fish farm siting criteria & politics

[sockeyefry]

Agent,

Do you know of any alternate energy sources which could produce say 3000 kw of power, and at what cost? Power has always been the stumbling block. It takes energy to pump the necessary water flows through the big tanks. Of course in a net pen this energy is provided by the tides at no cost.

The capital cost is much higher in an on land farm, as the tanks must be made of something usually concrete or steel, which cost more than nets. In addition you have to purchase all the water supply equipment, like pumps, oxygen systems, piping, etc. Other things are common to both such as feeding systems, buildings for feed storage, offices, quarters, etc... You don't have to buy a boat, or deal with dirty nets. Overall I would say that the capital costs of a land based farm are double or triple depending on the site. Operating costs such as feeding, and general husbandry are probably the same. You still have to deal with Sea lice, so you don't save the Slice treatments. The biggest single difference between the 2 which tips the cost of production higher in the land based farm is the cost of duplicating the water exchange provided by the tides. Recirculation technology does hold promise in reducing the pump costs, but it has yet to be proven in large scale salmon production, which makes financiers nervous, even though the technology has come great strides in the last few years.

Cuttle, I don't think that a slice treatment costs that much. That might include the feed as well. Slice is fed to the salmon in the feed.

Its kind of funny that you post the article about R. Buchannan, as he was the one who operated the farm at Cedar, and went insolvent. I wouldn't hold out much hope for him to solve the problems, given his past record.

Land based farms do have advantages. They are immune to weather, and allow the farmer to manipulate the in tank evironment to favour growth. I think that one main reason why the cost of prod. makes the move to land based unacceptable is that the BC farmers competitors in the rest of the world are not farming on land. This creates an unlevel playing field, with the BC farners unable to compete in a commodity market, where the lowest cost producers survive.

I know that the in water closed containment farms appear at first glance to be a viable option, but they are not very durable, and do not stand up to the abuse of the ocean. The advantage they have over land based is the pumping costs are somewhat reduced and the capital costs are lower. They do still have the sea lice problem.

I think that DFO, Industry, ENGO's, Academics should look at exploring land based technologies, rather than wasting energy bickering with dueling scientists. The first question is to solve the energy problem. If you solve that, then the farming companies would move the farms on land voluntarily.

 

[sockeyefry]

Nimo,

Do you eat salmon? and if so where do you get it?
Did you buy the Eco salmon that was sold at Thrifty's? It was produced in a landbased farm, and sold at a higher price.

The same problem exists with a lot of imported goods. Cheap articles from China outsell quality canadian goods. Why because they are cheap, and the consumer talks big, but in reality they all want it cheap. The Canadian either adapts or loses out. Is it right?

In order to compete with other producers of salmon they have to be the lower producer. Quality doesn't sell any more, it is expected, and you will not get a premium for "eco" fish. Consumers don't care. The few who do do not represent enough buying power. For a reference, how many say they will buy organic produce vs how many who actually do?

With regard to raw logs, salmon are processed in BC before shipment to markets. The processing jobs stay here. This in no way could be compared to the ludicrous practice of sending logs to the states raw. Alaska has laws against this. Newfoundland has laws against exporting unoprocessed fish. Both are designed to keep the people at home working, and not exporting the jobs.

 

[Nimo]

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

Agent,

Land based farms do have advantages. They are immune to weather, and allow the farmer to manipulate the in tank evironment to favour growth. I think that one main reason why the cost of prod. makes the move to land based unacceptable is that the BC farmers competitors in the rest of the world are not farming on land. This creates an unlevel playing field, with the BC farners unable to compete in a commodity market, where the lowest cost producers survive.

And so Sockeye, the rest of the world is not yet ready to pay for our extremely high value product. Let's fallow the farms, and put the resources into land-based research while they catch-up. If at the end of the day we cannot compete with a high value land-based product then BC is not intended to sell farmed salmon.

 

[Nimo]

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

Nimo,

Do you eat salmon? and if so where do you get it?
Did you buy the Eco salmon that was sold at Thrifty's? It was produced in a landbased farm, and sold at a higher price.

The same problem exists with a lot of imported goods. Cheap articles from China outsell quality canadian goods. Why because they are cheap, and the consumer talks big, but in reality they all want it cheap. The Canadian either adapts or loses out. Is it right?

In order to compete with other producers of salmon they have to be the lower producer. Quality doesn't sell any more, it is expected, and you will not get a premium for "eco" fish. Consumers don't care. The few who do do not represent enough buying power. For a reference, how many say they will buy organic produce vs how many who actually do?

With regard to raw logs, salmon are processed in BC before shipment to markets. The processing jobs stay here. This in no way could be compared to the ludicrous practice of sending logs to the states raw. Alaska has laws against this. Newfoundland has laws against exporting unoprocessed fish. Both are designed to keep the people at home working, and not exporting the jobs.

Being an X salmon guide, I am fortunate to catch my family's annual requirements. However, I do not expect this to carry on. The salmon returns are very disturbing to say the least and I may choose this year to not purchase a salmon license - out of direct concern for our wild salmon. I cannot overstate my concern for the wild salmon.

The Eco salmon, like the oilsands, are becoming more possible all the time - the ECO failure was either a failure of marketing or bad timing (which or course is marketing) . Let's not confuse a marketing failure with a product failure. The product was awsesome, but may have been 5 - 10 years ahead of its time.

Fresh, organically, and environmentally friendly salmon is a saleable profitable product.

To compete with a China-level quality is ridiculous at best and we realize this at every level of our consumerism - do you want lead with that meal? Maybe somewhat media hype, but there's alway truth behind the curtains and there is absolutely no comparison to what we have to offer.

