Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Author Topic: Some fish farm reading.  (Read 16266 times)

Dave

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3377
Re: Some fish farm reading.
« Reply #2 on: April 05, 2012, 01:00:32 PM »

Thanks aquapaloosa, it's a good site to get the other side of this issue.  Wonder how many people will take the time to read your link ::)
Logged

chris gadsden

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13880
Re: Some fish farm reading.
« Reply #3 on: April 05, 2012, 04:06:25 PM »

Reminds me of those annoying fish farm commercials.....   ;D
Thanks I will not have to read the propaganda. ;D ;D ;D

chris gadsden

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13880
Re: Some fish farm reading.
« Reply #4 on: April 05, 2012, 04:06:50 PM »

Thanks aquapaloosa, it's a good site to get the other side of this issue.  Wonder how many people will take the time to read your link ::)
See above. ;D ;D ;D

absolon

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 557
Re: Some fish farm reading.
« Reply #5 on: April 05, 2012, 05:00:15 PM »

Thanks I will not have to read the propaganda. ;D ;D ;D

So let me get this straight.............It's propaganda if the farming industry speaks up but it isn't when the reactionaries do?

I've been surprised to see how quiet you've been since Staniford got the boot and isn't providing the talking points anymore.

Logged

chris gadsden

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13880
Re: Some fish farm reading.
« Reply #6 on: April 05, 2012, 05:46:10 PM »

So let me get this straight.............It's propaganda if the farming industry speaks up but it isn't when the reactionaries do?

I've been surprised to see how quiet you've been since Staniford got the boot and isn't providing the talking points anymore.


Sorry, been fishing, here is some for you. ;D

Clues to wild salmon deaths surfacing
Pamela Suzanne Smyth, Special To The Star
Published: Thursday, April 05, 2012
Algal blooms, parasites, bacteria and viruses may be contributing to the decline of wild salmon stocks in BC, Dr. Kristi Miller, head of the Molecular Genetics Laboratory at the Pacific Biological Station, told the annual general meeting of the Qualicum Beach Streamkeepers Society Saturday.

Miller and her genomic fisheries management team are trying to understand such stock stressors so survival strategies can be implemented in collaboration with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

They look at diseases, changes in physiology and environmental factors associated with salmon migration and performance.
PAMELA SUZANNE SMYTH PHOTO

Email to a friend

Printer friendly
Font:****"Dr. Kristi Miller deserves the Order of Canada and I feel relieved that Harper's budget did not chop her lab," said Anissa Reed, director of the Pacific Coast Wild Salmon Society, who saw Miller testify at the Cohen Commission of Inquiry into the Decline of Sockeye Salmon in the Fraser River.

"We heard her give evidence that her lab could test 200 fish for 30 pathogens in a single day. Up to 90 percent of the Fraser sockeye are dying in the river before spawning and no one could figure it out.

"In 2006," Reed said, "DFO tasked Miller to figure this out, and she discovered that the ones dying are fighting a virus and the ones that survived weren't. This is the first concrete clue we have to explain why entire runs of Fraser sockeye are dying on the river banks."

The lab's testing capabilities have since been increased.

In her talk, titled 'How do we recognize dead fish swimming,' Miller said one hypothesis is that algal blooms are smothering fish gills, causing them to suffer hypoxia or oxygen deprivation.

In 2007, the finding of toxic algae in fish gills indicated higher annual blooms than in 2008, she said. The fish grew more slowly than in 2008, she said, and, "they didn't appear to be outright starving."

As well, she said, "in the Fraser River, they're carrying quite a few pathogens and parasites."

Parvovirus and flava bacteria are most prevalent, Miller said. "Parvovirus," usually associated with cats and dogs, "has never been shown to be in fish before," she said.

Stress likely plays a role in the presence of the fatal virus, she said.

As the fish swim upstream to spawn, she said, their energy goes towards the journey and their immune system response shut downs, which makes them more susceptible to pathogens.

In 2010, she said, tagged and radio-tracked fish showed a 9.5 percent lower probability of making it to the spawning grounds if they were carrying the parvovirus in three tissues, such as muscle, brain and liver.

"Harrison River is the only sockeye stock increasing," she said, and in that river, "we've yet to find fish that test positive for parvovirus."

As well, Harrison sockeye spend six to eight months in fresh-water lakes, while others spend up to two years in fresh water. She said there's evidence some Harrison salmon migrate through the Johnston Strait.

