Aquaculture improving?..The Fish Farm Thread

Thanks, RD. Happy to share. Esp. to push back against the crap that the PR firms & industry spit out - like the latest on wild pink salmon. I guess I could/should have gone a bit farther in on the pink question/answers.

Typically, the even year (only a 2 YO lifecycle, not 3-5 like the other species of salmon) pinks (year name resides with the returning, spawning adult salmon not the juvie outmigrators) are practically non-existent for many Southern BC watersheds - esp. the Fraser. By-and-large that's where the largest number of pink juvies come from that are outmigrating past the FFs in the Broughtons - odd year Fraser pinks that come out in the next spring - in the even years. For the more Northern watersheds - starting in the Central Coast of BC - it's often the other way around with even year that dominates adult abundances. But it's complex, and the abundances are rarely 0% even and 100% odd - but on average Coast-wide - it's the odd year that dominates:
View attachment 112952


And those relative even/odd pink abundances seem to change over the decades:
View attachment 112953

But lately, 1st Jim Irvine and then Greg Ruggerone have noticed there is an increasing dominance of odd-year returning pink salmon:

and this maybe affecting sockeye numbers - particularly the pinks pumped out by AK hatcheries:

Pinks are caught commercially mainly as a bycatch in sockeye fisheries. There is a limited market for their roe, but the buyers pay next to nothing for their supply so they aren't normally targeted in Canada; but AK does more with terminal fisheries for pinks, specifically than BC.
So maybe its not Canadian ff after all...its Alaskan pink ff, I mean pink salmon ranching in Alaska, no, no I mean Alaskan pink hatchery fish, or better yet "Wild Caught" Alaskan salmon.. got it
 
Ya, I have plenty of concerns/critiques on what AK does wrt stock assistance, in particular. They have a very large hatchery-driven "ocean ranching" program with terminal fisheries. Not just pinks - but pinks in large numbers. The numbers speak for themselves in the articles I posted.

And they are also bullies wrt the Pacific Salmon Treaty & allocation, IMHO.

But..

Their fisheries are state verses federally managed (unlike us) and they try to look out for their coastal communities. Can't fault them for that.
 
Of course they have prv it's endemic in our marine environment. They will all get it. No surprise and not really news.
PRV is endemic NOW you should have typed, HG.

NOW after years of cover-up & denials by the FF industry that they were responsible, and years more of denials & cover-ups that PRV was responsible for both HMSI, & jaundice/anemia in Chinook salmon. Since ~1992. Much of that unfortunate, unprofessional & irresponsible behaviour is briefly summarized in the links I posted - so thanks again for so aptly demonstrating the lies & untrustworthiness of the industry & what propaganda they tell themselves at night to sleep.

And much of that discussion over the most recent findings/developments over time is also captured on this form - often even on this thread that we have all been discussing since 2013:






And this relevant news article:

 
Do we want to close shellfish farms also, now ? The 2 main species farmed are Manila clams and pacific oysters both of which are not native to BC. Oh and shellfish farms introduced invasive green crabs.,.............. I'm joking but I kind of wonder where folks like AA may be on this topic.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for asking for input & clarification, HG - and the continued rational, mature debate throughout this thread.

The 1st thing I want to say is that I am against the ONPSF technology (not aquaculture) because we cannot mitigate the risks/effects/impacts to wild stocks from infective vectors like sea lice, viruses & bacteria because the cage methodology is "open" - and everything goes back and forth. The industry has tried for years to paint any/all critiques as anti-aquaculture rhetoric solely coming from nasty ENGOs - rather than addressing the issue of the openness & inappropriateness of the ONPSF, and then reversing the burden of proof.

Due to the large numbers of farmed fish in the cages - those disease vectors are often amplified and often released onto vulnerable populations & life history stages of adjacent wild stocks. This is often at times of the year when there is a natural fallowing from large numbers of wild salmon, but there are instead large numbers of small vulnerable wild salmon smolts. Smolts are vulnerable to things like elevated sea lice loading - especially onto small pink & chum smolts in the spring as sea lice mortality is related to number of motile adult lice per gram of host, and is size-mediated.

These risks/impacts also include effects of elevated numbers of infective disease organisms (e.g. ISA, PRV, and numerous emerging disease vectors) onto naïve, unprotected fish species/physiologies. The mortality/virulence of diseases are related to whether or not that population/species of fish grew-up with these disease vectors and their immune system is primed to recognize & respond to these invaders; as well as the number of these amplified & released vectors that often travel for dozens of km.

Other jurisdictions/agencies HAVE responded to similar disease risk situations and created buffer zones - like those buffer zones in Northern Alberta & Southern Yukon instituted to reduce the transfer of brucellosis & anthrax from wild bison to cattle. But one would be hard pressed to find a place in the Pacific with few wild salmon - so this wouldn't work for the salmon farmers - and no such buffer zones have ever been instituted.