I stopped at one of the roadside Vans selling shrimp etc about 10 years back. He had shrimp, scallops, lobster tails, etc. Everything was frozen and everything was imported from some southern or Asian country.

I was horrified to think I would be standing on Vancouver Island and couldn't buy VI West Coast seafood. I paid $10 - $15 for whatever I bought and have never stopped at one of those stands since. Had I paid $30 back then for Quality BC product that I had faith in I would have stopped 6 times per year ever since - guaranteed!! In fact everytime I pass the signs on the highway now I feel sick that I cannot stop and expect any level of quality fresh seafood.

The low quality export of our marine environment at the great expense of our wild salmon is very comparable to the raw log exports. We are trading our children's future for the fast buck today. Tomorrow we will be working for another country. Oh, too late... What is being exported is our environment which belongs to all of us - not the fish farmers.

 

[agentaqua]

sockeyefry - you bring-up some good points and info - however, the issues of:
1/ current operating costs has not yet been resolved, nor has
2/ the additional cost for onshore pumping (at something like an extra $1/lb) when compared to what the current increase in the price the salmon farmers are now getting for their product (which is what?).

Another point about pumping - you can filter both the influent and effluent for things like sea lice. You wouldn't still need to do sea lice treatments.

 

[cuttlefish]

Okay, okay, so R. Buchanan went insolvent at Cedar. He hasn't given up looking for a better mouse trap.
How about this guy. He's a professor emeritus from Simon Fraser. Maybe these guys don't have all the answers yet, but at least they're working at it.

http://www.sfu.ca/sfunews/print/sfu_news/archives/sfunews11160610.htm

I do have to vent bit now and say that the three Norwegian multi-nationals that own 90% of BC's salmon farms ("our farmers" as sockeyefry calls them) are the same outfits in Chile, Scotland and Norway (the competition). The reason that BC still has salmon farms is because the transport costs to get the Chilean salmon to the US market offsets the lower production and labour costs down there.

It's a crying shame that salmon has been reduced to nothing but a commodity in the marketplace and as such, masks the facts of the challenges faced by wild salmon. If people were faced with the real possibility that there were no cheap salmon for sale, then they might wake up to the need for doing what is necessary to preserve and rebuild what we've lost.

 

[sockeyefry]

Guys, I am not disagreeing with you regarding land based farms. However, I think you also need a dose of realism with regard to the technology.

A marine farm would cost around $3 million dollars for equipment. A land based farm to produce the same tonnage of salmon would be 3X this.

Current price per kg. is around $5, and it costs around $4.60 to produce it.. As you can see, adding $1 per kg in pumping costs dramatgically shifts a profitable enterprise into one which losses money. Sometime we lose sight of the fact that businesses are doing what they do to make money, and this is not a bad thing.
The price increase has only been 10 cents a KG.

Yes you can filter the in and out, but this also adds to your costs. The less water you put in and out means less energy necessary to provide it. That is why I am suggesting research into RAS technologies.

 

[agentaqua]

Yammy 5, you state: “The Hites paper of 2004 was alarmist and failed to point out the health benefits of eating farmed salmon. The health risks associated with NOT eating salmon far outweigh any risk associated with eating salmon”.

I really disagree with you on this point.

I would instead be a little more humble and instead say that: dependent upon the type and level of contaminant in wild or farmed salmon – there may or may not be short-term benefits for those with cardiovascular disease – that would benefit more from elevated HDL levels than they would risk from eating any specific contaminant for short time frames.

NOBODY should eat elevated levels of contaminants over a longer timeframe (if they have that choice) – as many contaminants are fat-soluble, cumulative, and degenerative over longer time frames. Most at-risk, are the developing fetus (receiving contaminants through the placenta) and younger children.

You then state: “It should also be noted that salmon samples from the Hites study were analyzed with skin on, which likely contain a higher concentration of toxins, yet the majority of people do not eat the skin”.

The majority of people who eat farmed, commercially-bought salmon do not – you mean. Wild salmon enthusiasts often do, either through the smoking process (where oils run out of the skin and into the meat), or from canned/mason-jarred salmon which is left with the skin on.

Strictly as a comparison between contaminants in farmed and wild salmon flesh – yes, we should compare apples with apples, and compare de-skinned fillets.

However, when we are comparing intake – no we should compare both wild and farmed salmon with their skins on.

You state: “Further, the Hites study was referring to Scottish farmed salmon (which were higher in contaminants) when they made statements of comparison to wild salmon”.

Didn’t Hites compare a lot of different fish for these averages – not just Scottish farmed Atlantics?

You then state: “BC farmed salmon use much cleaner marine fish oils in their diets" – cleaner than what? Wild salmon diets? Or were you referring to Scottish farmed salmon?

You know - Hites is not the only author reporting on increases in contaminants in farmed salmon. Easton et al. (2002) found that farmed salmon showed consistently higher levels of PCBs, PBDEs, OPs (except toxaphene) than the wild salmon; likely a consequence of the elevated level of contamination found in the commercial salmon feed.

You then state: “so the result is a farmed fish that is as nutritious as a wild salmon (even more nutritious than some wild species with regard to fatty acids and alpha-linoleic acid).”

What about saturated fats? Forgot to mention that one? According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, farmed Atlantic salmon contain 70 percent more fat than wild Atlantic salmon and 200 percent more fat than wild Pacific salmon.

You then quote the Ikonomou et al (2007) study in Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 41: 437-443: “Although the wet weight PCB levels were generally found to be lower in wild than in farmed salmon species, it should be stressed that the highest mean concentrations of PCBs found in this study, respectively, were 147-52 fold lower than the level of concern for human consumption of fish as established by Health Canada and the US-FDA, (i.e., 2000 ng/g)....

Yes, and those levels are seriously in need of revision. The USDA guidelines came-out in 1984 and haven't been amended since.