Fish farms in Johnston Strait have been a source of controversy, though Miller didn't mention them.

Harrison sockeye, she said, appear to spend less time in fresh water and don't migrate as quickly into northern Pacific waters as do all other sockeye.

Fish that die in deep ocean waters pose a challenge to research, she said, "because you can't see them die."



chris gadsden

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13880
Re: Some fish farm reading.
« Reply #7 on: April 05, 2012, 08:02:17 PM »

So let me get this straight.............It's propaganda if the farming industry speaks up but it isn't when the reactionaries do?

I've been surprised to see how quiet you've been since Staniford got the boot and isn't providing the talking points anymore.


More. ;D ;D

How many statements from historic studies of our fisheries could Justice Cohen use to communicate his conclusions? From 1998: "With Atlantic salmon now cultured in Pacific waters, we are back studying the possible impacts of escaped Atlantic salmon. Regrettably, research on wild–cultured interactions operates in a politically charged and antagonistic environment where there are those who favor aquaculture and those who favor the wild fish. Moreover, their lack of biological knowledge and the political implications of conflict have largely paralyzed government agencies with a mandate to foster both. As a consequence, the needs of specific research programs on the interactions between wild and cultured fish are often overlooked." Mart R Gross from One species with two biologies: Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in the wild and in aquaculture http://labs.eeb.utoronto.ca/gross/Gross1998.pdf

Dave

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3377
Re: Some fish farm reading.
« Reply #8 on: April 05, 2012, 08:50:34 PM »

1998? :D :D :D
Logged

Sandman

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1498
Re: Some fish farm reading.
« Reply #9 on: April 05, 2012, 08:51:39 PM »

Here are one of my favourite snipets from the "propaganda":

From the "language of protest" blog:

   
Quote
Recent research shows that above 22kg/m³, increasing density is associated with lower welfare for caged Atlantic salmon. However, in order to provide a safety margin, CIWF and WSPA believe that the maximum stocking density for Atlantic salmon in sea cages should ideally be 10kg/m³, with farmers who achieve a high welfare status and in particular low levels of injuries, disease, parasitic attack and mortality being permitted to stock up to a maximum of 15kg/m³.

Net pens in BC farm at a density that is between 15kg/m³ and 20kg/m³, and try to keep it as low as possible, which, as this study suggests, is optimal. In fact, for each net pen, only 3% of volume of pen is taken up with fish. This is far from the image of feedlots and battery chickens that Ms. Morton and her ilk try to portray.

Am I missing something here?  First they cite research that states that maximum stocking density should be under 15/m³ (and ideally 10/m³), and then admit that BC net pens (note I did not call them industrial feedlots) stock at densities between 15/m³ and 20/m³ and say that it is "optimal."
« Last Edit: April 08, 2012, 10:12:58 AM by Sandman »
Logged
Not all those who wander are lost

Sandman

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1498
Re: Some fish farm reading.
« Reply #10 on: April 05, 2012, 10:20:06 PM »

I also enjoyed the other "language of protest" blog that, in their attempt to show that the use of the term "industrial feedlot"  to describe salmon farms is not only inaccurate, but also unfair, perpetuates the "necessity of industrial feedlots to feed the world" argument:

Quote
There are environmental issues to consider, too. Would free range cattle be able to feed the growing population of this world? Free range cattle need a lot of grass to graze on. That is land that could be used for growing crops. Soy is being grown not just for food but also as an alternative diesel fuel. What is the best use of agricultural land?

The fact of the matter is that people, especially people in the west (those consuming the vast majority of meat produced today world wide), already eat too much meat.  The average American consumes 122kg/yr (well over twice the recommended intake), and the average Canadian is consumes almost twice as much as needed (http://chartsbin.com/view/bhy).  The argument that feedlots are necessary to meet the demand is erroneous, as the demand was falsely created by shifting people's diets toward a high meat/high fat, fast food diet that serves the economic needs of the cattle industry.  Create an abnormally high (and unhealthy) demand, and then claim that highly efficient but ultimate less healthy feedlots are necessary to meet the demand. (I particularly loved how they defended feedlots as providing cattle a roof over their heads: "no shelter, no diet control, no salt lick, no medical care" on a free range farm.  What did those poor animals do before we domesticated them?)

