Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Author Topic: Get your facts straight?  (Read 1309298 times)

Fisherbob

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1346
Logged

Fisherbob

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1346
Re: Get your facts straight?
« Reply #736 on: March 21, 2014, 07:38:45 AM »

Logged

banx

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 350
Re: Get your facts straight?
« Reply #737 on: March 21, 2014, 09:57:04 AM »

it's not a fail in principal robert. the power went out, due to an equipment failure.

kind of like the people in ontario who took food out of their freezer and put it in the snow outside so it didn't go bad.

I think this analogy sums up open pen farming nicely.... so mankind is basically taking a dump in your sink, all the pollution the industrial development, poor waste water treatment etc etc... just bad.  but the thing is theres no toilet, so its gotta go in the sink.    now open pens farms are like you urinating on that turd sitting in the sink.  sure it's definitely not as bad as that turd laying on the bottom of your sink. it will be easier to clean up and the damage won't linger as long as that turd.

so really, do you "need" to be urinating on that turd?  can't you just go on the grass?  ;D

« Last Edit: March 21, 2014, 12:14:05 PM by banx »
Logged

Fisherbob

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1346
Logged

absolon

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 557
Re: Get your facts straight?
« Reply #739 on: March 21, 2014, 02:39:14 PM »

it's not a fail in principal robert. the power went out, due to an equipment failure.

Actually, it is a fail, and one that illustrates one of the highest risks of tank farming. Even with claimed triple redundancy the system was not sufficiently reliable to bring the crop to market. This isn't a one-off either. The last crop through the Nanaimo tank farm built by Hagensborg was completely lost due to the same problem and the majority of the first crop being grown in the operation near Campbell River was also lost to equipment failure. Raising fish in tanks is not only a biological proposition but also an economic proposition and the significant risk of equipment failure needs to be factored in to the economic analysis of the viability of farming fish in tanks.
Logged

banx

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 350
Re: Get your facts straight?
« Reply #740 on: March 21, 2014, 06:44:18 PM »

Yes exactly, I guess you never fell when you learned how to ride your bike, and I'm sure the open penners were batting 100% off the bat. I guess an open pen farm has never had to cull any fish either.

“We believed we had an extremely robust electrical system with three levels of redundancy. We lost power after an extremely unusual sequence of events, unlike anything I’ve experienced in my 25 years in the business,”

ok, stop the entire development of this process.........


bob, I'm not eating either.
Logged

Fisherbob

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1346
Logged

absolon

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 557
Re: Get your facts straight?
« Reply #742 on: March 21, 2014, 08:40:43 PM »

Yes exactly, I guess you never fell when you learned how to ride your bike, and I'm sure the open penners were batting 100% off the bat. I guess an open pen farm has never had to cull any fish either.

“We believed we had an extremely robust electrical system with three levels of redundancy. We lost power after an extremely unusual sequence of events, unlike anything I’ve experienced in my 25 years in the business,”

ok, stop the entire development of this process.........


bob, I'm not eating either.

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with the dead fish. It's a simple concept really. When you set a goal there are but two possible outcomes. You either succeed in accomplishing it or you fail; clearly they failed. It doesn't matter if the operator "hadn't seen anything like it in 25 years". He still failed at bringing his crop to market.
Logged

troutbreath

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2908
  • I does Christy
Re: Get your facts straight?
« Reply #743 on: March 21, 2014, 08:48:50 PM »

You want fail look up fishfarming in Chile. Or look up fishfarmer bawb ;D
Logged
another SLICE of dirty fish perhaps?

banx

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 350
Re: Get your facts straight?
« Reply #744 on: March 22, 2014, 02:46:00 AM »

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with the dead fish. It's a simple concept really. When you set a goal there are but two possible outcomes. You either succeed in accomplishing it or you fail; clearly they failed. It doesn't matter if the operator "hadn't seen anything like it in 25 years". He still failed at bringing his crop to market.

