Aquaculture improving?..The Fish Farm Thread

and - as always - it's about the $ not the impacts to the wild fish:

If people didn't want it, the price would reflect that , just the same as any other commodity or your labour? Do you work for less these days?
Demand is there cost go up, simple
 
Kinda like recreational fishing when groups like SFI put out news reports about how many billions it contributes to the economy.

I don’t think wild fish have ever been in the equation. Even Elmo did it for her commercial fishing neighbors
 
and - as always - it's about the $ not the impacts to the wild fish:

Only 2 billion in GDP. Small potatoes for Canada.

If FF go onto a land based operation that GDP number goes up at that point. Seems like a no brainer for an economist
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't be surprised if this latest from Almo results in a lawsuit.
If so - she's won a few cases before:




and those decisions have been used in other numerous court cases since then:




 

Stan Proboszcz​

“Big news — 16 of Canada’s leading Pacific salmon scientists just released a letter destroying a new DFO science report that claims parasitic sea lice from factory fish farms do not have a significant impact on wild salmon.​

One of these scientists, Dr. Sean Godwin, said, “it is one of the worst pieces of science I’ve ever seen come out of a government agency.”

The scientists said "this report fails to meet widely accepted scientific standards on numerous fronts, and therefore falls well short of the quality of science advice that you need to make informed decisions on the future of salmon aquaculture in Canada. Wild salmon deserve better.”
TRANSLATION: The DFO report is junk and Joyce Murray, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, should ignore it.”
 

Stan Proboszcz​

“Big news — 16 of Canada’s leading Pacific salmon scientists just released a letter destroying a new DFO science report that claims parasitic sea lice from factory fish farms do not have a significant impact on wild salmon.​

One of these scientists, Dr. Sean Godwin, said, “it is one of the worst pieces of science I’ve ever seen come out of a government agency.”

The scientists said "this report fails to meet widely accepted scientific standards on numerous fronts, and therefore falls well short of the quality of science advice that you need to make informed decisions on the future of salmon aquaculture in Canada. Wild salmon deserve better.”
TRANSLATION: The DFO report is junk and Joyce Murray, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, should ignore it.”
it seems DFO - and esp the aquaculture department - is incapable of embarrassment - or even professionalism for that matter. One needs morals to be embarrassed, so it seems.
 
"Here mister scientist, how about I pay you a million bucks and you make it so we can still operate our xxbillion dollar industry with free overhead."

"No problem mister aquaculture man, that sounds great. I always wanted a recreational property and a new car"
 
it seems DFO - and esp the aquaculture department - is incapable of embarrassment - or even professionalism for that matter. One needs morals to be embarrassed, so it seems.

the best part, its all the departments fault and the liberals don't have any of it stick to them.

Meanwhile David Suzuki is posing with the minister for pictures.

personally i think that's a miss calculation but i can see why they doing it this way
 
the best part, its all the departments fault and the liberals don't have any of it stick to them.

Meanwhile David Suzuki is posing with the minister for pictures.

personally i think that's a miss calculation but i can see why they doing it this way
I think most would agree DFO is only acting on instructions from our politicians who are doing their best to walk the tight rope of supporting Fish Farms and the jobs they create. The fact is Fish Farms are killing wild salmon and it also effects employment but not so obvious or measurable.
 
I think most would agree DFO is only acting on instructions from our politicians who are doing their best to walk the tight rope of supporting Fish Farms and the jobs they create. The fact is Fish Farms are killing wild salmon and it also effects employment but not so obvious or measurable.

Honestly if they put them on land they would create 10 times the jobs for the startup portion and be on the hydro bill like everyone else adding to the GDP by double what they are at now. It's overhead they don't want. Even if it's at our own cost. It's simple math.

As a business outlook they could do better in the end. Cleaner product, cheaper food because now they don't need as many drugs in the food etc. However the cost rises in power obviously and machine maintenance. On that level they could pump out twice the product in half the time if they engineered it.
 
