Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => Fishing-related Issues & News => Topic started by: alwaysfishn on August 20, 2012, 12:04:26 PM
-
According to a recent Fisheries and Oceans study the answer is, yes.
".......the analysis showed that RAS technology is marginally viable from a financial perspective, but that it presents a higher level of risk compared to netpen systems. ....... As with most developing or emerging technologies, once wider uptake within the sector is achieved, capital and operating costs may be expected to decrease. Should closed-containment technologies achieve a critical mass of production, economies of scale may be expected; capital items may cost less, and increased expertise could help to reduce operating costs." http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/lib-bib/nasapi-inpasa/BC-aquaculture-CB-eng.pdf (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/lib-bib/nasapi-inpasa/BC-aquaculture-CB-eng.pdf)
As I first read this I wondered why DFO would even bother doing a study like this if they truly believed the open net feedlots weren't harming our ocean environment. The answer I believe is obvious, even though they won't admit it, DFO knows the feedlots are dangerous and is working on a plan B.
-
So let me get this straight af …. DFO is backing something you have been whining about for ages and now you dump on them? Is it another conspiracy??
You are becoming a joke.
-
Another recent article concerning closed containment fish farming.
The writer asks "Would it not be more 'economical' to circumvent the expense of destruction and compensation by growing salmon in disease-free closed containment facilities. "
How You Can Have Your Healthy Environment and Eat Farmed Salmon Too.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/sue-scott/salmon-canada_b_1734084.html
-
Whats done with the efluent? Is it just dumped or treated if its treated then there goes the cost some more.
-
All farming efluent should be treated or used in a manner that is safe. The US has poluted their water aquafiers by not doing so. I would not touch a glass of water from the mid states. That's why they moved the feed lots to Alberta.
Good post AF
-
Yes, Thanks AF,
And a poll resulting in less than 14% of respondents supporting marine-based open net pen salmon farms
http://www.asf.ca/what-do-you-think-of-aquaculture-poll-results.html
-
So let me get this straight af …. DFO is backing something you have been whining about for ages and now you dump on them? Is it another conspiracy??
You are becoming a joke.
Why the insults Dave? Why not add something of value to the discussion rather than just flinging insults?
When I read this study I got a few things from it....
1. Contrary to what we keep hearing from the feedlot industry, closed containment is financially viable.
2. DFO knows there are problems with open net feedlots, otherwise they wouldn't have done any feasibility studies on closed containment.
-
Yes, Thanks AF,
And a poll resulting in less than 14% of respondents supporting marine-based open net pen salmon farms
http://www.asf.ca/what-do-you-think-of-aquaculture-poll-results.html
Thanks for posting that survey as well as the Huffington Post article, and welcome to the discussion!
As you've probably seen, the pro-feedlot crowd isn't all that friendly. When they don't have an answer to a question they act like schoolyard bullies and start throwing insults. Be prepared for it.
-
Why the insults Dave? Why not add something of value to the discussion rather than just flinging insults?
When I read this study I got a few things from it....
1. Contrary to what we keep hearing from the feedlot industry, closed containment is financially viable.
2. DFO knows there are problems with open net feedlots, otherwise they wouldn't have done any feasibility studies on closed containment.
I certainly don't get the same things from reading this that you did. What I see is that RAS technology can be marginally profitable, and more sensitive to factors outside the aquaculturists control (market price, exchange rate) that would then render it unprofitable.
I agree that RAS technology poses less risk to the marine environment (note I don't just say less risk. There is then the issue of effluent discharge into freshwater bodies, with a much lower dilution rate than what would be seen in the marine environment). With the economics I see in this report, it isn't an industry I would choose to put my money in right now. A 4% ROE after 3 years compared to over 50% ROE with open pens doesn't exactly scream financially viable to me (unless you propose that the industry receive significant govt subsidy).
I also don't see this report as DFO "knowing there is a problem" with open net pen technologies. What I see is a proactive approach to address a perceived issue from some parties with a balanced, quantitative analysis. No opinion, no slant, just numbers. It's called risk assessment and management. Assess the risks, both the likelihood and potential impact, and then assess options, risks that go along with options, and the potential benefits of options.