Funny how nobody here mentions the fact that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guideline on PCBs is 100 TIMES stricter. They recommend that fish with PCBs level between 0.024 to 0.048 ppm should be eaten 8 oz a month. That means that many of the farmed salmon tested by Ikonomou would fail the EPA guidelines.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency guidelines are even stricter: at 0.004 parts per million. Why isn’t anyone quoting these guidelines?

Then - Sockeyefry, you state: “Agent, Bringing out the old PCB arguments are you?”

Whether or not the “old PCB arguments” have been brought-out in the past few years; they affect us now, in the present – and our kids will also have to deal with the effects of the release of the persistent toxins from industrial discharges in their future. I don’t see how it is at all applicable or responsible to put a time limit on discussion on this important topic.

Somehow, in the minds of the pro-industry people – not ignoring the fact that we are slowly poisoning ourselves by the irresponsible release of persistent pollutants by all the industries (not blaming the fish farm industry for this one) – is somehow seen as “fear mongering”

That’s complete BS, and a deliberate attempt to shift the focus away from the serious issues at hand. If people were paying attention to begin with – it wouldn’t have gotten this bad.

In fact, you correctly add: “There was also a study which demonstrated that the sources of PCB in remote inland lakes in Alaska were the migratory sockeye salmon. They were also found to contain very high levels of PCB, higher than farmed salmon”.

The study you refer to is probably: Bruyn, A. M. H. de, Ikonomou, M. G., Gobas, F. A. P. C. Magnification and toxicity of PCBs, PCDDs, and PCDFs in upriver-migrating Pacific salmon – where they looked at the gonads of pre-spawning sockeye salmon in Great Central Lake, BC. They found that pre-spawning migration causes a magnification of PCB, PCDD, and PCDF concentrations in female gonads (1.9-2.5-fold), female soma (3.4-5.6-fold), and male soma (5.6-9.7-fold).

The reasons – once spawning salmon enter a stream – they rarely feed, and instead use-up their energy sources (the lipids) in migration costs, and in the development of their gonads (eggs and sperm). The contaminants in the flesh and oils stay there and become concentrated.

Using the data from the Hites study, where farmed salmon have some 10 times more contaminants – then that means that the gonads studied on these sockeye salmon were similar in PCB levels to farmed salmon.

Okay – all the arguing about comparisons between farmed and aquacultured fish temporarily aside – is this a good thing – and acceptable thing – that our food chain is contaminated with persistent chemicals?

There has also been reports of flame-retardant chemicals (PBDEs, lighter but similar to PCBs) found in orcas (http://pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/rp/rppdf/f05-244.pdf), and other containments in marine mammals.

Let me ask everyone on this thread:

Is this acceptable? Is it acceptable that we have become so desensitized to the news – that we blandly accept it as an unfortunate eventuality, and change the channel? Why are we allowing the releases of persistent chemicals into the environment? Why aren’t we outraged?

 

[yammy5]

Yammy 5, you state: “The Hites paper of 2004 was alarmist and failed to point out the health benefits of eating farmed salmon. The health risks associated with NOT eating salmon far outweigh any risk associated with eating salmon”.

I really disagree with you on this point.

I would instead be a little more humble and instead say that: dependent upon the type and level of contaminant in wild or farmed salmon – there may or may not be short-term benefits for those with cardiovascular disease – that would benefit more from elevated HDL levels than they would risk from eating any specific contaminant for short time frames.

More people die of heart disease than any other disease and eating farmed salmon provides a rich source of DHA and EPA and ALA which are proven to have excellent cardiovascular health benefits. Contaminants in BC farmed salmon are well below existing health standards and are comparable to wild Chinook and Coho salmon.

NOBODY should eat elevated levels of contaminants over a longer timeframe (if they have that choice) – as many contaminants are fat-soluble, cumulative, and degenerative over longer time frames. Most at-risk, are the developing fetus (receiving contaminants through the placenta) and younger children.

BC farmed salmon have only trace amounts of contaminants, as do BC wild salmon and many of the other foods we eat every day: the butter you smothered on your toast this morning, the milk in your cereal, the ham in your sandwich and the hamburger you had for dinner all have PCBs. These contaminants are ubiquitous and we have the technology to measure trace amounts. The fact that we can detect it doesn’t mean that its mere presence is hazardous. Dioxins and Furans for example, are everywhere and are spread globally through fires. ‘And the 2’3’7’8’ Chlorine substituted congeners are more toxic than PCBs.

You then state: “It should also be noted that salmon samples from the Hites study were analyzed with skin on, which likely contain a higher concentration of toxins, yet the majority of people do not eat the skin”.

The majority of people who eat farmed, commercially-bought salmon do not – you mean. Wild salmon enthusiasts often do, either through the smoking process (where oils run out of the skin and into the meat), or from canned/mason-jarred salmon which is left with the skin on.

When salmon are smoked they accumulate large amounts of PAHs (poly aromatic hydrocarbons), dioxins, furans and the moisture is removed so all lipophilic contaminants become concentrated on a wet weight basis. Some of the oil is lost as well so this is a complicated cooking process to examine. I think only a small % of farmed salmon is smoked so this is a poor comparison to wild salmon. Yes, some people keep the skin on when they can salmon so there might be an issue here.

ALL that aside, it’s a good idea to remove the skin because (1) THE MAJORITY of people don’t eat the skin and (2) the skin can accumulate contaminants thru transport and processing thus providing false positive results. Hites (2004) purchased salmon from supermarkets so they had ZERO knowledge or control over the transport and storage conditions of those fish. ie. They had a lack of quality control and contamination from a number of sources was a serious concern. Ikonomou et al controlled the sampling process from sea to lab and still removed skin to remove contamination from the equation.

