fish farm siting criteria & politics

[Red Monster]

You mean you can't believe the pushers when they claim, "No! This is good $hit."

Yes, we have a choice, and what we choose not to accept collectively can put an end to environmentally desctuctive practices. That's why you hear so much denial from fishfarmers.

People will wise up when they finally realize that they can't trust the pushers to tell the truth. Let's hope that happens sooner rather than later.

In the mean time, I'm not going to waste too much time responding to the same old BS being spun to justify a hidiously unjustifiable assualt on the well being of West Coast salmon. Better to address the millions who have a choice to make.

 

[gimp]

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

Tortuga,

There classified as "toxic waste"?

Actually lots of farmers eat their own product, as do millions world wide.

Do You?

 

[sockeyefry]

Red Monster;

"In the mean time, I'm not going to waste too much time responding to the same old BS being spun to justify a hidiously unjustifiable assualt on the well being of A West Coast INDUSTRY WHICH PROVIDES JOBS FOR BC PEOPLE AND HEALTHY PRODUCT"

That statement works both ways.

Obviously you believe the data provided by the anti lobby. I do not. It's not that I do not think that farms have an impact. They do, as do all human activity. However, I disagree on the severity of that impact. That is all I am doing here, simply diagreeing with the masses.

I was actually dissappointed that Morton was turned down by DFO. I think that she has finally hit upon a way to actually demonstrate an impact if it exists. I would urge DFO to take it further however, and include several rivers in a variety of locations, those with and without farms. Gather up all the fry and ship them past farms, and in the absence of farms, ship them the same distance as a control. Do this over several generations (5 or so years), and compare returns to the rivers. I think this would be a more definitive study than any done to date by either side.

Gimp,

I apologise for not being able to put references in my posts. I do not have the time nor the library that Agent obviously has access to.

 

[gimp]

My question to you is why put the burden of proof on the wild salmon runs why not just fallow the farms on migratory routes again?

 

[sockeyefry]

Gimp,

Good Idea. We could pick several farms and alternate fallow periods so that were not hitting that even, odd cycle that the pinks fall into. Also we would have to do it over several years because populations naturally are up and down.

This of course would require the cooperation of the farm companies, Groups like CAAR, PSF, and DFO.

I would accept the results, if it was shown the farms actually do produce an impact, and join in requesting they be removed.
If it was shown that the farms have little impact, do you think that it would be accepted by people who are against the farms?

 

[gimp]

As it sits I would like to see that happen. I think it will answer a lot of questions and would be a step in the right direction. I however cannot speak for all people in the fight against fish farms. Most want farms moved to close containment systems on land. My big issue is Wild Salmon. I however understand that the farms do have an impact on the environment. It would be silly to think otherwise. I would hope to see someone come up with close containment on water, as I believe it would decrease costs for the fish farms and make the technology more viable. I have not yet heard of this happening except in my own mind. I have made posts about using old military ships as bases on operation for the salmon farms. Also I cannot speak for the people that are against salmon farms for the impact that they have on feed fish they use to make the food for the farmed salmon. Different areas have different needs and different impacts. The area I love the Borughton Archipelago NEEDS its wild salmon to feed the rivers eagle bears and forests. That being said YES if we can get them fallowed lets fallow them.

 

[sockeyefry]

Gimp,

I am in agreement with you. I would like to see such a test. I don't think that any of the farmers wish to be the cause of harm to the wild salmon in the Broughton, inspite of being potrayed as corporate raiders. I also do not think that they should be put out of business by someones opinion either. Farms do have impacts on the environments they sit in. All human activity has an impact. We have to chose how much of an impact is acceptable and what is not. This should be based on facts not someones feelings.

Closed containment is technically possible, by that I mean you can put a salmon in a tank on land and grow it to market size. However the cost of creating an aquatic environment on land increases the cost of production beyond what is economically feasible. In addition, the amount of energy required to pump the water is quite large, and would increase the farms environmental impact. I could also include site prep for the large tanks, energy required to build the farms, etc... This is not to say however that a net pen farm does not require energy to operate, it just uses less.

A company called Future Sea marketted a system which was closed containment that was designed to be in the ocean. It was sort of a success, it did grow fish, but there were alot of operational problems, and the systems did not stand up well to the weather.

