1. They state by 2016 that they would like it lowered to 1.6 to 1. Tacon & Metian’s analysis suggests the global conversion rate is 5 to 1. http://www.iffo.net/downloads/EAS%20FIFO%20September2009%202.pdf (http://www.iffo.net/downloads/EAS%20FIFO%20September2009%202.pdf) Other sources suggest the ratio is as high as 10 to 1.
And you are stating that the feedlots are attaining a .36 to 1 ratio!? Are you serious? :o
-
Let me quote your original statement:
While the majority of the aquaculture industry raises fish that take less than a 2:1 ratio of fishmeal per kg of fish produced, the salmon feedlots are using fishmeal on a ratio as high as 7:1.
It certainly looks to me as if you are suggesting that it takes 7 units of fish meal to produce 1 unit of salmon.
Let me repeat my comment:
Your numbers are out to lunch
Edit: It occurs to me that I need to explain some of the basics you obviously haven't grasped. The salmon farms buy the feed they use by weight. They measure the amount of feed they give the fish and compare that to the growth to determine the Feed Conversion Ratio. They don't use many ways of measuring FCR, they use this single one and that is why it is called the Feed Conversion Ratio, not the Fish Meal Conversion Ratio. The feed contains approximately 30% meal as well as other ingredients and the FCR is a measure of the total amount of ingredients fed to the total weight gain resulting from that feed. A feed conversion ratio of 1.2:1 means that the meal component of that measure of feed that produces 1 unit of growth contains .36 units of meal. In short, it means that, given the diet fed, farms can attain 1 unit of weight gain for every .36 units of fish meal fed. The remaining .84 units of other ingredients also contribute to that weight gain and need to be considered if one is to understand the dynamic at work.
It also occurs to me that you haven't explained why pigs and chickens need to be fed more than twice as much fish meal as is fed to salmon, and when they are, what feed conversion ratio they obtain. Why doesn't that also raise your ire?
-
I've corrected my original post.
Besides using up to 10 kilograms of wild fish to produce only 1 kilogram of feedlot salmon, salmon feedlots pollute the ocean, spread diseases to wild salmon, and produce an inferior product containing high levels of PCB's.
Your response reflects the feedlot business's attitude towards the environment they are abusing. Instead of admitting the feedlots are very inefficient at converting wild fish to product, you argue that all you know is that the fishmeal comes in little bags which you feed to the salmon and that's how you calculate your ratios. Maybe you should do a little research to learn what they put in those little bags of fish food....
It also occurs to me that you haven't explained why pigs and chickens need to be fed more than twice as much fish meal as is fed to salmon, and when they are, what feed conversion ratio they obtain. Why doesn't that also raise your ire?
The thread title is "Salmon farming depleting the ocean's fish stocks". If you would like to start a thread about pigs and chickens, please be my guest. ;D
-
AF seems to think it is fine to compare BC salmon farming to cigarets like his buddy stanford, but when comparisons are presented between salmon farms, pork and chicken he simply refuses to look at it.
I see how you role AF.
-
AF seems to think it is fine to compare BC salmon farming to cigarets like his buddy stanford, but when comparisons are presented between salmon farms, pork and chicken he simply refuses to look at it.
I see how you role AF.
There are obviously at least 2 people interested in pigs and chickens. Maybe your post will encourage Absolon to start that pig/chicken thread...... I look forward to reading it. :D
-
I've corrected my original post.
Besides using up to 10 kilograms of wild fish to produce only 1 kilogram of feedlot salmon, salmon feedlots pollute the ocean, spread diseases to wild salmon, and produce an inferior product containing high levels of PCB's.
Your response reflects the feedlot business's attitude towards the environment they are abusing. Instead of admitting the feedlots are very inefficient at converting wild fish to product, you argue that all you know is that the fishmeal comes in little bags which you feed to the salmon and that's how you calculate your ratios. Maybe you should do a little research to learn what they put in those little bags of fish food....
The thread title is "Salmon farming depleting the ocean's fish stocks". If you would like to start a thread about pigs and chickens, please be my guest. ;D
A far more accurate title for the thread given the article you based it on would be "Overfishing is depleting the ocean's fish stocks".