Strictly as a comparison between contaminants in farmed and wild salmon flesh – yes, we should compare apples with apples, and compare de-skinned fillets.

However, when we are comparing intake – no we should compare both wild and farmed salmon with their skins on.

Clearly I disagree from a scientific perspective as described above that salmon should be analyzed with skin-on. We have more control over QA/QC without the skin and I am confident the majority of people (in Canada) do not eat the skin. I suppose there is an argument that in other countries the majority of people eat skin and in those cases special sampling could be considered./

You state: “Further, the Hites study was referring to Scottish farmed salmon (which were higher in contaminants) when they made statements of comparison to wild salmon”.

Didn’t Hites compare a lot of different fish for these averages – not just Scottish farmed Atlantics?

European farmed salmon recorded the highest contaminant load at the time of sampling and were not averaged, but were recorded on an individual site basis. See BC farmed salmon in his table as recording much lower levels.

You then state: “BC farmed salmon use much cleaner marine fish oils in their diets" – cleaner than what? Wild salmon diets? Or were you referring to Scottish farmed salmon?

AT the time of this study, Scottish farmed salmon diets were based on MFO from the North Atlantic which recorded the highest contaminant levels (as a result of Atmospheric deposition from nearby industrial pollution). BC farmed salmon MFO is sourced from S Atlantic/S Pacific which is a much cleaner source.

You know - Hites is not the only author reporting on increases in contaminants in farmed salmon. Easton et al. (2002) found that farmed salmon showed consistently higher levels of PCBs, PBDEs, OPs (except toxaphene) than the wild salmon; likely a consequence of the elevated level of contamination found in the commercial salmon feed.

Yes I am familiar with the Easton paper and I suspect it would be rejected if the same data was submitted for publication today. Have you read the paper? Weak. Remember it was a pilot study. They compared 4 farmed salmon and 4 wild salmon (1 chinook, 1 chum and 2 sockeye).

Statistically, this is insignificant.

You then state: “so the result is a farmed fish that is as nutritious as a wild salmon (even more nutritious than some wild species with regard to fatty acids and alpha-linoleic acid).”

What about saturated fats? Forgot to mention that one? According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, farmed Atlantic salmon contain 70 percent more fat than wild Atlantic salmon and 200 percent more fat than wild Pacific salmon.

Saturated fats are high is farmed salmon? At what levels? Where are the published results???

You then quote the Ikonomou et al (2007) study in Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 41: 437-443: “Although the wet weight PCB levels were generally found to be lower in wild than in farmed salmon species, it should be stressed that the highest mean concentrations of PCBs found in this study, respectively, were 147-52 fold lower than the level of concern for human consumption of fish as established by Health Canada and the US-FDA, (i.e., 2000 ng/g)....

Yes, and those levels are seriously in need of revision. The USDA guidelines came-out in 1984 and haven't been amended since.

Funny how nobody here mentions the fact that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guideline on PCBs is 100 TIMES stricter. They recommend that fish with PCBs level between 0.024 to 0.048 ppm should be eaten 8 oz a month. That means that many of the farmed salmon tested by Ikonomou would fail the EPA guidelines.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency guidelines are even stricter: at 0.004 parts per million. Why isn’t anyone quoting these guidelines?

Can you please reference the guidelines that you are quoting. These can be confusing because they relate the concentration of the amount consumed to the bodymass of the consumer. At the current time, farmed and wild salmon are WAY below the guidelines so lets not panic.

Then - Sockeyefry, you state: “Agent, Bringing out the old PCB arguments are you?”

Whether or not the “old PCB arguments” have been brought-out in the past few years; they affect us now, in the present – and our kids will also have to deal with the effects of the release of the persistent toxins from industrial discharges in their future. I don’t see how it is at all applicable or responsible to put a time limit on discussion on this important topic.

Somehow, in the minds of the pro-industry people – not ignoring the fact that we are slowly poisoning ourselves by the irresponsible release of persistent pollutants by all the industries (not blaming the fish farm industry for this one) – is somehow seen as “fear mongering”

That’s complete BS, and a deliberate attempt to shift the focus away from the serious issues at hand. If people were paying attention to begin with – it wouldn’t have gotten this bad.

In fact, you correctly add: “There was also a study which demonstrated that the sources of PCB in remote inland lakes in Alaska were the migratory sockeye salmon. They were also found to contain very high levels of PCB, higher than farmed salmon”.

The study you refer to is probably: Bruyn, A. M. H. de, Ikonomou, M. G., Gobas, F. A. P. C. Magnification and toxicity of PCBs, PCDDs, and PCDFs in upriver-migrating Pacific salmon – where they looked at the gonads of pre-spawning sockeye salmon in Great Central Lake, BC. They found that pre-spawning migration causes a magnification of PCB, PCDD, and PCDF concentrations in female gonads (1.9-2.5-fold), female soma (3.4-5.6-fold), and male soma (5.6-9.7-fold).

The reasons – once spawning salmon enter a stream – they rarely feed, and instead use-up their energy sources (the lipids) in migration costs, and in the development of their gonads (eggs and sperm). The contaminants in the flesh and oils stay there and become concentrated.

Using the data from the Hites study, where farmed salmon have some 10 times more contaminants – then that means that the gonads studied on these sockeye salmon were similar in PCB levels to farmed salmon.

Okay – all the arguing about comparisons between farmed and aquacultured fish temporarily aside – is this a good thing – and acceptable thing – that our food chain is contaminated with persistent chemicals?

There has also been reports of flame-retardant chemicals (PBDEs, lighter but similar to PCBs) found in orcas (http://pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/rp/rppdf/f05-244.pdf), and other containments in marine mammals.

