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 1630961 times)

Dave

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3397
Re: Get your facts straight?
« Reply #420 on: October 12, 2013, 04:07:35 PM »

Fish farming takes over beef.

http://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/2013/update114
[/quote
Thanks for another interesting link Fisherbob ... and it's not from fish farmers ;D
Logged

banx

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 352
Re: Get your facts straight?
« Reply #421 on: October 12, 2013, 05:25:09 PM »

ya fish farming is taking over beef, we don't need the rainforest for oxygen, so why would we need the oceans.

 "As cattle ranches have displaced biologically rich rainforests, fish farms have displaced mangrove forests that provide important fish nursery habitats and protect coasts during storms. Worldwide, aquaculture is thought to be responsible for more than half of all mangrove loss, mostly for shrimp farming. In the Philippines, some two thirds of the country’s mangroves—over 100,000 hectares—have been removed for shrimp farming over the last 40 years."

could this also be applied to the dead zones around pens in canada. on both coasts?

just a beauty of an article, makes me all warm and fuzzy for the future.

"On the fish feed front, fishmeal producers are incorporating more seafood scraps into their products; today roughly a third of fishmeal is made up of food fish trimmings and other by-products. And some fish farmers are substituting livestock and poultry processing wastes and plant-based feeds for fishmeal and oil, which does not sound particularly appetizing, but does reduce pressure on wild stocks. From a sustainability standpoint, however, it would be preferable to shift the balance back in favor of farmed fish raised without feeds based on food grains, oilseeds, and protein from other animals."

miller light said it best I suppose:  "tastes great, less filling"
and if farmed fish, for sustainablility purposes, dont eat "food grains, oilseeds and protein from other animals" what the hell are they supposed to eat?  coffee and cigarettes?
« Last Edit: October 12, 2013, 05:28:53 PM by banx »
Logged

Dave

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3397
Re: Get your facts straight?
« Reply #422 on: October 12, 2013, 05:42:16 PM »

time to breathe banx ;)
Logged

troutbreath

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2908
  • I does Christy
Re: Get your facts straight?
« Reply #423 on: October 12, 2013, 09:01:53 PM »

The other by-products usually don't get printed up, because people don't like eating feces fed fish. Feces from all animals fed to farmed fish. That's why they taste so shi&&y. ;D Goes for Basa etc.
Logged
another SLICE of dirty fish perhaps?

shuswapsteve

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 894
Re: Get your facts straight?
« Reply #424 on: October 13, 2013, 12:39:56 AM »

Steve, yes I am very aware of the difference between disease and a virus.  Even though a salmon may suffer from many pathogens.  Those pathogens were present in the natural environment for millennia.  The pathogens contributed to the environment by the precence Atlantic salmon is new.  And the presence of Atlantic salmon can be controlled.

I don't follow after "virus".  What point are you trying to make?

Quote
[I had already mentioned that I don't support Morton, she was proven to be a stretcher of the truth.  And if the science was paid for by a special interest group it can be taken with a grain of truth if it comes from either side of the argument..... I also don't have the time to go through the hundreds of links being tossed around this forum.  But my main concern was a paper ensuring that virus mutation could not happen.  It's probably a few pages back and starts with www.freshfarmedsalmon.com  I would expect :)

With the exception of Ms Morton's virus surveillance work, the science that is being referred to "most" of the time is actually pretty good (IMO).  The issue I have is that science with this issue is being purposely misinterpreted in most cases to align with one's opinion.  If we really want science to hold up then we need to stop manipulating what these researchers are saying and look at all the results and conclusions.  I think it is hypocritical for Ms Morton to partake in a rally which is about "Standing Up For Science" when she is one of the worst offenders of misinterpreting science as well as censoring additional information from them (i.e. Dr. Miller) which adds important context.  Lastly, scientific authors like Ms Morton should expect questions about their work and be able to provide responses to those questions instead of ducking and running while at the same time making unsubstantiated claims under the shroud of science.   

Quote
The real fact. And Steve you can take it as you wish. But the fact that farms employ public relations companies means they are doing something wrong.  And a 95% survival rate is great.....because they are pumped full of drugs.  The meat is of a lesser quality. And always will be because it's unnatural.  This applies to beef, chicken, pork etc etc

I really don't know how people can be stewards of the environment and support open pen farms.  Because as a sport fisher, you generally respect your environment and care about its future.  Maybe you have a son in law working for a farm, or possibly stock options in a pension. And doing the best you can sounds like an excuse.  I think yoga said it best. Do or do not. There is no try

I disagree that reason fish farm companies employ public relations companies means they are doing something wrong.  Many industries, government agencies and NGOs have communications personnel to deal with inquiries from the media and general public as well as relaying information.  In the case of BC fish farms, I am interested in what you believe these public relation companies are considering that companies like Marine Harvest and Mainstream have staff that frequently response to media articles and questions from the public.