If you had bothered to read the information I provided, you would be aware that fish meal production has been fairly steady for many years. The increasing use in salmon farming has not meant that more is produced. Instead it has meant that less is used for terrestrial animal feed. A decrease in use in salmon farming would simply mean the meal would be used for terrestrial animal feed again. The fishermen who have depleted the world fish stocks aren't fishing for the salmon feed market and don't care where the catch ends up; they are supplying the protein market and that market will take all they can produce. Blaming the salmon farms is the functional equivalent of blaming you for the environmental pollution and damage caused by the oil sands projects because you use oil in your car.
The only way to preserve the fish stocks is to control the fishermen that are overharvesting. That is what that article you based the thread on states and in spite of your entirely predictable attempt to turn it into an indictment of salmon farms, it is the only rational conclusion that can be arrived at.
-
The only way to preserve the fish stocks is to control the fishermen that are overharvesting.
Let me help you connect the dots... Over harvesting by fishermen is a problem because:
a) there is an increasing demand by the aquaculture industry for fishmeal,
b) with the increased demand the market value keeps rising
c) this provides greater incentive for the fishermen to catch these fish
d) there are no regulations limiting the amount of fish caught by these fishermen.
Limit the salmon feedlots, or eliminate fishmeal from their diet and the problem will be solved!
-
you could conceivably estimate the total ocean fish stocks and then divide it by the amount used by any particular industry and claim my industry uses only a small percentage of stock, therefore we really do not have an effect . That means nothing towards the conservation of a particular species or even down to the local stock wherein a couple of trawls or net sets may in fact wipe out a run or local substock, whether targeted or as by-catch and who the end user may be.
-
Let me help you connect the dots... Over harvesting by fishermen is a problem because:
a) there is an increasing demand by the aquaculture industry for fishmeal,
b) with the increased demand the market value keeps rising
c) this provides greater incentive for the fishermen to catch these fish
d) there are no regulations limiting the amount of fish caught by these fishermen.
Limit the salmon feedlots, or eliminate fishmeal from their diet and the problem will be solved!
Obviously, or at least obviously to a rational mind, the most effective way, and indeed the only way to limit the harvest would be to regulate catches by commercial fishermen.
Eliminating farm demand will simply mean that portion of the harvest that supplies farms will be shifted to supply pig or chicken farmers or prawn production or freshwater trout production or catfish production or even human consumption. If the value of the catch was decreased because of eliminating demand from salmon farming the phenomena of price elasticity would result in an increase in demand from the other protein market segments due to lower cost. This increased demand would nicely absorb the increase in production that would occur as the fishing fleet increase their unregulated catches in order to preserve their fishing income.
There is a current attempt to regulate catches by commercial fishermen but it has not been successful because of reluctance by the countries whose fishing fleets catch these fish to accept catch limits.
No matter how much you bend logic and fold economics, the problem is one caused by commercial fishing, and it won't be solved by the foolish fantasies of a few fish farm fighting fanatics.
-
you could conceivably estimate the total ocean fish stocks and then divide it by the amount used by any particular industry and claim my industry uses only a small percentage of stock, therefore we really do not have an effect . That means nothing towards the conservation of a particular species or even down to the local stock wherein a couple of trawls or net sets may in fact wipe out a run or local substock, whether targeted or as by-catch and who the end user may be.
In a market composed of many different sources of price sensitive variable demand, how can you possibly regulate supply by regulating the demand from a single, proportionally small segment? We're not talking the hypothetical ideals of misguided rhetoric here. We're talking practical reality.
It is not possible. The only way to regulate the market is by limiting harvests, by regulating the catches of the commercial fishing fleet.
-
In a market composed of many different sources of price sensitive variable demand, how can you possibly regulate supply by regulating the demand from a single, proportionally small segment? We're not talking the hypothetical ideals of misguided rhetoric here. We're talking practical reality.
It is not possible. The only way to regulate the market is by limiting harvests, by regulating the catches of the commercial fishing fleet.
I agree if it's available, and cost effective it would be used as a source of food.
Are you saying it is not possible? or are you saying it would only be possible by regulating the catches of the Commercial fleets? if so, why cannot local up to international fleets not be regulated or control ed as to their intended catch and therefore by the laws of supply and demand making a particular ingredient cost ineffective? It really depends on the will of the most influential parties: that probably negates any theories based on practical reality.