Once again, for the record (since we seem to have to provide disclaimers every post lest we be labelled a pro-feedlot shareholder, incompetent angler and non-report posting web lurker): I do not work in the feedlot industry, I derive zero income from the fish farm industry, I own several fly rods, level winds, centerpins, and spinning reels which I can cast without tangling, I tie my own flies, I catch and release, I have read Haig-Brown, I fish less now than I used to (working with fish every day seems to have driven me to spend more time in the mountains than on the rivers), I still spend 50+ days a year on the water, I gave up posting internet fishing reports when I was 19 and realized how pointless they are, and I've been around the fishing sites long enough to be bored of the majority of the other repetitive topics that continue to come up, hence the focus on this relatively new one. Not sure if this legitimizes my postings, but since these attributes have been called into question in previous posts (by those who are getting bullied lol), I figure I will be proactive as well.
-
The report also contains the following proviso:
However, these findings still need to be assessed—and their assumptions validated—in a real-life scenario.
The second link to the ASF article on closed containment rearing would imply that their exercise has been successful. The reality is that they have only this year completed their first harvest, production statistics and financial results unspecified, and the second crop, targeted to be 22 tonnes total over 24+ months, will be funded by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.
This same Foundation also subsidizes the Silver Springs RAS facility in Washington state, the most successful operation to date, to the tune of about $500,000 per year. That operation produces fish in the 2-4 lb range, 1/2 to 1/4 the size preferred by the markets.
The RAS system currently being setup on the North Island, based on a technical report produced for the BC government, has been funded with $800,000 of government money but is not yet operating.
To date, despite numerous attempts, there is no proven viable stand alone closed containment production rearing system for salmon.
-
Once again, for the record (since we seem to have to provide disclaimers every post lest we be labelled a pro-feedlot shareholder, incompetent angler and non-report posting web lurker): I do not work in the feedlot industry, I derive zero income from the fish farm industry, I own several fly rods, level winds, centerpins, and spinning reels which I can cast without tangling, I tie my own flies, I catch and release, I have read Haig-Brown, I fish less now than I used to (working with fish every day seems to have driven me to spend more time in the mountains than on the rivers), I still spend 50+ days a year on the water, I gave up posting internet fishing reports when I was 19 and realized how pointless they are, and I've been around the fishing sites long enough to be bored of the majority of the other repetitive topics that continue to come up, hence the focus on this relatively new one. Not sure if this legitimizes my postings, but since these attributes have been called into question in previous posts (by those who are getting bullied lol), I figure I will be proactive as well.
That's excellent! Why don't you put that in your profile, then you won't have to keep retyping it after each post..... ;D I find your posts generally informative and somewhat balanced. The fact you can cast a spinning reel without birds nesting it, also ups your rating in my books.
-
The report also contains the following proviso:
However, these findings still need to be assessed—and their assumptions validated—in a real-life scenario.
The second link to the ASF article on closed containment rearing would imply that their exercise has been successful. The reality is that they have only this year completed their first harvest, production statistics and financial results unspecified, and the second crop, targeted to be 22 tonnes total over 24+ months, will be funded by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.
This same Foundation also subsidizes the Silver Springs RAS facility in Washington state, the most successful operation to date, to the tune of about $500,000 per year. That operation produces fish in the 2-4 lb range, 1/2 to 1/4 the size preferred by the markets.
The RAS system currently being setup on the North Island, based on a technical report produced for the BC government, has been funded with $800,000 of government money but is not yet operating.
To date, despite numerous attempts, there is no proven viable stand alone closed containment production rearing system for salmon.
Yesterday, Apple became the largest corporation by market capitalization in the history of mankind..... They have become successful by being innovative while building product that is more expensive than the competition. Even though many people don't own an apple product, few people have anything negative to say about their products. Steve Jobs was famous for driving the organization to build product that the consumers want, not the cheapest product they could build.
Closed containment systems are not being used because we allow these foreign corporations to use our oceans as corporate cesspools... basically for free. If somebody in government had the guts to put a stop to this, the feedlots would have to become innovative. As innovation happens and is adopted, costs come down. With an approval rating for open feedlots of less than 15% they have huge opportunities to gain market approval.
-
Just a heads up Jobs was no angel, he stole most of Apples ideas, thats why I wont buy Apple.
