Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Author Topic: Fraser River Sockeye not at Risk From Fish Farms  (Read 19202 times)

Folkboat

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 48
Re: Fraser River Sockeye not at Risk From Fish Farms
« Reply #30 on: April 04, 2009, 10:41:33 AM »

 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.
Logged

Folkboat

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 48
Re: Fraser River Sockeye not at Risk From Fish Farms
« Reply #31 on: April 04, 2009, 11:24:00 AM »

 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.
Logged

marmot

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1213
Re: Fraser River Sockeye not at Risk From Fish Farms
« Reply #32 on: April 04, 2009, 12:40:22 PM »

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.
Logged

Folkboat

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 48
Re: Fraser River Sockeye not at Risk From Fish Farms
« Reply #33 on: April 04, 2009, 02:09:00 PM »

 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 .
Logged

marmot

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1213
Re: Fraser River Sockeye not at Risk From Fish Farms
« Reply #34 on: April 04, 2009, 04:18:54 PM »

Same to you.. happy fishing and enjoy the sunshine. 

Logged

troutbreath

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2908
  • I does Christy
Re: Fraser River Sockeye not at Risk From Fish Farms
« Reply #35 on: April 06, 2009, 07:39:09 AM »

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.
Logged
another SLICE of dirty fish perhaps?

skibumAB

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 52
Re: Fraser River Sockeye not at Risk From Fish Farms
« Reply #36 on: April 06, 2009, 08:06:39 AM »

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.
Logged

aquapaloosa

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 659
  • They don't call'em fish for nothin.
Re: Fraser River Sockeye not at Risk From Fish Farms
« Reply #37 on: April 06, 2009, 02:49:18 PM »

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.











Logged
Chicken farm, pig farm, cow farm, fish farm.

Sam Salmon

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1239
Re: Fraser River Sockeye not at Risk From Fish Farms
« Reply #38 on: April 06, 2009, 04:26:14 PM »

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












Logged

Folkboat

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 48
Re: Fraser River Sockeye not at Risk From Fish Farms
« Reply #39 on: April 06, 2009, 06:26:41 PM »

    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.
Logged

aquapaloosa

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 659
  • They don't call'em fish for nothin.
Re: Fraser River Sockeye not at Risk From Fish Farms
« Reply #40 on: April 06, 2009, 07:31:26 PM »

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.












Logged
Chicken farm, pig farm, cow farm, fish farm.

Sam Salmon

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1239
Re: Fraser River Sockeye not at Risk From Fish Farms
« Reply #41 on: April 06, 2009, 07:55:18 PM »

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.
Logged

Folkboat

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 48
Re: Fraser River Sockeye not at Risk From Fish Farms
« Reply #42 on: April 06, 2009, 09:08:33 PM »

    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.
Logged

Folkboat

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 48
Re: Fraser River Sockeye not at Risk From Fish Farms
« Reply #43 on: April 09, 2009, 07:55:21 PM »

 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?
Logged

Eagleye

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re: Fraser River Sockeye not at Risk From Fish Farms
« Reply #44 on: April 09, 2009, 09:19:51 PM »

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.
Logged