In fact the siting criteria was another historic legacy - another sleeping dog that DFO did not want to kick awake.




All of these risks/impacts may precipitate population-level effects that are sometimes erratic/variable in their yearly/seasonal effects; and DFO has been purposely asleep at the switch & compromised on identifying and responding to these effects. But the PSF has NOT been asleep and doing the job that DFO & their friends in the industry don't want done nor published because it is too embarrassing - and threatens the status quo of making as much money as possible in the short term for their shareholders while they receive free real estate, free pumping & free sewerage disposal using the current ONPSF technology.

And ultimately, that is what this is about - money. And who gets to live with the consequences of these decisions.

And all industry approvals are supposed to be a cost/benefit analysis often historically refereed in a CEAA process- that again - has never been done for the ONPSF industry. They applied political pressure using Yves Bastion to take them out of any such process in the early 2000s:


Ultimately, after 20+years - they get to live with the consequences of their lies, finally. It's been a long fight.

There are other issues wrt shellfish farming for another post...
 
Thanks RD (blush!). Wouldn't want that job, thanks - but it certainly would be great if we had someone as FM who could read thru the lies presented to them. Guess that was the problem for Joyce Murray - she saw the lies and took action that precipitated political payback: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/federal-court-salmon-farms-1.7229677

I don't want to spend a whole pile of time derailing this thread and being distracted over shellfish, HG - as this is the "Fish Farm" Thread.

But I also don't want to gloss over valid critiques, neither. So attempting a middle-of-the-road approach on this post.

The shellfish industry (as I see it) is a very different "kettle of fish" than ONPSF.

The ONPSF is a very large and vertically integrated multinational industry that has had the husbandry of Atlantics figured out for some decades. And one of the biggest reasons they use Atlantics is because of their potential heavy stocking densities that can be accommodated using Atlantics verses Pacific salmon. More fish = more profits, and vice-versa. You don't get anywhere near as much financial returns for the same infrastructure/time using Pacific salmon verses Atlantics due to their lesser stocking densities.

And there is also a large support network of allied industries such as net-washing, and fish-cleaning well boats, etc. And most importantly - once the net pens are in position - the 10-18mo smolts can be dropped in and within another ~18mo or so - you have product coming out - and the big company with all the expertise, resources & experience takes all the financial risks. It is an easy drop & grow in any FN territory - as long as they are paid off - typically with a few jobs. Most of the jobs are actually in the fish plant and NOT the farms - a reality Klemtu/Kitasoo knows too well.

Very much NOT the case for most shellfish ventures. Most shellfish farms are usually small mom-n-pops operations with a couple species perhaps (commonly Manila clams and pacific oysters , as HG pointed out) - and the products are usually targeted for the high-end restaurant market in the lower mainland. There is alot of labour (e.g. tumbling to remove unwanted attached & smothering organisms, & to change encrusted lantern nets). Most of the costs are front-end labour costs.

And for many shellfish species they can only grow in a narrow range of the right salinities; and growers need limited red tide outbreaks stopping them from selling their products, regularly. Some sites are now too often "hot", and getting hotter all the time wrt Alexandrium/PSP outbreaks.

So, shellfish sites also need decent, cheap transport to that lower mainland market (shellfish weights alot in relation to the $/lb paid to the growers) and decent WQ/plankton to grow the shellfish. That's why the biggest part of that industry started with Reid in and around Union/Fanny Bay area, and it would be a big challenge to extend that industry North to the North & Central Coasts due to those shipping costs & transport time for fresh product.

But WQ in the Deep/Union/Fanny Bay area is becoming more and more degraded by upwelling events where the pH drops precipitously and often now suddenly due to a wind secchi that forces anoxic low pH bottom water up from SoG into the areas of shellfish rafts. Lower pH means the veliger stages don't settle on the shell crush and don't grow into new shellfish. And existing shellfish may become stressed & die if it continues long enuff. And norovirus outbreaks likely from the herring fleet is another constraint there - and a liability.

And there is little to no testing for PSP, ASP & DSP North of Cape Caution, as well - with only a few small-scale site exceptions. That reality is for another long post about CSSP & CFIA and the testing of shellfish products, and CFIAs/DFOs current lack of capacity to facilitate growth of the shellfish industry.

So, all of these reasons is why shellfish has not taken off in all of the ~11 FN communities that instead have ONPSF verses shellfish farms.

There are a number of invasive species (tunicates, etc.) that affect the viability of shellfish operations due to smothering, but I never heard that green crabs were the fault of the shellfish industry. I heard it was ballast water. Maybe you could provide that reference, HG?
 
Last edited:
I heard at a meeting with the dfo invasive species manager that a source for green crabs may have been a shipment of oyster spat to BC. No one knows for sure and it really does not matter as they are "out of the barn". I was not trying to derail this thread I only mentioned shellfish as it was the main subject of the article you posted re derelict sites and abandoned gear. All industries have impacts was my main point ,.............. now back to fin fish.
 
Back
Top