There is more to having a high survival rate than just the use of drugs.  What are all these drugs that farmed fish here in BC are having pumped into them?  If they are "pumped full" as you claim then what quantities are we talking about?  Are you aware that proper fish husbandry (even at fish hatcheries) employs many techniques to optimize fish health - not specifically drugs?  That includes biosecurity protocols and procedures; feed practices; reducing stress; and routinely monitoring fish health.  Secondly, medication is used as required - not preventively.  In fact, most of the feed used (98%) contains no medicines.  Thirdly, antibiotics used in BC farmed fish are veterinarian prescribed, so it is not just uncontrolled usage.   Fourthly, BC farmed fish are vaccinated to boost their immune systems and last only long enough to provoke an immune response.  Lastly, hormones and genetic modifications are not used in farmed fish in BC to promote growth (as you attempt to draw parallels to the terrestrial agriculture).  Those are the facts.

http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/ahc/fish_health/antibiotics.htm

Sorry, I don't have any family members or friends that work for a fish farm although I know members here that have more experience than I do with aquaculture (namely absolon).  I also do not have stock options in a pension relating to a fish farm....sorry again. 
« Last Edit: October 13, 2013, 12:42:05 AM by shuswapsteve »
Logged

banx

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 352
Re: Get your facts straight?
« Reply #425 on: October 13, 2013, 08:14:50 AM »

I don't follow after "virus".  What point are you trying to make?

You said that a salmon can carry many pathogens and not suffer from a disease. I'm sure they can with the pathogens that were present during their evolution. The introduction of new ones is the problem, sure these new pathogens aren't getting things sick yet..... but it's still early. and you have no guarantees on that.

"I disagree that reason fish farm companies employ public relations companies means they are doing something wrong.  Many industries, government agencies and NGOs have communications personnel to deal with inquiries from the media and general public as well as relaying information."

you make my point for me with that statement. you also inserted 'communications personnel' which takes the bite out of public relations.

"There is more to having a high survival rate than just the use of drugs.  What are all these drugs that farmed fish here in BC are having pumped into them?  If they are "pumped full" as you claim then what quantities are we talking about?  Are you aware that proper fish husbandry (even at fish hatcheries) employs many techniques to optimize fish health - not specifically drugs?  That includes biosecurity protocols and procedures; feed practices; reducing stress; and routinely monitoring fish health.  Secondly, medication is used as required - not preventively.  In fact, most of the feed used (98%) contains no medicines.  Thirdly, antibiotics used in BC farmed fish are veterinarian prescribed, so it is not just uncontrolled usage.   Fourthly, BC farmed fish are vaccinated to boost their immune systems and last only long enough to provoke an immune response.  Lastly, hormones and genetic modifications are not used in farmed fish in BC to promote growth (as you attempt to draw parallels to the terrestrial agriculture).  Those are the facts.

1. ok I used the term 'pumped full' to sensationalize it, manipulating the language to skew one's message is pretty common I think.  Probably more so in the 'communications' industry  ;)
I also suppose that since you are using the term 'drugs' in its plural form that more than one drug is being used.

2. and it's still not enough because it takes place in the open ocean.  so regardless of these husbandry techniques it will not be enough.... these are the issues steve; open pen, drugs in the ocean, close proximity in the ocean, don't know the future problems..... this is my concern with the science holding up. I have not questioned its accuracy, only the confidence being placed in it so that these practices can continue.  no one has a clue whats going to happen in 2 generations worth of this.

3. I would hope it is prescribed by a vet.  I actually expected it. I wonder how long before there is antibiotic resistance issues as well? or have farms encountered these problems already?

4.  so the expectation there is that they will get sick.

5.  there are many parallels with terrestrial agriculture.  use of hormones and genetic modification are probably the only 2 things it doesn't have in common....The beef industry has had a lot of confrontation with people  over the years.  I'm sure you would have remembered many of them. and that is where I draw my parallels. the way it has changed over the years, decreasing density, ethical slaughter, changes because of mad cow, and its ability to jump species, and now a hipster push for grass fed antibiotic/hormone free or real beef. don't forget the other problems it faced with waste control and contamination.  these issues relate, there is no denying that.