and the probable hundreds of occurences of open pen farmers FAILING to bring their crops to market???  shouldn't that mean the process should be abandoned as well? 
Logged

aquapaloosa

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 659
  • They don't call'em fish for nothin.
Re: Get your facts straight?
« Reply #745 on: March 22, 2014, 07:07:36 AM »

I think you have to weigh the successes against the failures.  In the case of open pen salmon farms the percentage of successes so far exceeds the percentage of failure so  that over all it is successful and continues to succeed.
If you do the same with closed containment failure vs success the overall results are not the same.  Not even close.  Close containment continues to have the ability to find investment money but never really seams to pay any of it back.  This keeps happening time and time again.
It is an interesting time in the debate.  With many great returns last year of various salmon runs and this years forecast it is no wonder the anti salmon farming campaign is fairly quiet.  There just sitting back waiting to pounce I sure when one of the runs doesn't meet the prediction.
Its no wonder Morton has changed her toon to other topics other than salmon demise and virus testing.  Tough times for activist I guess.lol
« Last Edit: March 22, 2014, 07:09:25 AM by aquapaloosa »
Logged
Chicken farm, pig farm, cow farm, fish farm.

absolon

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 557
Re: Get your facts straight?
« Reply #746 on: March 22, 2014, 08:13:32 AM »

and the probable hundreds of occurences of open pen farmers FAILING to bring their crops to market???  shouldn't that mean the process should be abandoned as well?

Has someone suggested abandoning anything?

They are welcome to continue trying so long as they can continue to find funds to do so. There are a couple of points you need to bear in mind though.

- success isn't just predicated on bringing a crop to market but rather on bringing it to market at a profit and at a scale that has the potential to replace open pen farming. To date, that hasn't been accomplished anywhere.

- in the absence of government loans and private foundation grants, replacing the sunk costs of a loss such as this eats up all the potential profits for the next five years assuming they can produce and turn over five successive crops at a 20% profit margin, a rather optimistic outlook given the high costs and high risks of the method. This translates into a best case scenario of an effective six years with no return on investment.

- wanting something to work has absolutely no bearing on the likelihood of it doing so.
Logged

banx

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 350
Re: Get your facts straight?
« Reply #747 on: March 22, 2014, 05:12:01 PM »

I think you have to weigh the successes against the failures.  In the case of open pen salmon farms the percentage of successes so far exceeds the percentage of failure so  that over all it is successful and continues to succeed.
If you do the same with closed containment failure vs success the overall results are not the same.  Not even close.  Close containment continues to have the ability to find investment money but never really seams to pay any of it back.  This keeps happening time and time again.
It is an interesting time in the debate.  With many great returns last year of various salmon runs and this years forecast it is no wonder the anti salmon farming campaign is fairly quiet.  There just sitting back waiting to pounce I sure when one of the runs doesn't meet the prediction.
Its no wonder Morton has changed her toon to other topics other than salmon demise and virus testing.  Tough times for activist I guess.lol

yes you are correct, but your also comparing a fairly new way of raising salmon compared to the decades of experience open pens have had. lets also not forget the growing pains open pen farms have had with virus issues, sea lice, on going pollution, structural problems withe pen materials, predation...... right now your comparing gas mileage of a 1978 chev blazer with a 350 vs a with an eco boost ford focus.

if open pen farms are going to continue to receive various funding from governmental organizations then closed containment should also continue receiving possibly delerious investing.... even if its scewed.

morton is crazy, and I don't think you have to be an activist per se to thnk that theres a better way to raise salmon than in a pen in the ocean.

