G
gone fishin
Guest
What "prey tell" do the last three posts have to do with the topic of this Thread "Aquaculture; improving????"
Make that the last 4 posts
Make that the last 4 posts
Aquaculture improving?..The Fish Farm Thread
- Thread starter islandboy
- Start date
Stephen Kowalski
Active Member
Great question - a thread about an industry improving has been derailed by the "ban the FF posters". Heck, we are even back discussing the cohen report and argue about how to parse it. BTW, I think you yourself posted how the folks who"get it" are opposed to FF's. Not sure what that post added to the debate, but did provide additional fuel for the "ignorant supporters". Not really offended but what prey tell did that post have to add to the debate?
Birdsnest
Well-Known Member
For example SK started a perfectly good thread on Newfoundland die off situation in Newfoundland, AA continually posts about that on this thread.
https://www.sportfishingbc.com/foru...-public-bodies’-disclosure-obligations.77633/
https://www.sportfishingbc.com/foru...-public-bodies’-disclosure-obligations.77633/
Stephen Kowalski
Active Member
Agree with everything in this post. FF pundits are for all that you have laid out. And then some. So now that we are on the same page, can we address the other big issues killing the wild salmon? Are FF's even a top ten in things causing damage to the wild stocks? Answer seems pretty clear but boy are they a lightening rod. What are the biggest most impactful things we can do to fix our declines? There has to be more than one.....
Perhaps you should start a New Thread on your topics of interest this one is dealing with aquaculture.
Stephen Kowalski
Active Member
Maybe the anti-FF lobby should start a thread that is simply a propaganda slur against FF's? It seems when any posters are pro-FF they are asked to leave. No one is required to read my posts. My question is equally deserving of being answered. If FF's have improved and addressed many of the shortcomings, why are we thinking a ban on them will have any impact on the wild salmon? The hypothesis of those who have derailed the aquaculture improving thread is that it doesn't matter what the FF's have done, all that matters is we ban them to save our salmon. That is a doomed cause. If we can't actually show what the tangible effect is, and whether or not it will lead to the outcome predicted, it is no more than propaganda.
This is false indignation. I, for one, can't believe that the people who post positive links and articles about aquaculture improving (the topic of this thread) continuously get labelled as being either ignorant, bought off, or poorly read. Have any of the pro-FF supporters noticed how it is impossible for the anti-FF crowd to even acknowledge any of the other causes of the salmon returns? Why is that?
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/insight/feeds-aquaculture
Lots more about Aquaculture improving especially:
Does aquaculture consume more wild fish than is produced?
When aquaculture is considered as an aggregate industry, the answer is no. Globally, aquaculture uses about half a metric ton of wild whole fish to produce one metric ton of farmed seafood, meaning that aquaculture is a net producer of fish protein. However, some species groups, do consume more by weight of fish meal and/or fish oil then they produce in their final product form. This is typical of carnivorous species new to aquaculture. Over time, and as the production for a given species grows, fish meal and fish oil are replaced by more cost-effective non-marine ingredients. At some point the species group becomes a net producer of fish. This is quickly becoming the case for farmed salmon and shrimp, two species groups that have been criticized for using more fish than they produce. Because the trimmings from farmed fish can be used to make fish meal and oil, aquaculture is also becoming a producer of these products.
This is false indignation. I, for one, can't believe that the people who post positive links and articles about aquaculture improving (the topic of this thread) continuously get labelled as being either ignorant, bought off, or poorly read. Have any of the pro-FF supporters noticed how it is impossible for the anti-FF crowd to even acknowledge any of the other causes of the salmon returns? Why is that?
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/insight/feeds-aquaculture
Lots more about Aquaculture improving especially:
Does aquaculture consume more wild fish than is produced?
When aquaculture is considered as an aggregate industry, the answer is no. Globally, aquaculture uses about half a metric ton of wild whole fish to produce one metric ton of farmed seafood, meaning that aquaculture is a net producer of fish protein. However, some species groups, do consume more by weight of fish meal and/or fish oil then they produce in their final product form. This is typical of carnivorous species new to aquaculture. Over time, and as the production for a given species grows, fish meal and fish oil are replaced by more cost-effective non-marine ingredients. At some point the species group becomes a net producer of fish. This is quickly becoming the case for farmed salmon and shrimp, two species groups that have been criticized for using more fish than they produce. Because the trimmings from farmed fish can be used to make fish meal and oil, aquaculture is also becoming a producer of these products.
Stephen Kowalski
Active Member
Fascinating video on farming Blue fin tuna - might be the only hope for this species.
Hopefully, everyone will keep supporting this effort...
https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Bu...uefin-tuna-ready-for-wider-sales-beyond-Japan
Hopefully, everyone will keep supporting this effort...
https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Bu...uefin-tuna-ready-for-wider-sales-beyond-Japan
G
gone fishin
Guest
Who was asked to leave???
Birdsnest
Well-Known Member
The anti salmon farming lobby uses closed containment as an argument or solution but its not really viable to date. But it fools the masses. Every time the numbers are posted for the namgis project you get crickets on this board and then 6-10 pages of other topics goes past and suddenly the closed containment solution is posted again yet there has been no rebuttal or even a comment to the post that shows how bad the $numbers$ are for that idea.
These are common complaints posted about open pens that still apply to closed containment.
Uses to much feed
Uses to much energy
Going to be done by large Corporations which you disapprove/ loath and distrust.
Over crowded
Not natural
Will require more government funding to improve the current numbers I have quoted again above.
If closed containment was to fly it would be done outside of Canada for the most part.