I suppose since you have no financial connection to the salmon farming industry you just like the taste of them.... was it aquired? I know I wasn't fond of my first beer. 
Logged

Novabonker

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1447
Re: Get your facts straight?
« Reply #426 on: October 13, 2013, 08:25:21 AM »

You said that a salmon can carry many pathogens and not suffer from a disease. I'm sure they can with the pathogens that were present during their evolution. The introduction of new ones is the problem, sure these new pathogens aren't getting things sick yet..... but it's still early. and you have no guarantees on that.

"I disagree that reason fish farm companies employ public relations companies means they are doing something wrong.  Many industries, government agencies and NGOs have communications personnel to deal with inquiries from the media and general public as well as relaying information."

you make my point for me with that statement. you also inserted 'communications personnel' which takes the bite out of public relations.

"There is more to having a high survival rate than just the use of drugs.  What are all these drugs that farmed fish here in BC are having pumped into them?  If they are "pumped full" as you claim then what quantities are we talking about?  Are you aware that proper fish husbandry (even at fish hatcheries) employs many techniques to optimize fish health - not specifically drugs?  That includes biosecurity protocols and procedures; feed practices; reducing stress; and routinely monitoring fish health.  Secondly, medication is used as required - not preventively.  In fact, most of the feed used (98%) contains no medicines.  Thirdly, antibiotics used in BC farmed fish are veterinarian prescribed, so it is not just uncontrolled usage.   Fourthly, BC farmed fish are vaccinated to boost their immune systems and last only long enough to provoke an immune response.  Lastly, hormones and genetic modifications are not used in farmed fish in BC to promote growth (as you attempt to draw parallels to the terrestrial agriculture).  Those are the facts.

1. ok I used the term 'pumped full' to sensationalize it, manipulating the language to skew one's message is pretty common I think.  Probably more so in the 'communications' industry  ;)
I also suppose that since you are using the term 'drugs' in its plural form that more than one drug is being used.

2. and it's still not enough because it takes place in the open ocean.  so regardless of these husbandry techniques it will not be enough.... these are the issues steve; open pen, drugs in the ocean, close proximity in the ocean, don't know the future problems..... this is my concern with the science holding up. I have not questioned its accuracy, only the confidence being placed in it so that these practices can continue.  no one has a clue whats going to happen in 2 generations worth of this.

3. I would hope it is prescribed by a vet.  I actually expected it. I wonder how long before there is antibiotic resistance issues as well? or have farms encountered these problems already?

4.  so the expectation there is that they will get sick.

5.  there are many parallels with terrestrial agriculture.  use of hormones and genetic modification are probably the only 2 things it doesn't have in common....The beef industry has had a lot of confrontation with people  over the years.  I'm sure you would have remembered many of them. and that is where I draw my parallels. the way it has changed over the years, decreasing density, ethical slaughter, changes because of mad cow, and its ability to jump species, and now a hipster push for grass fed antibiotic/hormone free or real beef. don't forget the other problems it faced with waste control and contamination.  these issues relate, there is no denying that.

I suppose since you have no financial connection to the salmon farming industry you just like the taste of them.... was it aquired? I know I wasn't fond of my first beer.

Thank you Mister Banx! Intelligent and well put, but expect farmfisherbawb to be along shortly with quotes and crap from farmfishnonsense.com. Wear your waders as it gets thick and deep with those "sources".


« Last Edit: October 13, 2013, 08:29:50 AM by Novabonker »
Logged
http://

shuswapsteve

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 894
Re: Get your facts straight?
« Reply #427 on: October 14, 2013, 12:00:34 AM »

You said that a salmon can carry many pathogens and not suffer from a disease. I'm sure they can with the pathogens that were present during their evolution. The introduction of new ones is the problem, sure these new pathogens aren't getting things sick yet..... but it's still early. and you have no guarantees on that.

Thank you for clarifying what you meant.  I agree that the introduction of new pathogens could present a problem, but there is a lot you have omitted which provides important context to this.  First, the BC fish farm industry primarily uses its own broodstock to propagate more fish.  The fact is that imports are quite limited.  Second, if eggs are imported they are screened for exotic diseases and those resulting fish are quarantined and monitored before they are reared any further.  Additionally, species imported from outside Canada for culture must be certified disease free so no impacts are expected.  Third, fish on BC fish farms are routinely monitored for endemic and exotic diseases –more so than wild fish.  Because exotic diseases like ISA are lethal to Atlantic Salmon it is very reasonable to conclude to that if they are here in a virulent form then we should expect to see them on the farms first with very obvious and massive fish loss.  This was stated by Dr. Nylund during the Cohen Commission aquaculture hearings.  By law, the detection of exotic viruses like ISAv has to be relayed to the CFIA.  Last, recent viral surveillance work (1st year of a multi-year study) by both the Washington State and Canada has not detected ISAv.