 

[cuttlefish]

Hi folks, you have an interesting and informative thread here but it hasn't woven much of a tapestry, until recently.
Just now you actually started getting somewhere, instead of just disputing, defending and denying. Obviously nobody's going to change anyone else's mind. Let's hear more about solutions that have potential like the last few posts and discuss ways to make them work for the sake of protecting our wild salmon and for the sake of a home grown industry that we all can all be proud of as a world leader in sustainable salmon farming technology. Time to get our heads out of the sand and our industry out of the twentieth century. We can have both wild and farmed salmon if we do it right!

sockeyefry, you wrote;

quote:A company called Future Sea marketted a system which was closed containment that was designed to be in the ocean. It was sort of a success, it did grow fish, but there were alot of operational problems, and the systems did not stand up well to the weather.

The 1997 DFO study done at the PBS in Nanaimo showed the coho grown in the Future Sea bags had better growth rates and lower feed conversion ratios than the coho grown beside in net pens. Check it out. http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/sci/aqua/AQ/aq79_e.htm
The fish in the bag also had one tenth as many sea lice as the ones in the net pen.

Can we focus on how to make this system, or others like it work better? Isn't that what the SCSA and CAAR are actually trying to do, proposing solutions and asking others to enter into a dialogue aimed at a better world for all?

 

[eaglemaniac]

http://www.pbs.org/emptyoceans/fts/offshore/index.html
Not an endorsement, just an observation. eman

 

[gimp]

on land fish farms rasing salmon ?

http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/sci/aqua/AQ/Aq95.pdf

growing COHO to 1.2k or for us to the south 2.6 lbs

It is possible maybe just not as profitable for the large Fish Farm companys that need to produce a botom line to the Board of directrs ???? Imput?

 

[sockeyefry]

Gimp,

Yes it is technically possible to raise salmon in tanks onland. It does however require a much larger input interms of energy and $. It has been tried by many companies in several countries all with the same result. The fish grew, but they could not compete due to higher production costs.

 

[wolf]

So be it with the cost of fuel, wheat etc going up pass it on to the consumer if they cant do it here then move it to the states where as stated I think the number was 80 % going to the states let them grow them and wreak there environment!!!!!

I hear what you are saying sock but if and this is a big IF!!!if it helps out our wild stocks even if it is a small amout then lets do it, as every little bit helps in the big picture of things.

Wolf

 

[cuttlefish]

From a purely economic perspective, closed containment is too expensive. When the environmental costs are factored into the cost analysis, it becomes much more affordable.
Here's a link to some interesting research going on in the USA.
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5718
Note the section about Israel also making a switch to closed containment from net cages that are damaging coral reefs with the pollution from the farmed fish.
I will keep looking for more examples of R&D of closed containment technology to show that others are striving to move forward with the quest to find answers to problems. Time better spent than a continuation of finding reasons for why it won't work.

 

[Red Monster]

Do you think poeple would pay more for a "greener" alternative such as salmon from land-based fishfarms? Think about it.

 

[agentaqua]

cuttlefish, you wrote:

quote:From a purely economic perspective, closed containment is too expensive. When the environmental costs are factored into the cost analysis, it becomes much more affordable.

Good comment. The environmental costs of open net-cage technology are externalized onto the environment, and it is ultimately other user groups (sports- and commercial-fishing, First Nations, etc.) and the taxpayers that foot the bill. It is unsustainable, and unacceptable.

You also write:
:

quote:I will keep looking for more examples of R&D of closed containment technology to show that others are striving to move forward with the quest to find answers to problems. Time better spent than a continuation of finding reasons for why it won't work.

Your effort and input are invaluable here. Yes – we need solutions, which may include taking open net-pens out of the water entirely.

This lengthy discussion on examining why it isn’t working was necessary, though. Necessary to understand the complex dynamics of the interactions between cultured salmon and wild salmon stocks in the complex and noisy ocean environment. Necessary to get everyone’s questions answered and up to a certain level of understanding, and to motivate people to act. I think it is time well spent for many people.

I agree, though – it is now time to stop denying there is a problem, and understand open net-cage technology has to go.

 

[agentaqua]

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

Gimp,
Yes it is technically possible to raise salmon in tanks onland. It does however require a much larger input interms of energy and $. It has been tried by many companies in several countries all with the same result. The fish grew, but they could not compete due to higher production costs.

Capital costs for open net-cage infrastructure are already substantial, and there are large amounts spent yearly on net and structure maintenance and replacement. These costs are substantial and add-up over the lifetime of the net-cage site. These cumulative, ongoing costs are never compared to the costs of closed containment, when the industry is pushing for status-quo for operational technology.

Putting sites on land - blasting-out old log sorts, for example - is very feasable. There wouldn't be the yearly net and maintenance costs that the open net-cage industry currently incurs. Norway does use large, outdoor land-based tanks to raise halibut. Why couldn't we do the same in BC? Because the fish farming industry doesn't want to - and denies there are serious population-level impacts to wild salmon stocks.