-
Just a heads up Jobs was no angel, he stole most of Apples ideas, thats why I wont buy Apple.
Hahaha, but you'll buy sockeye off an Indian at your back yard fence, hahahahaha !!!!!
Your hilarious, I love it ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Just a heads up Jobs was no angel, he stole most of Apples ideas, thats why I wont buy Apple.
Then for your situation think about what would have happened if Henry Ford would have said "To date, despite numerous attempts, there is no proven viable automobile." I guess we'd still be driving horses and carriages...... ??? ::)
-
Hahaha, but you'll buy sockeye off an Indian at your back yard fence, hahahahaha !!!!!
Your hilarious, I love it ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Yup I did...
-
Then for your situation think about what would have happened if Henry Ford would have said "To date, despite numerous attempts, there is no proven viable automobile." I guess we'd still be driving horses and carriages...... ??? ::)
If Ford had said that he would have been correct, in fact he likely did, and it wouldn't have made a difference to the development of a machine that combined existing technologies.
-
After reading the document I did not get the impression that RAS technology was what opponents of net pen fish farms make it out to be (at least at the present time). I agree with some of the others that say it can be marginally profitable at best. Increased labour and energy costs are not the only major hurdles mention in the report. If the price for farmed salmon changes once Chile ramps up production and other countries begin getting more involved in aquaculture (i.e. USA) it will definitely make RAS technology even less attractive. Add to that the ROE compared to net pen systems and it looks like RAS technology on a larger scale on our coast will need some improvements and some luck on the market-side of things. In my opinion, I just do not see it being a viable option anytime soon on a larger scale here in BC. It was interesting to see how the other systems faired in comparison also. I did not realize that the ROE on them was that poor.
I do not see the document as an admittance by DFO that net pen aquaculture is bad or “knows there is a problem”. The thing is that the department has been heavily criticized by net pen opponents for not embracing RAS technology (or at least considering it), for not thinking about the well being of wild salmon and being in a conflict of interest with the BC industry. What this document shows is that the department is trying to respond to these concerns from all sides of the debate by doing a thorough analysis (technical and financial) of RAS and other systems by utilizing numerous experts on this issue. I think it is legitimate attempt to try to benefit all stakeholders (industry, environmentalists, and the general public) to see if there is some middle ground. However, like most things in life you are damned if you do and damned it you don’t. Doing a risk analysis is a pretty standard thing to do and does not necessarily mean that RAS will never work or be adopted, but with everything you need some sort of starting point and some information to make the best informed decisions possible.
-
you would have to be pretty naive to expect that DFO would or will say anything negative about the fish farm industry, after all they are mandated to assist the aqua industry.
as for closed containment: if proven that it is less likely to pollute or contaminate the ocean then that is what should be used and yes effluent should be treated to the standards set out for other industries.
as for additional costs? hey , that is the industry's problem, just as with any of the other industries they also have to foot the bill, if that makes the product too costly, C'est la vie.
We have for too long underpriced the value of our wild stock, The production of the farmed fish may well allow the fare to be affordable to more markets but all the pro's and con's have to be weighed up. it is not simply price per pound it is what is included in that price per pound that is important.
to simply deny that there is any negative effect to the environment is dishonest and ignorant, as is blaming the Aqua industry for the demise of the wild stocks, that is simply not true either. With that said, I still do not like the practices of the Aqua industry and somewhat their attitude towards the general public. I think, what is required, is a completely impartial and unbiased review published, when that is complete a public referendum held on whether this industry should remain on our coast. There is no reason that with technology today , we can't do this.
The Environmental agencies whether federal or provincial, should be unfettered by politics and only have one mandate, that is to look out for the environment, all reports and operations should be completely transparent.
-
Somehow it doesn't seem to matter if they harvest successfully they sell if it gets disease they kill them all and the taxpayers pay ...win win for them
-
Latest update on the K’udas Closed Containment Project: http://www.namgis.bc.ca/CCP/Documents/Project%20Backgrounder%202012-06-14.pdf (http://www.namgis.bc.ca/CCP/Documents/Project%20Backgrounder%202012-06-14.pdf)
-
you would have to be pretty naive to expect that DFO would or will say anything negative about the fish farm industry, after all they are mandated to assist the aqua industry.
as for closed containment: if proven that it is less likely to pollute or contaminate the ocean then that is what should be used and yes effluent should be treated to the standards set out for other industries.
as for additional costs? hey , that is the industry's problem, just as with any of the other industries they also have to foot the bill, if that makes the product too costly, C'est la vie.