There are no guarantees on anything – not unlike other things we do in and around water.  As for things still being “early”…well salmon farming began in BC in the 1970s and there have not been any egg imports from Norway since 1985.  Fish farm critics frequently contend that exotic viruses like ISAv have been spread by egg imports; however, to date, there is no evidence of ISA or ISAv being detected in our waters.  In respect to Fraser Sockeye, Cohen said that the evidence does not allow him to conclude whether an ISAv or ISAv-like virus currently exists (Cohen Final Report: Vol. 2; Ch. 4; pg. 60).  Despite this, I agree with Dave that it is possible that a non-virulent virus like ISAv exists off our coast, but we really have not been looking for it.  I believe that Dr. Miller did find something interesting in this when she looked retrospectively at preserved samples; however, it should also be noted that Dr. Miller suggests that her retrospective work showed that the ISAv-like virus she found could have existed here before salmon farming started in BC.  This is important information is omitted in the Salmonconfidential film.  It does not necessarily mean that a non-virulent virus cannot turn into a more virulent form, but it also does not mean that it came from salmon farms here.  Again, to date, there is no evidence of that.

Quote
you make my point for me with that statement. you also inserted 'communications personnel' which takes the bite out of public relations.

Well, actually you sort of make the argument for communication personnel or public relations because many of your perceptions about salmon farming in BC are false.  If you would have contacted communications people like Grant Warkentin at Mainstream he would have addressed many of your perceptions about fish farming in BC.  If you still do not believe communications people the work for the BC industry than you can always visit a fish farm for yourself or even visit a federal salmon hatchery for that matter.

Quote
1. ok I used the term 'pumped full' to sensationalize it, manipulating the language to skew one's message is pretty common I think.  Probably more so in the 'communications' industry 
I also suppose that since you are using the term 'drugs' in its plural form that more than one drug is being used.

Ok, so you are critical of the “communications industry” of covering up or smoothing out definite wrong-doing, but you decide to use terms to sensationalize and manipulate the language to make your point….then suggest that using language to skew the message is “pretty common” – probably more so in the “communications industry”.  You do understand how hypocritical you sound right now?  If you are trying to show the shortcomings of public relations and the language they use it seemed to get lost in that quote above.  Why not just keep it real?  As for more than one drug being used I am not sure how many and what types of drugs are used although I believe the number of drugs (for bacterial infections) was eluded to in the link I provided last time.

Quote
5.  there are many parallels with terrestrial agriculture.  use of hormones and genetic modification are probably the only 2 things it doesn't have in common....The beef industry has had a lot of confrontation with people  over the years.  I'm sure you would have remembered many of them. and that is where I draw my parallels. the way it has changed over the years, decreasing density, ethical slaughter, changes because of mad cow, and its ability to jump species, and now a hipster push for grass fed antibiotic/hormone free or real beef. don't forget the other problems it faced with waste control and contamination.  these issues relate, there is no denying that.

I don’t necessarily disagree that there may be similarities with the way other industries have floundered and advanced.  I just wanted to point out that genetic modifications and hormones are not used.   Fish farming in BC has changed quite a bit since the 70s.  The way fish farmers raise fish has changed.  Analytical techniques that were likely dreamed about back in the infancy of the industry exist now.  Benthic monitoring of sites has also changed.  The regulatory environment that existed in the 70s for aquaculture here in BC is actually quite different now.  BC probably has the most stringent regulatory environment for net pen aquaculture in the world.

Quote
I suppose since you have no financial connection to the salmon farming industry you just like the taste of them.... was it aquired? I know I wasn't fond of my first beer.

If you really need to know I prefer to eat fish that I catch locally from small lakes.  I actually prefer halibut over salmon (wild or farmed) in a restaurant given the choice.  When I do decide to eat fish from a supermarket I usually get the farmed steelhead.  In my opinion, if fish is improperly cared for after catching it or is not cooked properly it doesn’t matter whether it is farmed or wild – it will all taste sub-par.  I can also tell you other interesting things like which side I like my toilet paper to come off the roll if you like…lol.

http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/reporting-rapports/egg-oeuf-eng.html
Logged

banx

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 352
Re: Get your facts straight?
« Reply #428 on: October 14, 2013, 08:49:25 AM »

Thank you for clarifying what you meant.  I agree that the introduction of new pathogens could present a problem, but there is a lot you have omitted which provides important context to this.