We touched on this earlier in these postings. We have abundant, alternative power sources - such as hydro, solar, and wind. These sources could be used to offset pumping and aeration costs. The open net-cage industry has not been very proactive in promoting these alternatives. I feel - they don't want to change - and won't until they are forced to.

Right now, Chile is in a major melt-down due to the IHN outbreak. Because of that decrease in production - prices for net-cage farmed salmon has jumped. How can you still use the excuse you can't afford it?

 

[sockeyefry]

Actually Agent it is an ISA outbreak.

I don't think you realize what type of infrastructure is required. An on land farm on Cape Breton Island (Out of business due to economic reason for 5 years after 5 companies went broke since 1988 trying to make a go of it) employed 6 200hp vertical turbine pumps to provide the seawater to produce 450 tonnes production. That is approximately 1000 kwhrs every day, 24/7. At $0.04 per kw, that is $40 per hour, $960 per day. Over the 16 month that it takes to grow a market salmon, the total bill is $460,800. The production is 450,000 kgs, or a cost of over $1 per kg just for power. This alone makes it cost prohibitive when your competitors do not have to incur such a cost. They also require very large spaces on which to place the large tank volumes, and these open spaces have to be close to the sea, where the water is of sufficient depth.

However, agent is quite correct in that the sea is not a very hospitable place to do business, and net pen systems do cost a lot to purchase and maintain, but they do not cost as much as the current onland systems. What I think has to happen is more research into RAS or recirculation systems. This holds promise in cost reduction. This is an area of research in which I think DFO and places like Malaspina and the PBS should be headed. I am not saying it can't be done, but there has to be a lot more research and development before the industry could switch over. It's not as easy as it appears.

Red Monster, The was a land based farm in Cedar outside Nanaimo, which I believe is now shut down. It was producing "Eco Salmon" sold through Thrifty's. They were Coho, and sold at a premium. In spite of a higher price and the Eco label, the company could not compete with wild caught Coho and stopped production.

 

[agentaqua]

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

Actually Agent it is an ISA outbreak.

apologies. Meant to type ISA rather than IHN. Thanks for the correction.

quote:Over the 16 month that it takes to grow a market salmon, the total bill is $460,800. The production is 450,000 kgs, or a cost of over $1 per kg just for power.

They were obviously paying for their power, on the grid. What would be the costs for getting alternative energy sources up and running?

What is the cumulative bill for capital costs and ongoing maintenance for an open net-cage site - as a comparison?

What is the farm-gate price for aquaculture Atlantic salmon, now - as compared to a few years ago?

Just wondering how close the differences actually are with these points in mind?

 

[cuttlefish]

Here's another example of salmon in a land-based based system that is a long way from the ocean. I wish these guys good luck. http://www.blueridgeaquaculture.com/salmon.cfm

sockeyefry wrote:

quote:At $0.04 per kw, that is $40 per hour, $960 per day. Over the 16 month that it takes to grow a market salmon, the total bill is $460,800.

These types of operational costs would be significantly lower in a floating tank system. There is an outfit starting up a floating tank system in Campbell River right now. http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/story.html?id=407206
It's good to know there are a few salmon farmers in Canada also trying to address the problems because it's guys like these that will bring the industry into the twenty-first century.

BTW, I heard it cost close to half a million bucks for one SLICE treatment. Is that anywhere near accurate, sockeyefry?

 

[Nimo]

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

Over the 16 month that it takes to grow a market salmon, the total bill is $460,800. The production is 450,000 kgs, or a cost of over $1 per kg just for power. This alone makes it cost prohibitive when your competitors do not have to incur such a cost.

Sockeye Fry:
Who are the competitors you refer to? Are we talking Chile and other unregulated countries? I don't think we should be benchmarking our product or competitive analysis on third world countries - for obvious reasons. BC does not need to compete on the penny value world-wide polluted aquaculture market, and in fact does so at it's own peril.

I personally won't pay for the current farmed salmon at any price and in fact will not feed it to my family for free. If there was a product that was environmentally sound and was in fact as healthy as organically grown can be, I would pay a significant premium for the privilege.

The fish farmers need to embrace BC for what it is marketed to be: clean, healthy, and organic. We have something the rest of the world will go to war over, we need to protect it and market it to its fullest potential.

Here's a thought: on a comparative basis, I consider our farmed salmon to be the forestry's equivalent of raw log export. We are selling our children's future. Put a little effort into it, sell our natural attributes to the world, maximize the value added, and every Canadian will prosper. It is getting easier every day with the changing economies. Consider the worthless Alberta oilsands that are now being mined - this is the value of our future with land-based fish farms.