What kind of car do you drive Sandy? Electric, or internal combustion engine? Electrics are pretty expensive hey? But they are proven to pollute less. Should we ban internal combustion engines tomorrow?
Just sayinnnnnn'
-
What kind of car do you drive Sandy? Electric, or internal combustion engine? Electrics are pretty expensive hey? But they are proven to pollute less. Should we ban internal combustion engines tomorrow?
Just sayinnnnnn'
what is your point ?
perhaps you can try another comparative analogy?
Are Electric cars really less polluting ? not if you count indirect effects on the enviroment.
just sayin!
-
you would have to be pretty naive to expect that DFO would or will say anything negative about the fish farm industry, after all they are mandated to assist the aqua industry.
as for closed containment: if proven that it is less likely to pollute or contaminate the ocean then that is what should be used and yes effluent should be treated to the standards set out for other industries.
as for additional costs? hey , that is the industry's problem, just as with any of the other industries they also have to foot the bill, if that makes the product too costly, C'est la vie.
We have for too long underpriced the value of our wild stock, The production of the farmed fish may well allow the fare to be affordable to more markets but all the pro's and con's have to be weighed up. it is not simply price per pound it is what is included in that price per pound that is important.
to simply deny that there is any negative effect to the environment is dishonest and ignorant, as is blaming the Aqua industry for the demise of the wild stocks, that is simply not true either. With that said, I still do not like the practices of the Aqua industry and somewhat their attitude towards the general public. I think, what is required, is a completely impartial and unbiased review published, when that is complete a public referendum held on whether this industry should remain on our coast. There is no reason that with technology today , we can't do this.
The Environmental agencies whether federal or provincial, should be unfettered by politics and only have one mandate, that is to look out for the environment, all reports and operations should be completely transparent.
And that mandate was gifted them by the illustrious Alexandra Morton Ain't she sweet ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
-
And that mandate was gifted them by the illustrious Alexandra Morton Ain't she sweet ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
You are giving Morton a way too much credit...... "Under section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867, the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over the conservation and protection of Canada's sea coast and inland fisheries. The Fisheries Act, first passed by Parliament in 1868, is the federal statute promulgated pursuant to this constitutional authority."
-
And you are trying to deny reality. As has been pointed out over and over and over and even acknowledged by Morton herself, it was her court challenge that transferred responsibility for the farms to DFO. Until that time, DFO was perfectly willing to accept that BC placed farms in the jurisdiction of agriculture, a provincial responsibility, and allow BC to manage them.
-
And you are trying to deny reality. As has been pointed out over and over and over and even acknowledged by Morton herself, it was her court challenge that transferred responsibility for the farms to DFO. Until that time, DFO was perfectly willing to accept that BC placed farms in the jurisdiction of agriculture, a provincial responsibility, and allow BC to manage them.
"Perfectly willing" didn't really line up with the law did it? In the end whoever prompted DFO to follow the law is irrelevant. Try to get over it.
-
Nobody cared that perfectly willing didn't line up with the law. The situation was accepted by both DFO and the province until Morton, in an attempt to block a plan which would have seen fallowing of farm sites along a migration route during migration, decided that no-one could negotiate any solution without her personal approval and took the issue to court. Incidentally, the part of the plan which had been approved by the province before the case blocked any further permitting was implemented anyway and was successful. The only thing Morton accomplished was to force DFO to take responsibility and damage her own credibility.
-
Nobody cared that perfectly willing didn't line up with the law. The situation was accepted by both DFO and the province until Morton, in an attempt to block a plan which would have seen fallowing of farm sites along a migration route during migration, decided that no-one could negotiate any solution without her personal approval and took the issue to court. Incidentally, the part of the plan which had been approved by the province before the case blocked any further permitting was implemented anyway and was successful. The only thing Morton accomplished was to force DFO to take responsibility and damage her own credibility.
Do you see everything different from what really happened???