absolon.... there is a higher risk such as the the power outage article that open pen fars are not going to have because they sit in the ocean.  They are also not on the hook financialy for potential environental damage.  they are also subsidized in the event of a disease outbreak.  Thats the most brilliant business model possible other than cutting cocaine.
The rules for calculating compensation, including maximum amounts, are

 http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2000-233/page-1.html#h-2

its going to be a while, dare I say a few more failures before it is profitable. or until the costs go up for having a pen sitting in the ocean... I searched for a very long time and i could'nt find any actual costs farms pay to sit in the water and if there are environmental 'permits'. I read through the bc aqualculture license regulations and there are many 'measures' in place and there are no consequences. and consequences only listed in the fisheries act..... which reads as though none could apply to a farm.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2010-270/index.html

and this is a list of farms located in BC. its a rather large list. If you factored in an environmental tax like you have with the goverment wanting to impose carbon tax these open pen deals aren't so lucrative. other than reading about a farm being fined for killing sea lions in nets.  no environmental costs that I can find are imposed on farms.  tough to beat that financial advantage.
http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/licence-permis/docs/finfish-pisciculture-eng.html

this coming from a fisherbob-esque link.

Fish Farms reel in another $400 million in Canadian subsidies
On another aquaculture front, you may be even more unhappy to know Shea announced $400 Million in gifts to the aquaculture sector in Canada last week.  That’s a lot of dead, diseased fish. I have asked her for $400 million be given to the commercial, sport and processing sectors in BC that provide 600% more in contribution to gross provincial product than fish farms. I’ll let you know.

Fish, profits turn to mush
And fish farms in BC have been losing money. Mainstream lost money in 2012. Marine Harvest has lost money in the last few years, too, largely due to Kudoa, a fungal disease that cost them $12,000,000 in 2012 – and just prior, in 2011, things were so bad they laid off 60 employees – right before Christmas. Nice guys.

Kudoa results in myoliquifaction that makes farmed fish into mush. Would you buy salmon you had to put in a container with a spoon?

Grieg losing money, drowning sea lions
Oh, and then there is Grieg. They got IHN too, last year, in their Cullodon site in Sechelt. Fortunately, we did not have to pay for that as well. Grieg is also the company that had to pay a fine of $100,000 for drowning 65 – 75 sea lions in their Skuna Bay nets in 2010 – they tarted up that site to sell to the unsuspecting in the USA as environmentally-sustainable, organic farmed salmon. Where is PETA when you need them?

Grieg has also been losing money:

In Canada, the company cut losses, with a negative ebit [sic] before fair value adjustment of the biomass of NOK 2.71/kg, compared to a loss of NOK 8.22/kg in the same quarter of 2012.
And the kicker? Cermaq is owned 59.2% by the government and thus the people of Norway. Why do we give another government our money for their killing our fish in our ocean rather than raising their fish on land in closed containers? This does not make sense.

Ask Shea for BC’s $400 million. We can spend it on habitat restoration, something DFO has been sadly remiss about in BC for decades. This year’s total DFO habitat projects for BC is a measly $900,000, only 2.6% of our own money Ottawa sent to diseased fish farms in BC.

http://commonsensecanadian.ca/canadian-taxpayers-bail-norwegian-fish-farms-diseased-fish/

doesn't read like they are raking in the profits.


Salmon Farming in British Columbia:
Industry Evolution and Government Response
By David Conley, M.Sc.
http://www.aquacomgroup.com/Page_sections/About_us/documents/BC_Salmon_Ind_Evol-r.pdf

The Entrepreneurial Phase, 1985-89
 
From 10 farms at the end of 1984, the industry grew to 119 farms in 1987 and to 140 farms in 1989. At its
peak the industry was comprised of about 100 companies, decreasing to 75 by August of 1989. Total
industry production went from 100 metric tonnes in 1985 to 12,400 metric tonnes in 1989. This rapid
growth created a number of problems which have tainted the industry ever since.
 
The attitude of the provincial government of the day toward salmon farming was one of “laissez-faire”. It
had no intention of hindering the growth of the new industry, nor did it provide any help in the way of
economic incentives, planning or policies to facilitate orderly growth as the Norwegians had done.
 