-
I agree if it's available, and cost effective it would be used as a source of food.
Are you saying it is not possible? or are you saying it would only be possible by regulating the catches of the Commercial fleets? if so, why cannot local up to international fleets not be regulated or control ed as to their intended catch and therefore by the laws of supply and demand making a particular ingredient cost ineffective? It really depends on the will of the most influential parties: that probably negates any theories based on practical reality.
Sandy, here is the report that was behind the news article that spawned this rather mistitled thread:
http://www.iwatchnews.org/node/7900/ (http://www.iwatchnews.org/node/7900/)
It will answer some of your questions and makes plain why the harvest is still unregulated.
-
Many people think that buying farmed salmon saves wild fish. Think again.
http://www.sectionz.info/issue_1/Z1_Facts_Footnotes.pdf
-
Geez more eco journalistic crap, thanks for that..... ???
-
Geez more eco journalistic crap, thanks for that..... ???
You're welcome..... :D I find that I'm taking your comments more seriously since you got rid of that avatar. ::)
-
Many people think that buying farmed salmon saves wild fish. Think again.
http://www.sectionz.info/issue_1/Z1_Facts_Footnotes.pdf
The damage done as a consequence of commercial fishing is orders of magnitude greater than any that results from feeding farmed salmon.
The damage done to the ocean food web by releasing up to 5 billion hatchery reared salmon to free range in the Pacific is orders of magnitude greater than the damage done by feeding farmed salmon.
A few people try to suggest that farming salmon shouldn't be permitted and that we should rely on wild fisheries and ranched fish. Brilliant!
-
Its funny how we are so worried about our so called depleted sockeye stocks and the so called damage that the fish farms are doing, yet know one seems to be worried about the MSC and their designation that our sockeye stocks are sustainable.http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/pacific/british-columbia-sockeye-salmon/british-columbia-sockeye-salmon (http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/pacific/british-columbia-sockeye-salmon/british-columbia-sockeye-salmon).
-
Its funny how we are so worried about our so called depleted sockeye stocks and the so called damage that the fish farms are doing, yet know one seems to be worried about the MSC and their designation that our sockeye stocks are sustainable.http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/pacific/british-columbia-sockeye-salmon/british-columbia-sockeye-salmon (http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/pacific/british-columbia-sockeye-salmon/british-columbia-sockeye-salmon).
I happen to agree that the MSC thing is a sham and in my opinion nothing but a marketing tool for the fish selling industry. I even have got into a bit of trouble for openly questioning some of their so called certifications.
Take a look at the Scottish Haddock certification: or as you pointed out the Sockeye debacle, or the Skeena runs that are being over fished/intercepted by Americans , but the process does not look closely enough at the destination streams only looks at the main River.
-
It's too bad certain groups don't jump aboard the Issues associated with Salmon Sea Ranching.
You will see in a few more years that this will become more of an issue on our wild stocks than sea pen aquaculture.
-
It's too bad certain groups don't jump aboard the Issues associated with Salmon Sea Ranching.
You will see in a few more years that this will become more of an issue on our wild stocks than sea pen aquaculture.
Take it on. ;D ;D ;D
-
A far more accurate title for the thread given the article you based it on would be "Overfishing is depleting the ocean's fish stocks".
If you had bothered to read the information I provided, you would be aware that fish meal production has been fairly steady for many years. The increasing use in salmon farming has not meant that more is produced. Instead it has meant that less is used for terrestrial animal feed. A decrease in use in salmon farming would simply mean the meal would be used for terrestrial animal feed again. The fishermen who have depleted the world fish stocks aren't fishing for the salmon feed market and don't care where the catch ends up; they are supplying the protein market and that market will take all they can produce. Blaming the salmon farms is the functional equivalent of blaming you for the environmental pollution and damage caused by the oil sands projects because you use oil in your car.
The only way to preserve the fish stocks is to control the fishermen that are overharvesting. That is what that article you based the thread on states and in spite of your entirely predictable attempt to turn it into an indictment of salmon farms, it is the only rational conclusion that can be arrived at.