Let me ask everyone on this thread:

Is this acceptable? Is it acceptable that we have become so desensitized to the news – that we blandly accept it as an unfortunate eventuality, and change the channel? Why are we allowing the releases of persistent

I have to agree that it’s not acceptable. The sad news is that these contaminants are ubiquitous and levels may increase with China’s revolution (in both farmed & wild salmon and all food for that matter). These contaminants are deposited thru the atmosphere onto the surfaces of the oceans and our fields and slowly bioconcentrate thru the food chain to top predators such as ourselves.

 

[sockeyefry]

Agent,

No there was a study out of Alaska done back in 2002 or so. Sorry I don't have the access to info that you have.

Just when I think we are getting somewhere with a good discussion regarding what could be done with regard to farm siting, shich I believe is the topic of this thread, you hijack us back onto some other course.

The levels of PCB and other contaminants are below acceptable levels in both wild and farmed. These contaminants exist in higher concentrations in more common food items, this fact ignored by the studies publishers and initially by the media.
The studies were created to have an alarmist reaction in the general public and to stop them from eating farmed salmon, effecting markets and putting farmers out of business, nothing more. The people who performed the research had an agenda.

 

[yammy5]

Sockeyefry ~ good point.
I'll avoid responding to Agent in the future so that the thread can continue where it was heading.

The impact of farming on the environment is of greater concern and requires significant discussion. I agree with others that the industry should take a precautionary approach and should fallow farms at appropriate times to allow the safe passage of juvenile wild salmon. In the mean time the science can continue to examine the impacts of farming on the environment so we can get some definitive answers. I don't believe we have the technology for a profitable land-based farming operation so we need to improve the practices of existing ocean based operations.

 

[Alexandra Morton]

Sockeye fry,

It is the fish farm industry that taught me that they spread IHN. You should read the following paper. That is where I learned how the disease spread to one farm from wild sockeye and then jumped farm to farm in eastern Johnstone Strait infecting millions of farm fish. Then the smolt transporters sucked up the virus as they passed the infected farms in the middle of winter and carried it to Simoom Sound in the Broughton. From there it spread farm to farm as the Kingcome Inlet herring were amassing around those farms. The farmers culled one farm, but left another infectious for months.... It was also carried to the farms off Port Hardy where it spread and then to Bella Bella, it is all in this paper. Yes, IHN is natural, but the feedlot conditions of fish farms amplifies pathogens be it lice or viruses to levels our wild salmon simply are not designed to deal with.

Kingcome herring are almost extinct DFO doesn't even bother to count them anymore.

Investigation of the 2001-2003 IHN epizootic in
farmed Atlantic salmon
in British Columbia
Prepared by
Sonja Saksida BSc DVM MSc
Sea to Sky Veterinary Service
Campbell River, British Columbia


If you have a moment, please check the website www.adopt-a-fry.org and see where we are at.

We absolutely have to make progress now before the fish farming industry is granted the lease expansions they have applied for.

We cannot afford anymore dress rehearsals, the wild salmon need relief, the farms in the Broughton Archipelago and elsewhere have applied to expand and upgrade to 20 year extensions.

If you have friends who are also concerned about the state of wild salmon in British Columbia please consider forwarding this website.

You can donate or simply join and be counted.



Headed to Court,

 

[agentaqua]

Yammy 5, some good points in the last posting.

you state: “More people die of heart disease than any other disease and eating farmed salmon provides a rich source of DHA and EPA and ALA which are proven to have excellent cardiovascular health benefits. Contaminants in BC farmed salmon are well below existing health standards and are comparable to wild Chinook and Coho salmon.”.

People die of many things – including cancer. Many persistent chemicals are known to cause cancer. I’m not saying fish oil is bad for you – I am saying contaminants are. The health standards quoted by the fish farming industry are the most liberal and outdated ones.

People way smarter and more educated than me in the US Environmental Protection Agency recommend that fish with PCBs level between 0.024 to 0.048 ppm should be eaten once a month and an 8 oz portion at that.

"BC farmed salmon have only trace amounts of contaminants, as do BC wild salmon and many of the other foods we eat every day: the butter you smothered on your toast this morning, the milk in your cereal, the ham in your sandwich and the hamburger you had for dinner all have PCBs. These contaminants are ubiquitous and we have the technology to measure trace amounts. The fact that we can detect it doesn’t mean that its mere presence is hazardous. Dioxins and Furans for example, are everywhere and are spread globally through fires. ‘And the 2’3’7’8’ Chlorine substituted congeners are more toxic than PCBs".

The main issue, is a discrepancy between different government departments on what amounts of PCBs are safe for human consumption. The EPA governs wild salmon, and the FDA governs farm salmon.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration stipulates that PCBs in salmon should occur no more than two parts per million, a number which is quoted with approval by the B.C. Salmon Farmers’ Association as being 35 times higher than that found in farmed salmon. The Canadian Guidelines for Chemical Contaminants and Toxins in Fish and Fish Products, overseen by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, has the same guideline as the U.S. FDA.

However, the U.S. regulations were established in 1984 and haven't been amended since. In 1999, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which oversees PCB levels in wild salmon, began requiring that wild salmon contain 500 times less PCBs than the U.S. FDA and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency: 0.004 parts per million. If the salmon the Environmental Working Group studied were wild, rather than farmed, the U.S. EPA would suggest that the ones it found having the high PCB levels (seven of the 10 salmon studied) should be eaten no more than once per month. But under the Canadian guidelines, the very same salmon could have been safely consumed without worry about PCBs (i.e. more than once per week). There’s an obvious disconnect here.

"ALL that aside, it’s a good idea to remove the skin because (1) THE MAJORITY of people don’t eat the skin and (2) the skin can accumulate contaminants thru transport and processing thus providing false positive results".