The Marine Resources Section of the Ministry of Environment was responsible for advising BC Lands on
site capability but the Ministry failed to formulate any land use planning for the industry. Staff was few and,
like the industry, relatively inexperienced in the biophysical realities that defines a successful salmon
farming site. Although they were able to eliminate the obviously bad sites, it was largely up to the
prospective farmer to determine the suitability of a site.
 
This opened up an exploitive situation where unscrupulous consultants acquired Investigative Permits
from BC Lands to examine the suitability of potential farm sites and then sold them to prospective salmon
farmers as fulfilling the necessary biophysical criteria. This speculation in and consequent use of unproved
farm sites had devastating results for some fledgling companies.
 
The influx of investors and entrepreneurs between 1985 and 1987 created a “gold rush” mentality, which
blinded people to the realities of the industry. Salmon farming in BC, despite its existence since the early 1970s, was still in a learning stage and relatively unproved for large volume production."

..........."Diseases, such as Bacterial Kidney Disease (BKD), vibriosis and marine anaemia, took a large toll during
this period. Attempts to maximize capital investment by holding fish at high densities only served to
maximize stress for the Pacific salmon, resulting in severe disease outbreaks. The industry averaged
losses of 30% of its production per year and some farms suffered losses as high as 70% in a given year.
Handling and grading also brought on outbreaks of disease.
 
The lack of trained farm staff with skills in fish health and fish husbandry, combined with a shortage of
veterinarians experienced in fish disease diagnosis and treatment, compounded the problems. Antibiotics
were applied in feeds to stem the losses but were ineffective because sick fish stop eating. This
challenged the industry and research institutions to find better ways to detect and monitor disease
organisms, as well as to develop preventative strategies, such as vaccination, to provide long term
protection for the fish.
 
In addition to disease problems, the Sunshine Coast was prone to nearly annual episodes of plankton
blooms that killed the farmed Coho and Chinook in great numbers. The recurring blooms caused salmon
farmers to leave the Sunshine Coast, beginning in 1987 and accelerating through 1988-89. Most migrated
north to the Campbell River / Desolation Sound area while others went to the west coast of Vancouver
Island in the area of Clayoquot Sound. These regions had cooler summer water temperatures and less
likelihood of blooms. More important, the new areas were less populated, which reduced possible conflicts
with other resource users"

and look what open pen farming has developed into.  I think it may be erronous to expect closed containment to fail.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2014, 06:46:10 PM by banx »
Logged

absolon

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 557
Re: Get your facts straight?
« Reply #748 on: March 22, 2014, 09:33:36 PM »

You're welcome to all of your opinions, and to all your hopes for closed containment. It matters not whether your perspective is realistic or not.

Those opinions don't change the fact that this particular instance was a fail and don't change the fact that after some 40 years of trying, no-one has been able to commercialize this kind of growout system for salmon. The laws of the applicable physics conflict with the laws of the applicable biology, and until that little dilemma is resolved, no-one is going to make this work.

It also doesn't change the fact that this kind of failure has a tremendous impact on the financial viability of the companies pursuing it, a cost that has so far been covered by grants, defaulted loans and investments that eat considerable investor capital. It is an extremely risky proposition.  No-one is suggesting that people shouldn't try to make it work, but personally, I'm not going to invest in it............ Are you?
Logged

banx

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 350
Re: Get your facts straight?
« Reply #749 on: March 23, 2014, 08:11:51 AM »

absolon. in all honesty my opinion does feel unrealistic.  To expect a process to change only because "it's good for the environment" will probably never happen.

like you said there is no comparison in profit margins between the two ways of raising salmon to market..... you can't give potential envronmental damage a dollar value to insert in a formula.

and with that, the two can never be compared equally.... my thoughts are that marketing of a closed containment product is what is going to help make them more viable. consumer education.

would I invest in personally. well I believe I am with the taxes I pay.  along with a host of things I disagree with.
Logged