While the global production of fishmeal has not risen above 7 million tonnes since 1995, it has fluctuated between 5 ans 7 million tonnes since then:
(http://www.iffo.net/img/globalfishmealdandfishoil.JPG)
Since then "aquaculture's share of global fishmeal and fish oil consumption more than doubled over the past decade to 68% and 88%, respectively"1
Since those pig farmers you mention still need to feed their livestock, they will put increased pressure on the market and drive prices up further, encouraging even more over fishing. While your analogy of blaming AF for the damage caused by the oil sands is a good one, until we DO blame ourselves for consuming these globally damaging products, we will continue to have people arguing that they should be allowed to continue damaging the environment because "the consumer wills it." I have lived within walking distance of my workplace so that I can walk to work instead of drive. This means I rent as I cannot afford to buy in the neighbourhood, but it is what I can do for the environment. I use those carbon credits for my weekly trips to the flow in my fuel efficient Honda civic. You have to do what you can to stop the rampant destruction of the environment in the name of the consumer.
STOP BUYING FARMED SALMON!!
1. Naylor et al., "Feeding aquaculture in an era of finite resources," PNAS September 8, 2009, vol. 106, no. 36, pp. 15103–15110
-
Once again, the statistical devil is in the details. Aquaculture consists of very much more than salmon farming. Of that "aquaculture's share of global fishmeal anod fish oil consumption" salmon farming accounts for only 15 to 17% of meal and 43% of oil. (see charts on pages 8 and 9 of this link, the third time I've posted it: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:6kd_eFBlBU4J:www.aquafeed.com/documents/1230754702_1.pdf+fish+meal+production&hl=en&gl=ca&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESi6gOpnt9Ow_8sFD9-2BvtGpojoo6FcGUkQsI2Qo3ewNr_d1lKysLTqZDtkZZ2dFMnQc_MBHNd952KfkvJcdta088_vNI4CM0d3N0YmLhi9wg8SaIVlbhKSgTGHA_KXTl7oc8Dg&sig=AHIEtbTRpHO9N2WqNvLImx0N0eiweDt6iQ (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:6kd_eFBlBU4J:www.aquafeed.com/documents/1230754702_1.pdf+fish+meal+production&hl=en&gl=ca&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESi6gOpnt9Ow_8sFD9-2BvtGpojoo6FcGUkQsI2Qo3ewNr_d1lKysLTqZDtkZZ2dFMnQc_MBHNd952KfkvJcdta088_vNI4CM0d3N0YmLhi9wg8SaIVlbhKSgTGHA_KXTl7oc8Dg&sig=AHIEtbTRpHO9N2WqNvLImx0N0eiweDt6iQ) )
The market will absorb any amount of production. Curtailing demand by one sector simply leaves more available to be absorbed in other sectors. The only viable way to limit use is to limit supply by regulating the fishery.
Your argument against consuming globally damaging products applies equally to the consumption of the products of commercial fishing and the consumption of ranched salmon.
-
Once again, the statistical devil is in the details. Aquaculture consists of very much more than salmon farming. Of that "aquaculture's share of global fishmeal anod fish oil consumption" salmon farming accounts for only 15 to 17% of meal and 43% of oil. (see charts on pages 8 and 9 of this link, the third time I've posted it: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:6kd_eFBlBU4J:www.aquafeed.com/documents/1230754702_1.pdf+fish+meal+production&hl=en&gl=ca&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESi6gOpnt9Ow_8sFD9-2BvtGpojoo6FcGUkQsI2Qo3ewNr_d1lKysLTqZDtkZZ2dFMnQc_MBHNd952KfkvJcdta088_vNI4CM0d3N0YmLhi9wg8SaIVlbhKSgTGHA_KXTl7oc8Dg&sig=AHIEtbTRpHO9N2WqNvLImx0N0eiweDt6iQ (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:6kd_eFBlBU4J:www.aquafeed.com/documents/1230754702_1.pdf+fish+meal+production&hl=en&gl=ca&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESi6gOpnt9Ow_8sFD9-2BvtGpojoo6FcGUkQsI2Qo3ewNr_d1lKysLTqZDtkZZ2dFMnQc_MBHNd952KfkvJcdta088_vNI4CM0d3N0YmLhi9wg8SaIVlbhKSgTGHA_KXTl7oc8Dg&sig=AHIEtbTRpHO9N2WqNvLImx0N0eiweDt6iQ) )
The market will absorb any amount of production. Curtailing demand by one sector simply leaves more available to be absorbed in other sectors. The only viable way to limit use is to limit supply by regulating the fishery.
