Aquaculture improving?..The Fish Farm Thread

Sino said:
In that article AA, it tells of millions of salmon dying do to algae blooms in a few different spots around the world. The article states that it cost the Aquaculture Industry billions. No company can sustain losses like that yet they are still around. Are they being paid for their losses?
Also makes me wonder about how many thousands of tons of forage fish went into fish meal to feed these farmed fish that die at 5 pounds. Considering it takes a few pounds of wild forage fish to grow 1 pound of Atlantic Salmon, these numbers of waste are unbelievable.
Click to expand...
The getting paid for die-offs can happen - altho the specifics of that possibility might be better answered by industry reps. There is insurance and CFIA and tax write-offs available. Again - industry reps would be in a better position to discuss the details. Older news items do indicate that these payouts can cost the taxpayer millions:
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/farms+netted+million+compensation+diseased+fish/9788388/story.html
https://commonsensecanadian.ca/salmon-farms-get-tax-dollars-diseased-dead-fish-provide-jobs/
https://www.sportfishingbc.com/foru...-to-good-use-fish-farm-bailouts.55220/page-13
https://responsibleaquaculture.word...illion-payout-by-canada-for-destroyed-salmon/

This may be the reason why Cooke did not admit it's latest ISAv outbreak:
http://fisheries.afn.ca/2013/02/01/...nsumption-by-canadian-food-inspection-agency/

I heard that CFIA has run out of money to pay FFrs for the ever escalating die-offs. If that rumour is true - then if they can't get paid for ISAv - why report ISAv die-offs? If they report it - those irritating news people arrive and they are supossed to report disease events within 24hrs. so..

no disease event happened - problem solved. Who's gonna check for ISAv anyways - nobody knows.

Worse yet - if the insurance knows - you get none. So ya - warm water - that's the cover story...
insurance for FFrs.jpg
 
Last edited:
on the feed conversion question keep in mind industry pundits quote dry to wet conversion rate - not dry-to-dry. Also takes more fishmeal to produce fish oil which is added and not accounted for neither.

So those quoted rates & comparisons between other agricultural feed conversions are very misleading. Apples and oranges.

Yes the industry has reduced the total overall fish oil added over the years, and so called "cold-blooded" fish are better converters of protein than warm-blooded animals overall - but the feed conversion rates (FCR) need explanations.

and why not simply feed forage fishes straight to humans anyways? I love herring, for example.

Well it's the market - is the reason. Farmed salmon market is a premium - esp. to the American restaurant trade. And at those prices - they won't be sending "converted" forage fish back to Chile to feed the poor there - as opposed to the industry headlines about "feeding the world" using the open net-pen industry.

If you use the forum search button - that topic's been covered a few times already on here.
 
Fish in the wild convert 10–1 100% wild feed Something to keep in mind when considering salmon ranching etc.
1,2 feed conversion for farmed salmon is a dry to wet ratio which can be misleading however the only portion of that feed which should get the wet to wet application should be the wild feed portion which is less and less as aquaculture improves and reduces that portion. Fish oil is fish oil. Can’t be dried so it is always consistent.
 
Last edited:
and keep in mind that 1st step was already done wrt the production of forage fish, Dave. so FFs convert forage fish into farmed salmon protein at even less than the overall wild fish conversion...

So starting w the 90% trophic reduction in weight that Dave mentioned from the forage fish - then "19% of protein and 10% of calories in feed for aquatic species are ultimately made available in the human food supply" from the forage fish conversion into farmed salmon. See:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aaa273

That's a very long ways from the misleading FCR 0f 1.2 quoted by industry (remember 1.2kg of dry feed with fish rendered for fish oil added to the fishmeal not acknowledged using these dry-to-wet metrics).

The authors continue: "Comparing all terrestrial and aquatic animals in the study, chickens are most efficient using these measures, followed by Atlantic salmon. Despite lower FCRs in aquaculture, protein and calorie retention for aquaculture production is comparable to livestock production. This is, in part, due to farmed fish and shrimp requiring higher levels of protein and calories in feed compared to chickens, pigs, and cattle"
 
Last edited:
agentaqua said:
and keep in mind that 1st step was already done wrt the production of forage fish, Dave. so FFs convert forage fish into farmed salmon protein at even less than the overall wild fish conversion...