There are no guarantees on anything – not unlike other things we do in and around water.  As for things still being “early”…well salmon farming began in BC in the 1970s and there have not been any egg imports from Norway since 1985.  Fish farm critics frequently contend that exotic viruses like ISAv have been spread by egg imports; however, to date, there is no evidence of ISA or ISAv being detected in our waters.  In respect to Fraser Sockeye, Cohen said that the evidence does not allow him to conclude whether an ISAv or ISAv-like virus currently exists (Cohen Final Report: Vol. 2; Ch. 4; pg. 60).  Despite this, I agree with Dave that it is possible that a non-virulent virus like ISAv exists off our coast, but we really have not been looking for it.  I believe that Dr. Miller did find something interesting in this when she looked retrospectively at preserved samples; however, it should also be noted that Dr. Miller suggests that her retrospective work showed that the ISAv-like virus she found could have existed here before salmon farming started in BC.  This is important information is omitted in the Salmonconfidential film.  It does not necessarily mean that a non-virulent virus cannot turn into a more virulent form, but it also does not mean that it came from salmon farms here.  Again, to date, there is no evidence of that.

Well, actually you sort of make the argument for communication personnel or public relations because many of your perceptions about salmon farming in BC are false.  If you would have contacted communications people like Grant Warkentin at Mainstream he would have addressed many of your perceptions about fish farming in BC.  If you still do not believe communications people the work for the BC industry than you can always visit a fish farm for yourself or even visit a federal salmon hatchery for that matter.

Ok, so you are critical of the “communications industry” of covering up or smoothing out definite wrong-doing, but you decide to use terms to sensationalize and manipulate the language to make your point….then suggest that using language to skew the message is “pretty common” – probably more so in the “communications industry”.  You do understand how hypocritical you sound right now?  If you are trying to show the shortcomings of public relations and the language they use it seemed to get lost in that quote above.  Why not just keep it real? 

How are my perceptions of farms false? what am I ommiting?

 I'm pretty sure they are done in the open ocean, the fish are kept in close proximity and a host of antibiotics and meds are used in the open ocean.  You've actually gone as far to describe the husbandry techniques in great detail. thank you. 

I tried to pull up my old facebook messages because I was in contact with a pro farm site and I had addressed my conerns to them. They are not there now. and they are the same concerns I have addressed on this forum.
I have visited a few hatcheries in my years, one of my best friends works for one.  A hatchery is in my eyes different than a farm.  I don't see farms dumping fingerlings and yearlings into the rivers so that we can try and catch them in 4 years. I've also yet to visit a hatchery that is growing fish in an open pen in the ocean. I also believe that hatchery fish stop eating pellets when they are dumped in fresh water and begin eating natural food....

you said salmon farming is not new, you gave me the years 1970 and 1985.

roughly 6 million years of evolution is a long time. 43 years seems 'early' to me. especially with pathogen mutation. these new pathogens have been introduced recently in my eyes as salmon have had millions of years to adapt or evolve to deal with the pathogens that were present in the environment during their evolution.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3352440/figure/fig01/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3352440/

Look, a few years ago sea lice was blamed on farms. The public relations companies employed by farms downplayed the issue as much as saying that farms are not responsible.  Of course now that more is known the song has changed......  the entire website called BC Salmon facts is a work of public relations art.

one fact they have on their homepage is "farmers work to protect wild salmon from sea lice" so theres your spin, from denial, to downplaying to now being stewards of the environment protecting wild salmon.

that is hypocritical. and ya so was I, and so have you been. I have been very 'real'.  There is so much to lose steve and so much were doing wrong. we have no idea what the long term consequences will be. which you admit to.  So how do you consider this endeavour a safe gamble?

saying its safe now because there are no immediate consequences in the environment is one of the most ridiculously optimistic ways of looking at farms possible. 

its wonderful that steps are in place to try and regulate and monitor. It really is.  I just feel the costs outweigh the benefits of open pen farms.



edit* I like my toilet paper to roll from the front. Aesthetically I think its more pleasing to the eye  ;D
« Last Edit: October 14, 2013, 09:05:12 AM by banx »
Logged

shuswapsteve

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 894
Re: Get your facts straight?
« Reply #429 on: October 16, 2013, 01:03:49 AM »

How are my perceptions of farms false? what am I omitting?