Your argument against consuming globally damaging products applies equally to the consumption of the products of commercial fishing and the consumption of ranched salmon.
As usual you're missing the whole point with your flawed logic.
As demand rises, prices rise, creating incentive to harvest more of these feed fish in an unregulated jurisdiction. There is absolutely no chance that commercial operations will curtail their fishing for these feed fish. Even if regulations were put in place there would be no way of monitoring and enforcing them.
It's obvious that the salmon feedlots have no intention of cutting back on production. This pressure on the fish stocks will lead to a collapse of the stocks. Saying it's not the feedlots responsibility is consistent with what we have come to expect from the feedlots. It's also consistent with their disdain for the wild salmon, the ocean environment and the folks that are trying to preserve it.
-
It's too bad certain groups don't jump aboard the Issues associated with Salmon Sea Ranching.
You will see in a few more years that this will become more of an issue on our wild stocks than sea pen aquaculture.
It's obviously just an opinion (no problem with that), as you haven't backed it up with any facts. ???
-
The world food demand is predicted to rise 50% by the year 2030. How is closing salmon farms around the world going to stop all the other users of fish meal from just taking up the slack. I agree with absolon that limits have to be set on those commercial fisheries.
As mykiss posted, a true concern about this over consumption effecting our wild salmon should be and is(to some of us) the alaskan salmon ranching practice. Ranched and wild salmon convert feed poorly and I suspect that when there is strong competition amongst all those salmon that the conversion gets even worse.
You just have to move the tunnel you are looking through a little bit to get a better look at the whole picture AF.
-
As usual you're missing the whole point with your flawed logic.
As demand rises, prices rise, creating incentive to harvest more of these feed fish in an unregulated jurisdiction. There is absolutely no chance that commercial operations will curtail their fishing for these feed fish. Even if regulations were put in place there would be no way of monitoring and enforcing them.
It's obvious that the salmon feedlots have no intention of cutting back on production. This pressure on the fish stocks will lead to a collapse of the stocks. Saying it's not the feedlots responsibility is consistent with what we have come to expect from the feedlots. It's also consistent with their disdain for the wild salmon, the ocean environment and the folks that are trying to preserve it.
As usual, your ignorance of the subject leads you to faulty understanding and consequent erroneous conclusions that you feel the need to present in your usual fashion by suggesting that it is someone else using flawed logic.
Fish meal is a cocktail of various proteins, minerals and trace elements in a fairly specific proportion. These constituent elements are required in various amounts and proportions in the diet of all animals, birds and fish. These are also available in various assortments at various proportions in a variety of other compounds and substances, both synthetic and natural, at various price points. Each of these sources can also contain compounds that have negative effects on the animals they are fed to.
Formulating a feed involves analyzing the dietary requirements of the animal to be fed and then selecting among a variety of sources for the constituent elements required based on cost, availability, assortment and proportion of elements supplied and absence of non-beneficial elements. There are multiple ways a diet can be formulated; cost is the final determinant criteria. If any particular source compound becomes more expensive, the diet is reformulated using other source compounds that also contain those elements which have become relatively less expensive as a consequence of the increase in cost of the one currently used.
Fish meal is almost ideal for the formulation of the diets for aquatic animals because it generally contains the required constituent elements in appropriate proportion for those animals without containing non-beneficial elements. Pigs and chickens have requirements for many of the elements but in different proportions so fish meal is considerably less ideal for their requirements. Consequently, it has higher value to formulators of fish feed than it would to formulators of pig or chicken feed and the price fish feed manufacturers are willing to pay is higher than that the formulators of pig and chicken feed are willing to pay. That is why the supply used in fish feed has increased and that used for pig and chicken feed has decreased. Those feed manufacturers have switched to other, lower cost sources for the constituent elements they require.