-
The reason for the legal challenge in Ms. Mortons own words in response to my question to her:
The reason I went to court started with a deal between Marine Harvest and a coalition of enviros I was part of. To allow Marine Harvest to fallow one route of Broughton every spring Marine Harvest said their farms and to be 2-3 times bigger. The enviros were good with that, but I wasn't because as part of my sea lice research I examined thousands of juvenile salmon (live) as they approached and passed the fish farms in Broughton. Sea lice is a numbers game. They are allowed only a few live per fish, but if they triple the number of fish of course the lice numbers increase. SO I left the coalition and found a lawyer to get an injunction and he said "you know what this whole thing is not legal" they are not farms and should not be managed by the province who have no responsibility to the wild fish. Actually the whole concept of fish farming in net pens runs counter to the Constitution of Canada because no one is allowed to privatize ocean spaces or own fish in the marine waters..... However, the feds are as bad as the province and with Harper hacking away at the Fisheries Act, there really is no progress except that the Broughton sites remain in their original size, most are expired because First Nations refuse to OK their renewal
Found here: http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/showthread.php?19113-What-can-WE-do-to-help-save-the-salmon&p=229393&viewfull=1#post229393
(http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/showthread.php?19113-What-can-WE-do-to-help-save-the-salmon&p=229393&viewfull=1#post229393)
Excerpts from the record of the abbreviated fallowing plan as described by one of the organizations opposing farms:
....In the spring of 2009 during the wild salmon out-migration (March 1st-June 30th), MHC began implementing CAMP. Only the farm at Wicklow Point at the far western end of Fife Sound was still stocked as the company could not obtain the necessary license amendments to move the fish to the Knight Inlet route that year.......
.......Analysis of the data is ongoing, however in July 2009, MHC and CAAR issued a joint media release noting that both their results and the results of independent Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) research suggested lower levels of sea lice in 2009 in the Broughton Archipelago. DFO researcher Brent Hargreaves independently conducted wild fish surveys in 2009 with results indicating that levels of lice on wild fish during March and April 2009 were generally much lower than the levels that occurred from 2003-2007...........
http://www.farmedanddangerous.org/solutions/emergency-protection/coordinated-area-management/ (http://www.farmedanddangerous.org/solutions/emergency-protection/coordinated-area-management/)
-
Whether Morton got DFO and the province to abide by the Canadian Constitution or whether they decided to follow the law on their own is totally irrelevant. The key point is that they are now both following the law as set out in the Canadian Constitution. Can you imagine if everybody did there own thing and didn't follow predefined guidelines like a constitution?
It's just another one of the silly irrelevant points, you and all the feedlot proponents keep bringing up because of the hate you have on for Morton and the work she is doing to reveal the truth about what these feedlot companies are doing to our oceans...
By the way..... why did you get chased off that forum?
-
Thanks for posting that survey as well as the Huffington Post article, and welcome to the discussion!
As you've probably seen, the pro-feedlot crowd isn't all that friendly. When they don't have an answer to a question they act like schoolyard bullies and start throwing insults. Be prepared for it.
Thanks AF,
Don't worry, I've seen and heard some of the proponents lies and half-truths for many years, looks like normal business practice for some of them, while others seem cordial and forthright.
Then there are others that expect respect , but often show none, and may be bent on site or thread destruction.
Apparently, even some of the open-net pen salmon feedlot companies have trouble meeting their commitments to the banks and hope things improve next year.
www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-11/fredriksen-fish-farmer-chokes-on-salmon-glut-corporate-finance.html
Maybe the reported and destroyed IHN culls here will help support salmon market prices and prove to be a benefit to some farm companies, especially if they are compensated by insurance or the taxpayers. I don't understand why an insurance company would cover these kind of losses though, nor understand why the taxpayers should.
Then some companies , with strong financial backing, will lose money for years till their competition is gone.
Thanks again
-
Then there are others that expect respect , but often show none, and may be bent on site or thread destruction.
So true.......
One of his quotes (taken from another forum): "I'm wondering if you appreciate the concept that insults don't make good arguments for or against anything and that the consistent reliance on them reflects your own shortcomings much more than those of anyone else."
Judging by the content of many of his posts, he believes that applies to everyone but himself. ???