You are omitting and in some cases exaggerating the facts of salmon farming in BC.  It is right there in your posts.  First, you keep contending that fish farm companies in BC have hired public relations companies and that the research from them is from a lobbyist point of view and it is paid for by them.  I asked you who these “hired companies” are and have not received an answer.  In addition, I explained to you already that much of the science referred to by the industry in their blogs is from peer-review studies done by non-governmental scientists (i.e. universities, Pacific Salmon Commission, Norwegian Veterinary Institute; even Ms. Morton, Dr. Krkosek, and Dr. Kibenge) and governmental scientists (DFO, MOE, WDFW).  The Cohen Final Report is also referred to on those pro-fish farming sites you despise.  These pro-fish farming blogs also refer to exact follow up tests (specifically ISAv and ISA) by Morton which does not support her findings.  The funny thing is that many of these same studies are also on anti-salmon farm sites, but people like Ms Morton purposely misinterprets or omits important results in order for the study to align with her opinion.

Like anti-fish farm blogs, the BC fish farm industry and private individuals who have affiliation to fish farming and support it have the right to dispel false claims and incorrect assumptions.  I don’t fish farm and I am not affiliated with the industry but I do see why they have these blogs.  Social media is a powerful tool and if antis are going to use it then those who support fish farming are going to use it also.  If you feel like it is incorrect then you are free to post a rebuttal on their blogs.  On the other hand, in my experience, if people attempt to post fair comments on Morton’s blog or the Salmon Are Sacred webpage which do not align with the anti’s view of salmon farming they have their posts deleted.  One gentleman attempted to correct one fish farm critic on the Salmon Are Sacred site who mistakenly called a Sockeye Salmon carcass a Chinook Salmon carcass.  This critic then went onto blame salmon farms for lesions on the sides of the fish.  The person who tried to correct the obvious species misidentification had his post deleted.  Who is really covering up wrong doing?

Second, you make comparisons to cattle farming where I admit there are some similarities, but you stretch things a lot by saying they are pumped full of drugs – with reference to hormones and antibiotics.  The industry openly admits to using antibiotics, but their usage needed clarification and context which you did not mention (note that the link I provided on this did not start with Salmonfarmscience).  Hormones are not used by the BC industry, but one of your responses attempted to make this connection.

Third, you conclude that the way things are farmed in open pens (I suspect this includes BC) is wrong and then go onto to conclude that because of this fish will get sick, the product will be of a lesser quality and then someone will be needed to tell you how good the product is.  Well, I admit that the industry will say how good their product is because they certainly are not going to denounce it.  However, you have not articulated to me what exactly they are doing wrong which is going to cause their fish to get sick.  More importantly, you have not articulated “the way things are done now in open pens” to me.  If you started from a point of actual knowledge about what you were taking about I would not have replied the way I have.  As I tried to explain to you there is a lot more to fish husbandry than what many fish farm critics think they know.  Having sick fish is not in the best interests of someone trying to raise fish - either on a fish farm or in a fish hatchery.  Although raising fish on fish farms and raising fish in hatcheries have their differences they also have their similarities – notably to be proactive in preventing and monitoring pathogens and having biosecurity protocols and procedures.  I used to work at a couple fish hatcheries in my younger years.

Quote
I'm pretty sure they are done in the open ocean, the fish are kept in close proximity and a host of antibiotics and meds are used in the open ocean.  You've actually gone as far to describe the husbandry techniques in great detail. thank you.

One thing for certain is that aquaculture is not going away.  I am not certain net pens aquaculture worldwide is going to go close containment or not, but there is certainly demand for aquaculture products (not just finfish) worldwide and it is increasing annually.  I feel that we are not going to meet demand by catching them commercially.  Catching fish like we have been in mixed stock fisheries has been far more damaging than open net pen fish farming (IMO).

Honestly, I am not particular concerned if the industry here in BC ever decides to go to close containment.  In fact, I encourage more science in this area even if the economics on a larger scale are not great right now.  I also support the Cohen recommendations and I am willing to look at any new information that may come it – good or bad for the industry, but I don’t believe critics will accept anything contrary to their beliefs in 10 years from now.

Quote
you said salmon farming is not new, you gave me the years 1970 and 1985.

roughly 6 million years of evolution is a long time. 43 years seems 'early' to me. especially with pathogen mutation. these new pathogens have been introduced recently in my eyes as salmon have had millions of years to adapt or evolve to deal with the pathogens that were present in the environment during their evolution.

What new pathogens have been introduced recently here and how were they introduced?  We need to start somewhere so let’s start here.