If the demand for fish meal for salmon diets decreases, the price of fish meal will also decrease and this causes a change in the economics of formulating other feeds and those other feeds will start to use more fish meal. Non-salmon aquatic demand and non-aquatic demand will absorb any newly available, lower cost supply resulting from a decease in use in salmon diets until such point as their increased demand causes sufficiently increased price that other alternatives become more economic. At that point, demand will level off again. In the interim, harvests of fish for fish meal will increase to stabilize fishing income and it is unlikely it will decrease again once the point of demand stability is reached.
In simplest terms, in spite of your flawed understanding, eliminating salmon farming demand for fish meal will decrease the price of meal resulting in increased demand by other feed sectors and that will stimulate an increase in supply. The only way to regulate supply of fish meal is to regulate the fishing for the fish that fish meal is made from just as fishing for salmon, halibut and a multitude of other species has been regulated.
-
It's obviously just an opinion (no problem with that), as you haven't backed it up with any facts. ???
It is also an opinion held by those in your own camp of fish farm critics:
http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=5979966&sponsor=
Randall Peterman published a study on this a little while ago, but I can't seem to locate it right now. The study is talked about in a couple of the links below. I am not surprised that fanatical fish farm critics would want to dismiss this because this threatens to derail their agenda. The "cause" is actually overshadowing the fish now. However, if some fish farm critics really cared about wild salmon they should also think objectively and consider the possible implications of this instead of walking around with tunnel vision. As you can see, even Watershed Watch Salmon Society is looking at this issue.
http://fnfisheriescouncil.ca/index.php/fish-in-the-news-/1026-north-pacific-overcrowded-as-salmon-population-soars-oct-310
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=188950e2-6b80-4533-9aac-58f4ad9e780c
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/hatch-22_the_problem_with_the_pacific_salmon_resurgence/2335/
-
It's odd that publications like "the common sense Canadian" does not pick up on this stuff. Hmmmm?
-
It's odd that publications like "the common sense Canadian" does not pick up on this stuff. Hmmmm?
Thats because common sense would faulter with their agenda and money flow.
-
It's odd that publications like "the common sense Canadian" does not pick up on this stuff. Hmmmm?
Just because they call it common sense doesn't mean it is.
-
It is also an opinion held by those in your own camp of fish farm critics:
http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=5979966&sponsor=
Randall Peterman published a study on this a little while ago, but I can't seem to locate it right now. The study is talked about in a couple of the links below. I am not surprised that fanatical fish farm critics would want to dismiss this because this threatens to derail their agenda. The "cause" is actually overshadowing the fish now. However, if some fish farm critics really cared about wild salmon they should also think objectively and consider the possible implications of this instead of walking around with tunnel vision. As you can see, even Watershed Watch Salmon Society is looking at this issue.
http://fnfisheriescouncil.ca/index.php/fish-in-the-news-/1026-north-pacific-overcrowded-as-salmon-population-soars-oct-310
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=188950e2-6b80-4533-9aac-58f4ad9e780c
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/hatch-22_the_problem_with_the_pacific_salmon_resurgence/2335/
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.
-
You haven't established that salmon farming is causing any damage to BC wild salmon and you're ignoring the effect that up to 5 billion introduced hatchery fish will have on the food supply in the open ocean where BC wild salmon spend the majority of their lives.
-
As usual, your ignorance of the subject leads you to faulty understanding and consequent erroneous conclusions that you feel the need to present in your usual fashion by suggesting that it is someone else using flawed logic.
Fish meal is a cocktail of various proteins, minerals and trace elements in a fairly specific proportion. These constituent elements are required in various amounts and proportions in the diet of all animals, birds and fish. These are also available in various assortments at various proportions in a variety of other compounds and substances, both synthetic and natural, at various price points. Each of these sources can also contain compounds that have negative effects on the animals they are fed to.
Formulating a feed involves analyzing the dietary requirements of the animal to be fed and then selecting among a variety of sources for the constituent elements required based on cost, availability, assortment and proportion of elements supplied and absence of non-beneficial elements. There are multiple ways a diet can be formulated; cost is the final determinant criteria. If any particular source compound becomes more expensive, the diet is reformulated using other source compounds that also contain those elements which have become relatively less expensive as a consequence of the increase in cost of the one currently used.