If that is the case – couldn’t you say the same about the fillets? Also, people often cook fillets in the oven, skin side-down. Wouldn’t oils in the skin leach into our dinner?

"Yes I am familiar with the Easton paper and I suspect it would be rejected if the same data was submitted for publication today. Have you read the paper? Weak. Remember it was a pilot study. They compared 4 farmed salmon and 4 wild salmon (1 chinook, 1 chum and 2 sockeye)."

Statistically, this is insignificant.

Just because the sample size in Easton’s pilot study was admittedly small (and hence called a pilot study) – does not mean the effect (PCBs in fish feed) was insignificant – or that we should reject the suggestion that there are risks that need to be resolved in ingesting higher levels of PCBs.

The suggestion that you are inferring – that we should therefore ignore Easton’s preliminary results is a classic example of a Type II statistical error - the error of failing to reject a null hypothesis when the alternative hypothesis is the true state of nature.

Easton’s null hypothesis would be that there are no differences in PCB levels between farmed and wild salmon.

Saying the sample size is too small, and then rejecting the alternative hypothesis that there are statistically-significant differences in PCB levels between wild and farmed salmon (like Hites found) – as failing to observe a difference when in truth there is one - is a classic Type II Error.

Any person who knows statistics would chide you on this suggestion, as would anyone legitimately concerned about the effect of persistent contaminants in our food supply.

I also found it interesting and even humorous – the exchange between you and sockeyefry – that by my responding to both your and sockeyefry’s earlier postings (which is what this online discussion forum is for) – that I have both the intent and even the power to hijack this forum back onto some other irrelevant topic.

Sounds a little neurotic and defensive – does it not?

Believe-it-or-not, I am in agreement with your last posting Yammy5 - that the impact of open net-cage salmon farming on the environment is of greater concern at the moment than the persistent contaminants that we cannot immediately affect - and requires significant discussion. That's why I started this thread - to discuss these issues. I started another thread at: http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9310 to discuss fish nutrition in more detail.

That discussion on the impact of open net-cage salmon farming on the environment will not be somehow mysteriously forgotten by all of us on this forum – I am sure. We all care too much for that to happen – even sockeyefry. I think we can put that fear to rest.

Having a frank discussion about persistent contaminants in both farmed and wild salmon is also of interest to people on this forum - it is called the sportsfishing forum, afterall - where people catch and eat fish, and are concerned about impacts to that resource.

After this PCB interlude - I look forward to hearing back from Yammy5, sockeyefry, cuttlefish, and everyone else on this forum on what alternatives they have been able to research on closed containment.

 

[cuttlefish]

As more chefs like the ones in last Wednesday's Globe and Mail article look for menu alternatives to wild salmon, they are turning not to open net cage farmed product, but to closed system products instead. If you build it they will buy.
______________________________________________________________________

In a province where summer means sockeye the same way that fall means rain, salmon is not just a menu option; it's part of the British Columbian identity, according to a report in Wednesday's Globe and Mail newspaper, which continues: To suggest taking wild salmon off restaurant menus is not just a radical idea, it's a challenge to deeply held social and political mores. Yet that's exactly what Harry Kambolis, owner of C Restaurant, Raincity Grill and Nu and his executive chef Robert Clark are considering. "We may never sell another piece of wild Pacific salmon again," Mr. Kambolis said. What's more, Mr. Clark said, he has looked into putting farmed salmon on the menu.

When Vancouver's sustainable-seafood guru speaks, other restaurateurs listen. Mr. Clark campaigned against ocean-farmed Atlantic salmon when every restaurant in Vancouver had it on the menu, and was instrumental in raising awareness about the wider crisis facing fish. Sustainable seafood guru Robert Clark says he may remove wild salmon from C Restaurant's menu. Two years ago, he removed wild sockeye - widely regarded as the most desirable salmon - from C's menu because of its precarious status, serving pink and chum instead.

Now, Mr. Clark says that he can not only see a point where it will be necessary to remove all wild salmon from the restaurant's menu, but he and Mr. Kambolis may make that decision this year. Any such move could force a major shift in B.C. menu offerings. Mr. Clark's decision to remove sockeye proved prescient. Now the industry is at the point where "this may be the last year for wild B.C. sockeye," he said. There are widespread fishing closures in Washington, Oregon and California because of concern about salmon stocks. Some rivers and ocean areas - such as Alaskan waters - remain open to harvest, however, where local stocks are in good shape.

One of the weakest runs of salmon in B.C. this year is expected to be the sockeye return to the Fraser River, where a run of about two million fish is predicted - well below the historical average of 4.4 million. Wild spring, chum and pink salmon are regarded as more sustainable choices, but even these species are under threat, Mr. Clark said.

Asked to clarify what time period may see wild salmon pulled from his menu, Mr. Clark said, "It could be this year." In the meantime, he is considering serving farmed salmon. The new "F-word," farmed fish is currently so vilified that many restaurateurs would find it a tough sell. What is important to establish, Mr. Clark explained, is the difference between ocean-based and closed-system, land-based aquaculture. Land-based aquaculture raises fish in lakes rather than rivers and the ocean, and does not harm wild fish.

Already, haute organic restaurant Bishop's serves land-based farmed coho from Swift Aquaculture in Agassiz. The Cactus Club chain removed wild salmon from its menu two years ago, replacing it with land-based farmed steelhead trout from Lois Lake near Powell River. Mr. Clark is exploring similar options. "We are building relationships with two land-based salmon farms - because very soon they may be the only friends we have."