So starting w the 90% trophic reduction in weight that Dave mentioned from the forage fish - then "19% of protein and 10% of calories in feed for aquatic species are ultimately made available in the human food supply" from the forage fish conversion into farmed salmon. See:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aaa273

That's a very long ways from the misleading FCR 0f 1.2 quoted by industry (remember 1.2kg of dry feed with fish rendered for fish oil added to the fishmeal not acknowledged using these dry-to-wet metrics).

The authors continue: "Comparing all terrestrial and aquatic animals in the study, chickens are most efficient using these measures, followed by Atlantic salmon. Despite lower FCRs in aquaculture, protein and calorie retention for aquaculture production is comparable to livestock production. This is, in part, due to farmed fish and shrimp requiring higher levels of protein and calories in feed compared to chickens, pigs, and cattle"
Click to expand...
agentaqua said:
The getting paid for die-offs can happen - altho the specifics of that possibility might be better answered by industry reps. There is insurance and CFIA and tax write-offs available. Again - industry reps would be in a better position to discuss the details. Older news items do indicate that these payouts can cost the taxpayer millions:
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/farms+netted+million+compensation+diseased+fish/9788388/story.html
https://commonsensecanadian.ca/salmon-farms-get-tax-dollars-diseased-dead-fish-provide-jobs/
https://www.sportfishingbc.com/foru...-to-good-use-fish-farm-bailouts.55220/page-13
https://responsibleaquaculture.word...illion-payout-by-canada-for-destroyed-salmon/

This may be the reason why Cooke did not admit it's latest ISAv outbreak:
http://fisheries.afn.ca/2013/02/01/...nsumption-by-canadian-food-inspection-agency/

I heard that CFIA has run out of money to pay FFrs for the ever escalating die-offs. If that rumour is true - then if they can't get paid for ISAv - why report ISAv die-offs? If they report it - those irritating news people arrive and they are supossed to report disease events within 24hrs. so..

no disease event happened - problem solved. Who's gonna check for ISAv anyways - nobody knows.

Worse yet - if the insurance knows - you get none. So ya - warm water - that's the cover story...
View attachment 49075
Click to expand...
Wow - you are really going hard at this. I like reading your posts but many of them have 10+ links. Can you help an old guy like me filter it to the best one or two?

BTW, why did the one guy/gal get banned? Just trying to make sure I don't fall through that trap door.

So, it seems we have reached a point of noise wins. No one is even arguing about the thread. It looks like the posts on the thread are showing that indeed the FF's have improved. The anit-FF group argues not enough. So, what, other than extinction would the anti-FF lobby argue they can do to get a thumbs up? Bear in mind, that blowing themselves up is not an option and neither is going bankrupt. What, constructively could the FF's do to turn your frowns upside down?
 
Been my experience, Stephen that "old guys" might even be better at reading links. Many of those links lead to supporting info/data/articles - many of which are peer-reviewed. If one wants to provide "proof" of FF impacts that have needed attention for many years and not devolve the debate into unsubstantiated "noise" between PR speaking notes - then that's where the tool called "science" can and should assist. There's an opportunity for education that exists on this forum from many posters (thank you all) contributing their time and efforts for the benefit of other posters should they choose to educate themselves. Everyone only has so much time - I agree - so don't click and read if it is of no interest. Pretty simple.

The gaps in regulatory oversight has been repeated on this thread - other threads - and the general public domain for many years now. Besides transitioning to closed containment - a reduction in risk to wild stocks, a reduction in conflicts of interest, an increase in transparency and reporting - are the main themes. More focused goals on reduction of threats to Fraser stocks can be referenced re-reading Justice Cohen's recommendations posted a few times on this thread and others. Again - pretty simple and straightforward goals.
 
If peer review papers provide proof of FF impacts then why is it that when other groups provide peer reviewed proof you argue there wrong?

For example peer reviewed says prv is not killing salmon and is a rare virus and the science community threw out prv studies done by others

Your response you called me ignorant..... sounds like by your measure I was right, peer reviewed.
 
I think that the support for FFs tries to disprove the science generated by those whom have critiques about the impacts from the open net-cage technology. I think debate is generally good as long as that debate isn't used to stall management actions that reduce the impacts and risk to wild stocks - which I believe it has.

The precautionary approach is a widely used and accredited approach that often is underutilized in fisheries management at times - and in the context of mitigating impacts from the open net-pen industry - used seldom.