Fish meal is almost ideal for the formulation of the diets for aquatic animals because it generally contains the required constituent elements in appropriate proportion for those animals without containing non-beneficial elements. Pigs and chickens have requirements for many of the elements but in different proportions so fish meal is considerably less ideal for their requirements. Consequently, it has higher value to formulators of fish feed than it would to formulators of pig or chicken feed and the price fish feed manufacturers are willing to pay is higher than that the formulators of pig and chicken feed are willing to pay. That is why the supply used in fish feed has increased and that used for pig and chicken feed has decreased. Those feed manufacturers have switched to other, lower cost sources for the constituent elements they require.
If the demand for fish meal for salmon diets decreases, the price of fish meal will also decrease and this causes a change in the economics of formulating other feeds and those other feeds will start to use more fish meal. Non-salmon aquatic demand and non-aquatic demand will absorb any newly available, lower cost supply resulting from a decease in use in salmon diets until such point as their increased demand causes sufficiently increased price that other alternatives become more economic. At that point, demand will level off again. In the interim, harvests of fish for fish meal will increase to stabilize fishing income and it is unlikely it will decrease again once the point of demand stability is reached.
In simplest terms, in spite of your flawed understanding, eliminating salmon farming demand for fish meal will decrease the price of meal resulting in increased demand by other feed sectors and that will stimulate an increase in supply. The only way to regulate supply of fish meal is to regulate the fishing for the fish that fish meal is made from just as fishing for salmon, halibut and a multitude of other species has been regulated.
Repeating your flawed logic and adding more words to it does not make your logic any more plausible.
It's a typical salmon farming tactic, to point to something else rather than taking responsibility. The industry does the same thing with respect to usage of antibiotics, their sealice problem, PCB's, and poisoning of the surrounding ocean environment.
Unfortunately like with the tobacco industry, government legislation is the only thing that will ever bring the industry to rein....
-
You haven't established that salmon farming is causing any damage to BC wild salmon and you're ignoring the effect that up to 5 billion introduced hatchery fish will have on the food supply in the open ocean where BC wild salmon spend the majority of their lives.
The tobacco industry uses similar arguments..... http://www.freedom-of-choice.com/AS3.htm (http://www.freedom-of-choice.com/AS3.htm)
We're all aware of how credible their claims are.... ::) ::)
-
Repeating your flawed logic and adding more words to it does not make your logic any more plausible.
It's a typical salmon farming tactic, to point to something else rather than taking responsibility. The industry does the same thing with respect to usage of antibiotics, their sealice problem, PCB's, and poisoning of the surrounding ocean environment.
Unfortunately like with the tobacco industry, government legislation is the only thing that will ever bring the industry to rein....
What am I thinking? You're right! Of course pigs can fly. Only an idiot would say they can't.
-
The tobacco industry uses similar arguments..... http://www.freedom-of-choice.com/AS3.htm (http://www.freedom-of-choice.com/AS3.htm)
We're all aware of how credible their claims are.... ::) ::)
How come every time I challenge one of your statements you immediately start talking about something else that someone told you?
-
How come every time I challenge one of your statements you immediately start talking about something else that someone told you?
Its because guys like AF and the antifarmers cant really think for themselves...must have other people do it for them.... ::)
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
Thanks A. Good to see this issue is finally being discussed by people who like and excel at discussion.
-
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. ???
-
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.
-
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 (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.
-
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 (http://www2.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/capital_van_isl/story.html?id=3bcf856c-9656-4476-9e0d-bdc0db451e9e)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/krill-investors-lose-billions)
-
Why don't you post the standing biomass of the Alaskan, Washington, Oregon and Californian coast as well.
For the obvious reason that the standing biomass in all those areas is completely irrelevant.
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.
The commodity market provides the krill used by salmon feed manufacturers. The BC harvest is so small as to be irrelevant to the commodity market. The sector that benefits from the BC harvest is commercial fishing and their profits come from providing the catch into the commodity market.
-
I only say that when I know who I'm talking to has a propensity to create facts to suit his argument.