Quote
Look, a few years ago sea lice was blamed on farms. The public relations companies employed by farms downplayed the issue as much as saying that farms are not responsible.  Of course now that more is known the song has changed......  the entire website called BC Salmon facts is a work of public relations art.

one fact they have on their homepage is "farmers work to protect wild salmon from sea lice" so theres your spin, from denial, to downplaying to now being stewards of the environment protecting wild salmon.

More is known about sea lice and there are also some unknowns.  This was discussed at length in the Cohen Final Report.  BC Salmon farmers do not deny that sea lice levels can amplify near farms, but critics do not tell the whole story which includes lice levels on farms; the lack of local extinction that was predicted for Pink Salmon in the Broughton area; the use of SLICE (how much, when, impacts); the increase of Pinks in the North Pacific; fallowing of sites; the involvement fish farmers with other groups (which includes environmentalists) with regard to sea lice management (BAMP); and how fish on farms are monitored for lice.  Fish farm critics also fail to acknowledge research which runs contrary to their beliefs like the one below.  In fact you won’t find this study on Morton’s blog or the Salmonconfidential.ca website.  However, you will find it on those pro-fish farm blogs you dislike.  I can find it for you on those sites if you want.

http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2010/10/09/icesjms.fsq146.abstract

Quote
that is hypocritical. and ya so was I, and so have you been. I have been very 'real'.  There is so much to lose steve and so much were doing wrong. we have no idea what the long term consequences will be. which you admit to.  So how do you consider this endeavour a safe gamble?

Where have I been hypocritical?  If you call saying “pumped full of drugs” being “real” then you have a much different interpretation than I.  To clarify, I also said that there are no guarantees and this goes for many (if not all) activities we do in and around water.  We do much more risky endeavours where we are actually seeing the results in some cases, but do not hold those activities to the same standard as fish farming.  I do agree that there are data gaps and these were outline by Cohen.  I am not unwilling to look at new research that comes available that might support your views, but I also realize that there are other things going on that may not have any connection to salmon farming that also need attention.

Quote
saying its safe now because there are no immediate consequences in the environment is one of the most ridiculously optimistic ways of looking at farms possible.

Again, fish farm opponents have repeatedly stated that exotic diseases have come here via egg imports.  Egg imports are basically non-existent now as farms here use their own broodstock.  However, if these exotic viruses bypassed the biosecurity measures I said earlier and the industry here is as “dirty” as you suggest then would it be reasonable to assume that exotic diseases like ISA would be killing millions of farmed fish – especially since diseases like ISA are lethal to Atlantic Salmon.  All viruses originate from the wild and they will mutate with or without salmon farms.  It does not mean that a non-virulent virus cannot become virulent, but I don’t think we need to be creating a lot of hysteria over possible mutations.  I would rather see research like the one being proposed by DFO, the Pacific Salmon Foundation and Genome BC proceed to help provide greater insight.  Like Dave, I believe there are much greater obstacles to salmon that we should be concerned about.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2013, 01:21:22 AM by shuswapsteve »
Logged

troutbreath

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2908
  • I does Christy
Re: Get your facts straight?
« Reply #430 on: October 16, 2013, 08:00:53 AM »

"I asked you who these “hired companies” are and have not received an answer"

Get a life, you know a sure as slice that one group is EWOS types who produce the feed for them dirty fish. Man talk about tossing red herring around. Fibfarmerbob quote right from the other ones.
Logged
another SLICE of dirty fish perhaps?

banx

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 352
Re: Get your facts straight?
« Reply #431 on: October 16, 2013, 08:40:27 AM »

steve. I just gave you a site that was a total public relations company. and quoted them.... those are all public relation fronts.
"working to protect wild salmon"  which is hilarious. 

of course i'm going to use and manipulate the language to get my point across. its called articulation. having a vocabulary.  You do it with your eloquent posts that probably keep 98% of the people from saying anything because they don't want to be made foolish.

steve.... I'm not knocking the science. I've told you that.  It is tough to digest when it's paid for by a special interest.  regardless of which side of the fence they sit on.  like the irony of "truth in advertising"  and I will repeat I'm not a morton fan or supporter, I don't know why you keep talking about her when you reply to me. 

as for pathogens they would have been introduced when farming started.... You said that a salmon can suffer from many pathogens and not suffer from a disease.  So you agreed with me initially, then you tell me it doesn't happen?   so your saying nothing was introduced ever when farming took place?  that the ilnesses atlantic salmon suffer all came from pacific salmon? I will gladly read any info you can point me to regarding  the introduction of atlantics here in the pacific. Especially if it's related to early diseases and viruses.

is that why there are such stringent regulations in place? "some of the strictest in the world" as you said.