If I were going to transfer technology from another part of the world - Norway for example - I might emulate things like feeding and stocking regimes for Atlantic open net-pen operations - which are fairly consistent world-wide. Fish farmers do that w/o even thinking about the origins of their industry.

Yet, if there are critiques of that same industry - all of a sudden those critiques somehow magically no longer apply to the local situation - as far as defenders of that industry are concerned.

If the oceans were all so different - so as we could not compare impacts - one could not transplant the industry to another part of the world - but we have - along with it's inherent problems.

There are lessons to learn wrt lack of monitoring for impacts and conflicts of interest world-wide using the open net-cage technology - especially within Canada where the federal regulatory regime is identical.

So pretty simple and logical answers to your questions, Rico.
 
Last edited:
You have given simple or logical answers to my question..... you simply changed the question. I will ask again in different terms.

Why is it you say.....
Many of those links lead to supporting info/data/articles - many of which are peer-reviewed. If one wants to provide "proof" of FF impacts that have needed attention for many years and not devolve the debate into unsubstantiated.

Please explain why you do not accept the peer reviewed science that states prv is rare and not of Norwegian source. Almo's studies were throw out by the whole scientific ccommunity. By saying what you said you have created a double standard.... some member refer this to moving the goal posts.
 
agentaqua said:
Been my experience, Stephen that "old guys" might even be better at reading links. Many of those links lead to supporting info/data/articles - many of which are peer-reviewed. If one wants to provide "proof" of FF impacts that have needed attention for many years and not devolve the debate into unsubstantiated "noise" between PR speaking notes - then that's where the tool called "science" can and should assist. There's an opportunity for education that exists on this forum from many posters (thank you all) contributing their time and efforts for the benefit of other posters should they choose to educate themselves. Everyone only has so much time - I agree - so don't click and read if it is of no interest. Pretty simple.

The gaps in regulatory oversight has been repeated on this thread - other threads - and the general public domain for many years now. Besides transitioning to closed containment - a reduction in risk to wild stocks, a reduction in conflicts of interest, an increase in transparency and reporting - are the main themes. More focused goals on reduction of threats to Fraser stocks can be referenced re-reading Justice Cohen's recommendations posted a few times on this thread and others. Again - pretty simple and straightforward goals.
Click to expand...

Ok - I will re-read them. But what is not clear is how we pick and choose what is in the Cohen report. There was significant disagreement in many of the issues you keep raising and yet you want to rely on a report where it agrees with your stance. for instance, when Justice Cohen disagrees with the findings of AM, he can't be labeled pro-FF and lets ignore the report. Even on the lice issue, the Cohen report found a greater correlation to lice on sockeye based on how far they were out to sea. This doesn't mean there isn't evidence that lice is being introduced into the system by FF's - it is. Just the totality of the issue is not singular.

If FF's (which are actively moving on the directives in the Cohen report) complete the tasks laid out, would the anti-FF groups simply let them be, or as has been indicated by others, simply move the goal posts. Are the anti-FF groups saying that the Cohen report is the goal posts?
 
I answered your question on why I am interested - and why we all should be either interested and/or informed on the impacts caused by open net-pen aquaculture world-wide verses solely in BC, Rico - which I thought was a pretty self-evident reality.

In regards to the PRv controversy - there is only publication I know of that characterizes PRv as "to pose minimal risk" to salmon (i.e. Fraser sockeye) is DFO's own internal CSAS study that "somebody named Stan" (your words so you read the posts) had some serious issues with - and discussed numerous posts from the past 20 or so pages. You were a part of that debate - so you saw the posts.

Quoting Post #417 on page 25:

Media Release: Federal Scientists Fail to Disclose Industry Connections in Salmon Farm Virus Studies, Documents Reveal
https://watershedwatch.ca/media-rel...n-salmon-farm-virus-studies-documents-reveal/

I answered you questions about Stan and his critiques on the CSAS paper on Post #517 on page 26.

Quoting post #517:

Maybe re-read post #481, Rico - if you want insights in PRv risk assessment and whom "some dude named stan" is. Maybe read the supporting info @:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphys.2019.00114/full
https://watershed-watch.org/CoI_concerns_with_Zhang_et_al_2019.pdf
https://watershed-watch.org/A-2019-00127-DSP-FINAL.pdf
https://watershed-watch.org/Email_to_UBC_re_Zhang_et_al_2019.pdf
https://watershed-watch.org/Scientific_Reports_Polinski_et_al_2019.pdf
https://watershed-watch.org/emails_between_DFO_scientist_re_media_responses_on_studies.pdf

and I already answered your questions on posts #556 and #559 on page 28, #569 on page 29, #583 on page 30 of this thread.