While the arguments for eating more salmon are more legitimate than eating more beef, and while salmon is certainly one of the more tasty sources of Omega 3 fatty acids, it remains to be seen if we really need salmon feedlots any more than than we need cattle feedlots, to "feed the world."  If people ate more responsibly, the need for salmon would be less as they would already have a reduced risk of heart disease and would get their Omega 3 from a variety of sources as well. 

What it seems to me, is that salmon farming industry is as guilty as the "reactionaries" of using the "language of protest" (they ARE "protesting the protestors" after all), when they make these claims.  It seems that their argument is: "the wild salmon are already done (and it isn't our fault), so we are now the only way to get salmon to the masses of people that need it."

Logged
Not all those who wander are lost

alwaysfishn

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2364
Re: Some fish farm reading.
« Reply #11 on: April 06, 2012, 08:10:30 AM »


What it seems to me, is that salmon farming industry is as guilty as the "reactionaries" of using the "language of protest" (they ARE "protesting the protestors" after all), when they make these claims.  It seems that their argument is: "the wild salmon are already done (and it isn't our fault), so we are now the only way to get salmon to the masses of people that need it."


You certainly hit the nail squarely on the head with that observation!
Logged
Disclosure:  This post has not been approved by the feedlot boys, therefore will likely be found to contain errors and statements that are out of context. :-[

shuswapsteve

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 894
Re: Some fish farm reading.
« Reply #12 on: April 08, 2012, 09:30:04 AM »

Harrison Sockeye spend 6 to 8 months in freshwater lakes?  Not sure whether it is Ms. Reed misinterpreting what was said by Dr. Miller or an error from the media source, but Harrison Sockeye juveniles are immediate migrants.  They can spend up to a few months in the Fraser River estuary before going out into ocean.  They do not rear in the freshwater.  The whole argument used by Morton and her supporters for the Harrison Sockeye is flawed with very little understanding of the fish itself, age structure, behaviour and assessment on the ground.  I totally agree that the Harrison Sockeye have performed exceptional in recent years, but fish farm critics leave out other relevant information about this unique CU (Conservation Unit).  Harrison Sockeye are composed of 3 and 4 year olds.  In 2009, the 3 year old component return was great, but the 4 year old component was not.  The truth is that the 4 year old component of the Harrison in 2009 actually did worse than the rest of the 4 year olds in the rest of the Fraser River watershed (the majority of Fraser Sockeye return as 4 year olds).  In fairness, there is likely more than one explanation for this, but the could be said for the exceptional success of the 3 year olds that year.  It underscores the fact that Fraser Sockeye can show differences in returns amongst age classes.

Secondly, Harrison Sockeye do not avoid prespawn mortality.  In fact, they experience a great deal of prespawn mortality at the beginning.  The Harrison Sockeye adults migrate over a protracted period of time into the Harrison starting as early as August right through into the fall.  The adults hold in the lake then drop back downstream and spawn in the river.  Between August and the peak of spawn in mid-November, Harrison can experience as much prespawn mortality as most places in the Fraser Watershed.  However, from the peak of spawn onwards, spawning success improves greatly.  Critics talk about the “success” but overlook the clear mortality in front of them.  If farm critics are going to look at other prespawn issues in the Fraser watershed and suggest that it is ISA, salmon leukemia or this unidentified “novel virus” then why are they overlooking at the prespawn mortality that has been going on at the Harrison for years now.

Lastly the ocean conditions from 2008 were never mentioned either.  Apparently, the waters off the Pacific Coast of Canada were the coldest in 50 years. In addition, surface phyto and zooplankton concentrations were the highest in a decade of observations across the Gulf of Alaska in August and September of 2008.  All of this information is available for the public to view here:
http://www.meds-sdmm.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/applications/publications/index-eng.asp
« Last Edit: April 08, 2012, 09:33:27 AM by shuswapsteve »
Logged

Dave

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3377
Re: Some fish farm reading.
« Reply #13 on: April 08, 2012, 10:57:27 AM »

SS, you should know by now facts are irrelevant when it comes to this issue ;) A scapegoat is needed by a few people and attempting to show fluctuating wild salmon populations are caused by fish farming is easier than admitting other factors are in play.  I have come to realize their minds are made up, no matter what new information arises.
Hell, some don't even bother to read your posts because you continually disprove the misinformation spouted by Morton et al and they don't like that.
Logged

absolon

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 557
Re: Some fish farm reading.
« Reply #14 on: April 08, 2012, 12:40:35 PM »

Come on Dave, it's obvious that Steve's post is using the "language of protest". It must be propaganda! ;)
Logged