steve they use drugs, these drugs flow into the open oceans which you have no idea what they do to other animals. what more needs to be clarified? its drugs in the ocean.  thats the bottom line. you can quote husbandry techniques and say its vet prescribed.  but guess what, its the open ocean. is that not correct?  tell me that open net pens are not in the ocean. please tell me.

your paragrpah beginning with "third" makes my point for me, yet again.... thanks. This may be just a wild assumption, as i'm no scientist or fish farmer.  But my understanding is that when animals, fish in this case are in close proximity to each other they get sick at a much higher rate than they would in the wild or if they had more 'space'.   is that wrong also?

so the spin regarding sea lice was true.  yet you expect to have complete confidence in the farms public relations department now.  one great mind named shuswapsteve once told me something brilliant "fool me once shame on me fool me twice......."

steve, if the fish are getting sick and the food they eat has medicine in it, they are doing something wrong.  if my daughter is getting sick because of the environment I put her in. Its my fault and it means i'm doing something wrong.

you have told me i'm wrong about 5 times now, and you've been out to lunch on them. so much so that I would love to join you. I would even buy.  :)

I also agree that there are many other things that are effecting wild salmon stocks.  some we can control and some we can't.  Open pen farming is one we can.  so expect people, the misinformed, the radical, the hippie, the ones with too much time on their hands, the special interest groups, and the regular ol tax payer to question the practices and voice their concerns.

who wants fish crammed together in a pen in one of the most beautiful parts of the world defecating up a storm?   apparantly you and the farmers.

I have never in my life met anyone in person who supports open pen farming. not a soul. and i'm sure the people that have, can count their supporters on one hand.

I guess most citizens of this beautiful province are just as you like to put it "wrong".


 
« Last Edit: October 16, 2013, 08:52:25 AM by banx »
Logged

dnibbles

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 281
Re: Get your facts straight?
« Reply #432 on: October 16, 2013, 08:36:18 PM »



you have told me i'm wrong about 5 times now, and you've been out to lunch on them. so much so that I would love to join you. I would even buy.  :)



Be careful what you offer. Steve eats a lot. Could be an expensive lunch.
Logged

Novabonker

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1447
Re: Get your facts straight?
« Reply #433 on: October 16, 2013, 08:52:16 PM »

Thank you Mister Banx. I need time for my battle wounds from the farm boys to heal and I utterly lack your ability to express myself in anything near your ability to convey. Being a one finger typing kinda guy, I have to Reader's Digest my posts. I've explained clearly how an active lobstering area for generations ( my family settled there in 1751 ) in my native Nova Scotia no longer produces anything. The only thing that changed was a salmon farm was sited in the area. Obviously a smoking gun, all the response I got was there's "record lobster catches" - but not there. I've spoken at length with friends I've known since youth and they're pretty clear on what wiped out the area. The whole thing was done for a few jobs in a typically high unemployment jurisdiction. Should there be farms? Yes - on land, not in the ocean. I was impressed with David Suzuki's ideas about a feed based with maggots. Easily sustainable and would provide the protein needed without decimating other stocks.

And Steve's long posts don't annoy me. Farmfisherbawb's Pravda links do......... ;)
Logged
http://

absolon

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 557
Re: Get your facts straight?
« Reply #434 on: October 16, 2013, 09:53:45 PM »


as for pathogens they would have been introduced when farming started.... You said that a salmon can suffer from many pathogens and not suffer from a disease.  So you agreed with me initially, then you tell me it doesn't happen?   so your saying nothing was introduced ever when farming took place?  that the ilnesses atlantic salmon suffer all came from pacific salmon? I will gladly read any info you can point me to regarding  the introduction of atlantics here in the pacific.

Every egg introduced to support the BC farm industry was screened for pathogens at the source hatchery, screened for pathogens on arrival, reared in quarantine and screened again several times prior to being released into farm pens. That is an easy piece of information to access for anyone truly interested in the issue.

On the other hand, starting in 1905 and proceeding through until about 1935, some sixteen million Atlantic salmon were introduced as eggs, fry and smolts to various BC waters (http://msc.khamiahosting.com/sites/default/files/Timeline%20of%20Atlantic%20salmon%20in%20Pacific.pdf). These were brought in to try and establish a resident wild population to satisfy sports fishermen. As should be immediately apparent from the dates and technologies existing at that time, these salmon were neither screened for pathogens nor quarantined.

Even a halfwit should easily be able to tell which of the situations is the likelier vector should some non-native pathogen be present in our waters.
Logged