Quoting post #569:

ya - the Norwegian strain of PRv is common, NOW - on the Pacific Coast. gee - I wonder how that happened? What is the most plausible source? hmmm....
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141475

Now what fish or fish grown from egg implants in BC would most likely have brought PRv into BC? HINT:
https://veterinaryresearch.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1297-9716-45-35
"...PRV is ubiquitous in farmed Atlantic salmon..."

Quoting post #583:

"And like all viruses - including ISAv - it mutates. And they didn't test all known strains of PRv neither. Nor did they necessarily test the animals when HMSI lesions were most likely to occur - as shown in the Di Cicco et al study.

So, like ISAv - PRv can mutate into more virulent forms - like all viruses. Testing with 1 strain of PRv is no guarantee that PRv doesn't or won't cause HMSI or other disease symptoms in wild Pacific salmon - now or in the future.

Yet again sowing doubt - the authors in this study unequivocally state: "PRV from western North America is avirulent". YIKES!

To re-iterate & add to post #583 on page 30 - the DFO CSAS study only looked at PRV1 group (not sure which of the 33 or so strains of that grouping on the sockeye) - and there are 3 more groups and 46 or so known strains and an unknown number of unknown strains.

None of this in any way indicates that all the known and unknown strains of the PRv virus have the same virulence and/or pathogenicy on all species and life history stages of all Pacific salmon, now or in the future.

What I think is that DFO wrote this paper specifically to appear to check the box on 1 of Cohen's recommendations about "less than minimal risk".

Furthermore - the other dozen or so peer-reviewed articles from other jurisdictions across the world state: "".

and CE posted an interesting summary that included links to other science articles at:
https://sportfishing.bc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Case-for-Caution.pdf

So ya - I did answer your questions a few times already. They may or may not be the answers you are searching for. That sometimes happen in debates. Sometimes you get answers you don't like.
 
Last edited:
AA, we've been asked not to repeat old stuff and you're continually doing so yet you fail to respond to the rebuttals to your post or links. One more boring time for anyone who follows this:
"ya - the Norwegian strain of PRv is common, NOW - on the Pacific Coast. gee - I wonder how that happened? What is the most plausible source? hmmm....
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141475"

From the discussion in the study

If PRV was endemic to western North America, it is equally probable that movement of infected Pacific salmon or trout eggs could have concomitantly spread PRV in Europe. There have been no published retrospective studies of archived samples conducted in Norway to determine how long the virus has been present in that country. However, Atlantic salmon tissues from Norway collected in 1988 tested positive for PRV RNA (Rimstad pers. comm.) suggesting that the virus was present at least a decade prior to the first reports of HSMI. There has been little surveillance for this virus outside Norway and Western North America. Thus, it is premature to speculate about transmission pathways given the lack of understanding of the global distribution of PRV.

You are posting a study again to support your claim that European fish farms brought european prv to bc but it is clear in the study this is not the case.
 
agentaqua said:
I answered your question on why I am interested - and why we all should be either interested and/or informed on the impacts caused by open net-pen aquaculture world-wide verses solely in BC, Rico - which I thought was a pretty self-evident reality.
Click to expand...

Funny your answering a question never asked....
I won't bother asking again. You have made it clear your not about following any science whatsoever. You come back with email links trying to discredit the scientists by providing confidential emails.....

Just a note for others prv has been replicated in a lab's petre dish only. When exposing wild chinook salmon to high concentrations they show no symptoms compared to the baseline. They also cannot replicate what's happening in other parts of the world or what happening in the atlantic ocean.
Just isnt happening here
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
The Salmon Skyline - A good read.
Replies
0
Views
499
Rockfish
R
Whole in the Water
Concerns about herring kills at B.C. fish farms
Replies
26
Views
3K
Fishing?
F
B
Integrity commissioner launches investigation of DFO officials over alleged attempts to silence scientists IAN BAILEY
Replies
6
Views
1K
Fishing?
F
R
The Crisis Facing Alberta Wildlife Expert biologists are being elbowed aside by politicians and special interests.
Replies
0
Views
363
RalphH
R
Dogbreath
Tofino Finally Stops Shitting into the Ocean
Replies
1
Views
433
agentaqua
A
Back
Top