Hey! I resemble that remark ;D
Wow, are you really that arrogant? A fact used to support an argument you disagree with has to be "created" because Absolon could not possibly be wrong? There could not possibly be evidence to the contrary of your opinion that is not a complete fabrication? Wow, now I know we are done.
-
Wasn't that you observing hypothetical phenomena, synthesizing facts and massaging them into a semiplausible scenario?
Nah, must have been someone else.................. ;)
-
Wasn't that you observing hypothetical phenomena, synthesizing facts and massaging them into a semiplausible scenario?
Nah, must have been someone else.................. ;)
How does someone "observe hypothetical phenomena"? If you are observing it, then it cannot be hypothetical. Now, it was I that saw evidence of a phenomena (disease transfer from wild fish to farmed fish and back again), and it was I that synthesized the facts gathered from a variety of scientific papers that showed that disease can be transferred from wild fish to farmed fish and from farmed fish to wild fish, and that the high population density in a net pen makes it ideal for a pathogen to flourish (were you refuting those facts?), and proposed a plausible hypothetical scenario of a wild fish passing a pathogen to a population of farmed fish, where it flourishes and multiplies in the crowded conditions of the pen and then is transferred to a passing wild fish on its way back to a nearby spawning bed where the pathogen is passed to a multitude of wild fish, crowed together in the river, whose immune systems are compromised by their spawning metamorphosis. I did not make any of it up. I never even claimed it had already happened. None of the "facts" were "created." I leave it to the scientists to prove if it is not a possible risk.
-
How does someone "observe hypothetical phenomena"? If you are observing it, then it cannot be hypothetical. Now, it was I that saw evidence of a phenomena (disease transfer from wild fish to farmed fish and back again), and it was I that synthesized the facts gathered from a variety of scientific papers that showed that disease can be transferred from wild fish to farmed fish and from farmed fish to wild fish, and that the high population density in a net pen makes it ideal for a pathogen to flourish (were you refuting those facts?), and proposed a plausible hypothetical scenario of a wild fish passing a pathogen to a population of farmed fish, where it flourishes and multiplies in the crowded conditions of the pen and then is transferred to a passing wild fish on its way back to a nearby spawning bed where the pathogen is passed to a multitude of wild fish, crowed together in the river, whose immune systems are compromised by their spawning metamorphosis. I did not make any of it up. I never even claimed it had already happened. None of the "facts" were "created." I leave it to the scientists to prove if it is not a possible risk.
The benefit of observing hypothetical phenomena (and you are observing hypothetical phenomena regardless of how you term it) and developing hypothetical scenarios to account for them is even greater than making up your own facts. When you're making up facts, you're stuck with them once you've announced them. When you're working with hypothetical problems and developing plausible hypothetical causes, you aren't confined to reality. You can move the goal posts any time you want, anywhere you want; it's a no-lose proposition if you can convince someone to play. Even if you can find someone foolish enough to take your approach seriously, you still haven't proven anything because you are working in the realm of the imaginary, not the real world.
-
The benefit of observing hypothetical phenomena (and you are observing hypothetical phenomena regardless of how you term it) and developing hypothetical scenarios to account for them is even greater than making up your own facts. When you're making up facts, you're stuck with them once you've announced them. When you're working with hypothetical problems and developing plausible hypothetical causes, you aren't confined to reality. You can move the goal posts any time you want, anywhere you want; it's a no-lose proposition if you can convince someone to play. Even if you can find someone foolish enough to take your approach seriously, you still haven't proven anything because you are working in the realm of the imaginary, not the real world.
I was not "developing hypothetical scenarios" to "account" for anything. I was proposing a proposing a "hypothetical scenario" to illustrate the dangers present in locating salmon farms on migration routes. And I was not proposing anything that had not been said already (over a decade ago, in fact):
[quote author: Mart R. Gross, 1998] The greater concern [greater than the transfer of exotic diseases to wild Pacific Salmon from farmed Atlantics] may lie in the loading of disease on Atlantic salmon relative to native species, due to the confines of aquaculture and selection programs for genetic resistance and disease tolerance. Disease amplification through exotic carriers, followed by transmission to and health reduction of native species, is not uncommon in the biological world.[/quote]
Gross, Mart R., (1998), "One species with two biologies: Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in the wild and in aquaculture" Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 55(Suppl. 1): 131–144