 

[cuttlefish]

As more chefs like the ones in last Wednesday's Globe and Mail article look for menu alternatives to wild salmon, they are turning not to open net cage farmed product, but to closed system products instead. If you build it they will buy.
______________________________________________________________________

In a province where summer means sockeye the same way that fall means rain, salmon is not just a menu option; it's part of the British Columbian identity, according to a report in Wednesday's Globe and Mail newspaper, which continues: To suggest taking wild salmon off restaurant menus is not just a radical idea, it's a challenge to deeply held social and political mores. Yet that's exactly what Harry Kambolis, owner of C Restaurant, Raincity Grill and Nu and his executive chef Robert Clark are considering. "We may never sell another piece of wild Pacific salmon again," Mr. Kambolis said. What's more, Mr. Clark said, he has looked into putting farmed salmon on the menu.

When Vancouver's sustainable-seafood guru speaks, other restaurateurs listen. Mr. Clark campaigned against ocean-farmed Atlantic salmon when every restaurant in Vancouver had it on the menu, and was instrumental in raising awareness about the wider crisis facing fish. Sustainable seafood guru Robert Clark says he may remove wild salmon from C Restaurant's menu. Two years ago, he removed wild sockeye - widely regarded as the most desirable salmon - from C's menu because of its precarious status, serving pink and chum instead.

Now, Mr. Clark says that he can not only see a point where it will be necessary to remove all wild salmon from the restaurant's menu, but he and Mr. Kambolis may make that decision this year. Any such move could force a major shift in B.C. menu offerings. Mr. Clark's decision to remove sockeye proved prescient. Now the industry is at the point where "this may be the last year for wild B.C. sockeye," he said. There are widespread fishing closures in Washington, Oregon and California because of concern about salmon stocks. Some rivers and ocean areas - such as Alaskan waters - remain open to harvest, however, where local stocks are in good shape.

One of the weakest runs of salmon in B.C. this year is expected to be the sockeye return to the Fraser River, where a run of about two million fish is predicted - well below the historical average of 4.4 million. Wild spring, chum and pink salmon are regarded as more sustainable choices, but even these species are under threat, Mr. Clark said.

Asked to clarify what time period may see wild salmon pulled from his menu, Mr. Clark said, "It could be this year." In the meantime, he is considering serving farmed salmon. The new "F-word," farmed fish is currently so vilified that many restaurateurs would find it a tough sell. What is important to establish, Mr. Clark explained, is the difference between ocean-based and closed-system, land-based aquaculture. Land-based aquaculture raises fish in lakes rather than rivers and the ocean, and does not harm wild fish.

Already, haute organic restaurant Bishop's serves land-based farmed coho from Swift Aquaculture in Agassiz. The Cactus Club chain removed wild salmon from its menu two years ago, replacing it with land-based farmed steelhead trout from Lois Lake near Powell River. Mr. Clark is exploring similar options. "We are building relationships with two land-based salmon farms - because very soon they may be the only friends we have."

 

[sockeyefry]

Cuttlefish,

Actually the trout in Lois Lake are raised in net pens in the lake, and are not from closed containment.
However, the gist of the article, that you can't save a wild salmon by eating it is quite true.

Alexandra

IHN is also known as Sockeye disease. I disagree with you in that the farms were responsible for the spread of an already ubiquitous disease. I do agree that farmed salmon are at a greater risk, and could act as a reservoir. However this is also not in the best interest of the farmer, and they act to prevent it.

Why are you headed to court, on what charge?

 

[sockeyefry]

Cuttlefish,

Actually the trout in Lois Lake are raised in net pens in the lake, and are not from closed containment.
However, the gist of the article, that you can't save a wild salmon by eating it is quite true.

Alexandra

IHN is also known as Sockeye disease. I disagree with you in that the farms were responsible for the spread of an already ubiquitous disease. I do agree that farmed salmon are at a greater risk, and could act as a reservoir. However this is also not in the best interest of the farmer, and they act to prevent it.

Why are you headed to court, on what charge?

 

[agentaqua]

sockeyefry

quote:the gist of the article, that you can't save a wild salmon by eating it is quite true.

No, certainly not for that salmon that became your dinner - but you can devalue the true worth of wild salmon stocks so that they don't reflect the values they should have in society. Unfortunately, the world does depend upon money as the justification for doing business.

Therefore, whole fishing communities (commercial- and sports-) depend upon the financial value placed on wild salmon; while the freshwater and marine ecosystems depend upon salmon as a vehicle that transports energy and nutrients from the marine environment back to the freshwater hatcheries.

If we financially devalue that service provided to us - which we do - we don't have as rigid stewardship of that resource. It's only pinks - some say.

That's because - paradoxically – valuing wild salmon and encouraging stewardship also depends upon the value that fishermen are paid for their catch.

If commercial fishermen are only paid ~$0.20-0.40/lb for chum, and ~$0.10-0.20/lb for wild pink salmon – while open net-pen salmon farms consistently get paid $2.25+/lb for their farmed Atlantic salmon - what does that say about our values as a society? Where is the incentive to conserve wild stocks – if the money is in farmed salmon?

It's not the killing of animals for food that's the issue - mankind has done that for thousands of years - it's the management of the resource using greed as a surrogate for sustainability that's the issue. It's the corporate influence on our democracy that's the problem. I spoke of this earlier on these postings.

So - yes - wild eating salmon does increase it's market price, and increases the incentive to conserve wild stocks.

The next question - is that done sustainably?

Often not.

However, salmon from suppliers certified (http://www.msc.org/html/content_484.htm) through the Marine Stewardship Council (http://www.msc.org/html/content_462.htm) often is. There is a push for all capture fisheries to go through this process.

quote:I disagree with you in that the farms were responsible for the spread of an already ubiquitous disease.

Okay - how "ubiquitous" is IHN in the marine environment as compared to salmon farms being the potential infection points?

Does Saksida's study compare this?

 

[agentaqua]

sockeyefry

quote:the gist of the article, that you can't save a wild salmon by eating it is quite true.