Ketura March 2018 financials clearly state a
net loss of $345,476 just to be clear.
Its no wonder no one on this board is investing in it and ketura cant find investors. They have been looking for a couple of years i think. This is very telling.
Admittedly - there are currently some extra financial challenges to the closed containment methodology when it is still competing with open net-pen Atlantic salmon aquaculture that receives free pumping and free waste disposal. If everyone was doing closed containment - there wouldn't be that competition or race to the bottom. And maybe it would make more sense to eat forage fish instead - who knows.
As long as the open net-pen aquaculture doesn't harm wild stocks - someone else can argue about how much money those multinationals make on the stock market. I believe the technology does and has harmed wild stocks, though. It needs to stop - along with the denials.
And before any pundits jump to the "oh ya" "how much" knee-jerk response - remember - it is ALWAYS industry's job to prove that they aren't having a free ride.
If the open net-pen aquaculture - the industry IN the water - went through rigorous environmental assessments - they would know that. But since they have been EXEMPTED from environmental assessments - unlike other industries - they either lack that knowledge - or pretend they do.
And Atlantic salmon fin-fish open-net cage aquaculture is only 1 form of aquaculture. There are other options.
As long as the open net-pen aquaculture doesn't harm wild stocks - someone else can argue about how much money those multinationals make on the stock market. I believe the technology does and has harmed wild stocks, though. It needs to stop - along with the denials.
And before any pundits jump to the "oh ya" "how much" knee-jerk response - remember - it is ALWAYS industry's job to prove that they aren't having a free ride.
If the open net-pen aquaculture - the industry IN the water - went through rigorous environmental assessments - they would know that. But since they have been EXEMPTED from environmental assessments - unlike other industries - they either lack that knowledge - or pretend they do.
And Atlantic salmon fin-fish open-net cage aquaculture is only 1 form of aquaculture. There are other options.
Birdsnest
Well-Known Member
Well the "free pumping" is about as environmentally friendly as it gets apposed to using energy of what ever kind, site c, nuclear power, hydro, etc. This is a major expense for closed containment and when considered the closed containment industry would have a difficult time "proving they are not getting a free ride" wrt environmental impacts.
Free waist disposal, well fair enough. Call it what you will but you have to consider this and how that part of the equation is managed. Farms get shut down when not meeting particular standards. This would fall under the "environmental assessments" claimed by anti ff pundits not to exist.
https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/publications/infographics-infographie/benth-eng.html
I think you have choses the word "believe" correctly in your statement. So yes industry is denying what you "believe" as an individual.
Even if they did you wouldn't believe/accept it. Case in point, on these threads I have shown that it is premature to say that prv1 (Europe) came from Norway. The response was a non peer reviewed paper posted. It has come to a point on these threads where peer reviewed papers are being hand picked by AA(anti aquaculture) pundits. I like this one but not this one... all the while peer review has been strongly supported in these threads previously by the same AA "believers". Not any more. Another example is the ISA being on the west coast: Alaska, washington, canada and I suspect there fish farmers, commercial fisherman and first nations fisheries all agree ISA is not here yet there is a complete refusal to agree with that.
This is absolutely unfounded. Canadian salmon aquaculture is likely the most heavily regulated salmon farming operations with citing criteria in the world. And in the case of proving they dont do harm it is difficult for AA activist to accept that there are salmon declines up and down the coast from alaska to california where there are and aren't salmon farms. The skeena system is solid example. No fish farms on those migration routs and the system is in crisis mode. Not sure how else to prove something that isn't happening. Even if they did it would not be accepted by AA lobbyists.
Birdsnest
Well-Known Member
DFO siting guidelines for marine finfish Aquaculture in British Columbia
https://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/licence-permis/docs/site-guide-direct-eng.html
Environmental management and reporting
https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/environment-environnement-eng.html
Aquaculture Activities Regulations guidance document
https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/management-gestion/aar-raa-gd-eng.htm
G
gone fishin
Guest
OMG
200,000 plus dead Atlantics in Clayoquot and DFO are not even on site!
https://globalnews.ca/video/6212758/mass-die-off-at-fish-farm-in-clayoquot-sound
200,000 plus dead Atlantics in Clayoquot and DFO are not even on site!
https://globalnews.ca/video/6212758/mass-die-off-at-fish-farm-in-clayoquot-sound
Birdsnest
Well-Known Member
Ill try but not tonight. But honestly and sincerely, if I put the benthic concerns to rest is it going to change one single mind on the topic. Will it stop posters from bringing up that the industry is unregulated/monitored and lacks environmental citing criteria repetitively in the future on the topic on benthic impacts? Is it going to stop the idea that the dfo is corrupt so there should be a 3rd party regulator which in my opinion if far more subject to corruption.
Theres a Q for you agent to insert your 3rd party regulator thing. And when you dont like them well we can have a 4th and then a 5th all at the tax payers dollar. Then you won't have to retract your statement that fish farms have zero regulation and citing criteria etc etc etc ...then 10 pages later you can start fresh and claim fish farms are out of control because there's no environmental regulations, science , or controls. etc. I ranted. sorry but its true.
Theres a Q for you agent to insert your 3rd party regulator thing. And when you dont like them well we can have a 4th and then a 5th all at the tax payers dollar. Then you won't have to retract your statement that fish farms have zero regulation and citing criteria etc etc etc ...then 10 pages later you can start fresh and claim fish farms are out of control because there's no environmental regulations, science , or controls. etc. I ranted. sorry but its true.
Last edited:
Similar threads