They way I read the closed containment/ONP methodologies and debate is that currently - the ONP industry receives free pumping, free sewerage disposal and free real estate that allows them to not spend monies on these necessities and thereby pass these increased dividends onto their shareholders - along with the reduced taxes in Canada as compared to Norway:


Where's the impetus for change? Why would ONP multinationals want to change the status quo - irrespective of any potential impacts to adjacent wild salmon stocks - their competitor in the marketplace?

Closed containment - on the other hand - is more expensive due to the additional costs outlined above and typically operates on lower production biomass. There needs to be a higher premium paid for these CC-raised fish - which is hard when they currently compete in a market with ONP-raised fish. That financial reality pushes their product into a "niche" market only where they can get a slight premium. This would all change if we only allowed CC - but that is not currently the case.

And other countries would still do ONP (esp chile) and its like many things - a race to the bottom there wrt environmental enforcement and effects. That's why there is a substantial PR industry attached to this ONP industry - to facilitate the status quo by interjecting doubt - where the Aquaculture Department in DFO is complicit in that deception by rejecting and changing inconvenient science as their jobs and research $ depend upon an existing ONP industry.

As but only 1 example - Simon Jones is an adjunct prof at UPEI - which gets money from DFO, industry and other sources for aquaculture research.

Also, he has tapped into the ACRDP funding that requires industry participation and a veto:

Type his name in the search bar.
 
Last edited:
A Canadian company moving beyond aquaculture to produce a salmon-like product. Is this the future?
 
DFO sea lice report was manipulated.

The same story was in todays Times Colonist and is spreading high and wide.
Another example of DFO and Fish Farms using false science to support their cause.

"A pattern of scientific manipulation?"

Mordecai said the manipulation of data and biased conclusions are the same strategies DFO has relied on when it comes to analyzing the impact of Piscine orthoreovirus (PRV), a debilitating virus widely seen in Atlantic salmon. It can transmit through open-water pens into wild Pacific salmon populations.
“We've seen this in the past,” said Mordecai, pointing to previous DFO risk analyses in the Discovery Islands and elsewhere. “...these are the same strategies.”
Sean Godwin, a post-doctoral fellow at SFU and incoming assistant professor at University of California, Davis, said the DFO study simply amounted to bad science.

DFO doctored sea lice study, claim 16 scientists - Vancouver Is Awesome
Disgraced DFO Sea Lice Report Has So Many Holes, It Can’t Possibly Float | ComoxValley.News
DFO doctored sea lice study, claim 16 scientists - Alaska Highway News
A scientific sin': 16 Canadian salmon scientists claim DFO sea lice report was manipulated (headtopics.com)
DFO sea lice report contains ‘serious scientific failings’: experts | The Narwhal
 
They way I read the closed containment/ONP methodology is that currently - the ONP industry receives free pumping, free sewerage disposal and free real estate that allows them to not spend monies on these necessities and thereby pass these increased dividends onto their shareholders - along with the reduced taxes in Canada as compared to Norway.

Where's the impetus for change? Why would ONP multinationals want to change the status quo - irrespective of any potential impacts to adjacent wild salmon stocks - their competitor in the marketplace?

Closed containment - on the other hand - is more expensive due to the additional costs outlined above. There needs to be a higher premium paid for these CC-raised fish - which is hard when they currently compete in a market with ONP-raised fish. That financial reality pushes their product into a "niche" market only where they can get a slight premium. This would all change if we only allowed CC - but that is not currently the case.

And other countries would still do ONP (esp chile) and its like many things - a race to the bottom there wrt environmental enforcement and effects. That's why there is a substantial PR industry attached to this ONP industry - to facilitate the status quo by interjecting doubt - where the Aquaculture Department in DFO is complicit in that deception by rejecting and changing inconvenient science as their jobs and research $ depend upon an existing ONP industry.

As but only 1 example - Simon Jones is an adjunct prof at UPEI - which gets money from DFO, industry and other sources for aquaculture research.

Also, he has tapped into the ACRDP funding that requires industry participation and a veto:

Type his name in the search bar.

Bla bla bla, almost any industry that grows food gets "land for free" ffs, ever heard of ALR?
How about each and every shellfish lease?
Tired of the of "they get this and that for next to nothing"
 
Back
Top