No, certainly not for that salmon that became your dinner - but you can devalue the true worth of wild salmon stocks so that they don't reflect the values they should have in society. Unfortunately, the world does depend upon money as the justification for doing business.

Therefore, whole fishing communities (commercial- and sports-) depend upon the financial value placed on wild salmon; while the freshwater and marine ecosystems depend upon salmon as a vehicle that transports energy and nutrients from the marine environment back to the freshwater hatcheries.

If we financially devalue that service provided to us - which we do - we don't have as rigid stewardship of that resource. It's only pinks - some say.

That's because - paradoxically – valuing wild salmon and encouraging stewardship also depends upon the value that fishermen are paid for their catch.

If commercial fishermen are only paid ~$0.20-0.40/lb for chum, and ~$0.10-0.20/lb for wild pink salmon – while open net-pen salmon farms consistently get paid $2.25+/lb for their farmed Atlantic salmon - what does that say about our values as a society? Where is the incentive to conserve wild stocks – if the money is in farmed salmon?

It's not the killing of animals for food that's the issue - mankind has done that for thousands of years - it's the management of the resource using greed as a surrogate for sustainability that's the issue. It's the corporate influence on our democracy that's the problem. I spoke of this earlier on these postings.

So - yes - wild eating salmon does increase it's market price, and increases the incentive to conserve wild stocks.

The next question - is that done sustainably?

Often not.

However, salmon from suppliers certified (http://www.msc.org/html/content_484.htm) through the Marine Stewardship Council (http://www.msc.org/html/content_462.htm) often is. There is a push for all capture fisheries to go through this process.

quote:I disagree with you in that the farms were responsible for the spread of an already ubiquitous disease.

Okay - how "ubiquitous" is IHN in the marine environment as compared to salmon farms being the potential infection points?

Does Saksida's study compare this?

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/columnists/story.html?id=01c89ab2-5609-4185-b9fa-84f6ef270a17&p=2


The Vancouver Sun, 30th April 2008

Sea lice dispute escalates into an Ivory Tower punch-up

Stephen Hume, Special to the Sun

The sea lice brawl erupted again this week.

Five scientists who predict the extinction of pink salmon in the Broughton archipelago if sea lice associated with fish farms are not controlled have published a withering rebuttal of counterclaims by two other scientists who challenged their case.

And the debate has moved from starchy academic journals to website sparring at the University of Alberta and the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association.

The scholarly dustup began in late 2007 when Martin Krkosek, Subhash Lele and Mark Lewis of the University of Alberta's Centre for Mathematical Biology, Jennifer Ford of Dalhousie University's biology department and field research biologist Alexandra Morton predicted extinction for wild salmon runs exposed to fish farm sea lice.

Industry countered on the salmon farmer's website, citing an unpublished paper by Kenneth Brooks, an aquaculture scientist from Washington State who monitors B.C. fish farms and Simon Jones, a scientist with Canada's department of fisheries and oceans.

The website claimed -- citing Brooks and Jones -- that the sea lice researchers had cherry-picked data and "the dire predictions made by Krkosek are completely unfounded."

Then a paper co-authored by Ford and the late Ransom Myers, an esteemed fisheries scientist at Dalhousie, concluded from a meta-analysis of existing research that fish farms and their locations are indeed associated with plummeting wild fish populations. Next the Pacific Salmon Forum -- a group organized by the province to nail down sea lice science -- decided Krkosek's paper did have scientific merit.

Brooks and Jones then had their paper critiquing Krkosek accepted by the journal Reviews in Fisheries Science. Their paper charged that additional research over the past five years analyzing pink salmon escapements was not consistent with Krkosek's findings and that "scientific evidence fails to support the extinction hypothesis."

"Contrary to the conclusions reached by Krkosek et al., Broughton pink salmon returns have steadily increased since then with no indication that they are threatened with extinction," Brooks and Jones asserted. They accused Krkosek of "selective use of data, questionable analytical procedures and several unsubstantiated assumptions presented as fact."

For example, rather than experiencing mortalities of 80 per cent, they said, recent research shows even tiny pink salmon fry mount an effective immune response resulting in the shedding of sea lice within two weeks.

Krkosek and his colleagues responded with their own critique of the critique in the same journal and it's a humdinger.

Now, I make no pretense at knowing who is winning an exchange that goes:

Brooks -- "A linear model such as used in Krkosek et al is included in Figure 7. Note that the non-linear polynomial has a coefficient of determination of 0.55. Krkosek et all did not provide details describing their regression analyses . . . ."

Krkosek -- "It is not clear to us what can be learned about the effects of sea lice on pink salmon population dynamics by fitting a cubic function to seven data points on log-transformed summed escapement and log-transformed year axes . . . ."

However, I've read enough polite academic exchanges to know that "We show that the assessment by Brooks and Jones is thoroughly mistaken and that their conclusions are based on a combination of obfuscation, misrepresentation, and fundamental misunderstandings," is take-no-prisoners talk in the Ivory Tower.

Krkosek unloads his own jabs on his website at the U of A, surgically dismantling the critique in lay language.

Where the critics think there were no controls in certain of his experiments, Krkosek cites the place where his paper presents the control data. Where the critics thought the paper did not identify species of sea lice infecting juvenile salmon, Krkosek refers to the supporting information in his paper that did so.

Where the critics thought farm lice data were inconsistent with results, Krkosek observes that his critics had examined data from the wrong year. Where the critics thought only a multi-disciplinary approach could work, Krkosek says his team involved physicists, mathematicians, fisheries scientists and marine field ecologists.

"I believe there is sufficient evidence pointing to a severe potential threat of aquaculture to wild salmon stocks," Krkosek concludes.

So far in this heavyweight bout, I'd say Krkosek is ahead on points for counterpunching.

shume@islandnet.com