fish farm siting criteria & politics

[agentaqua]

Newest Issue of the Journal of Fish Diseases focuses on all things sea lice. See: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118493967/home?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

papers submitted, accepted, and subsequently printed include:

Modelling sea lice dispersion under varying environmental forcing in a Scottish sea loch</u>
T L Amundrud and A G Murray
FRS Marine Laboratory, Aberdeen, UK
Correspondence to Dr T L Amundrud, FRS Marine Laboratory, 375 Victoria Road, Aberdeen, AB11 9DB, UK
(e-mail: t.amundrud@marlab.ac.uk)
Copyright © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
KEYWORDS
Atlantic salmon farms • dispersion • environmental conditions • modelling • sea lice
ABSTRACT

The spread of infectious larval sea lice, Lepeophtheirus salmonis (Krøyer, 1838), between wild salmonids and farmed Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, remains a contentious area of uncertainty. However, as laboratory and field experiments increase our knowledge of sea lice behaviour under environmental forcing, numerical modelling tools can be used to predict the spread of infectious sea louse larvae from a point source. A three-dimensional numerical model has been developed and recently validated within Loch Torridon, a fjordic sea loch on the west coast of Scotland. Output from the numerical model is used to drive a particle tracking model which follows statistical representations of sea lice through the planktonic stages of a louse life cycle. By including maturation and mortality, the models can be used to predict the dispersion and transport of infectious sea lice from a point source and can be used to produce maps of infectivity under varying environmental conditions. Results highlight the importance of the wind-driven circulation for larval lice transport and suggest that local environmental conditions have considerable impact on the probability of sea lice infection spreading between wild and farmed fish populations.

Received: 25 March 2008 Revision received: 14 May 2008 Accepted: 14 May 2008
DIGITAL OBJECT IDENTIFIER (DOI)
10.1111/j.1365-2761.2008.00980.x About DOI

Sea lice, Lepeophtheirus salmonis, transfer between wild sympatric adult and juvenile salmon on the north coast of British Columbia, Canada</u>
A S Gottesfeld 1 , B Proctor 2 , L D Rolston 2 and C Carr-Harris 1
1 Skeena Fisheries Commission, Hazelton, BC, Canada
2 Oona River Resources Association, Prince Rupert, BC, Canada
Correspondence to A S Gottesfeld, Skeena Fisheries Commission, PO Box 166, 1525A Hankin Street, Hazelton, BC V0J 1Y0, Canada
(e-mail: gottesfeld@skeenafisheries.ca)
Copyright © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
KEYWORDS
Chinook salmon • Lepeophtheirus salmonis • pink salmon • sea lice • sea lice epizootiology • wild salmon
ABSTRACT

We examine sea lice, Lepeophtheirus salmonis, on juvenile and adult salmon from the north coast of British Columbia between 2004 and 2006 in an area that does not at present contain salmon farms. There is a pronounced zonation in the abundance of L. salmonis on juvenile pink salmon, Oncorhynchus gorbuscha, in the Skeena and Nass estuaries. Abundances in the proximal and distal zones of these estuaries are 0.01 and 0.05 respectively. The outer zones serve as feeding and staging areas for the pink salmon smolts. Returning Chinook, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, and coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch, concentrate in these areas. We collected data in 2006 to examine whether L. salmonis on returning adult salmon are an important source of the sea lice that appear on juvenile pink salmon. Nearly all (99%) of the sea lice on returning Chinook and over 80% on coho salmon were L. salmonis. Most of the L. salmonis were motile stages including many ovigerous females. There was a sharp increase in the abundance of sea lice on juvenile pink salmon smolts between May and July 2006 near the sites of adult captures. As there are no salmon farms on the north coast, few sticklebacks, Gasterosteus aculeatus, and very few resident salmonids until later in the summer, it seems that the most important reservoir of L. salmonis under natural conditions is returning adult salmon. This natural source of sea lice results in levels of abundance that are one or two orders of magnitude lower than those observed on juvenile pink salmon in areas with salmon farms such as the Broughton Archipelago.

Received: 11 April 2008 Revision received: 9 October 2008 Accepted: 9 October 2008
DIGITAL OBJECT IDENTIFIER (DOI)
10.1111/j.1365-2761.2008.01003.x About DOI

An assessment of salmon farms and wild salmonids as sources of Lepeophtheirus salmonis (Krøyer) copepodids in the water column in Loch Torridon, Scotland</u>
M J Penston and I M Davies
Fisheries Research Services Marine Laboratory, Aberdeen, UK
Correspondence to M J Penston, Fisheries Research Services Marine Laboratory, 375 Victoria Road, Aberdeen AB11 9DB, Scotland
(e-mail: m.penston@marlab.ac.uk)
Copyright © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
KEYWORDS
Atlantic salmon • copepodids • Lepeophtheirus salmonis • salmon farms • Scotland • sea trout
ABSTRACT

Wild salmonids and farmed salmon can both be sources of Lepeophtheirus salmonis (Krøyer, 1838) larvae. Farmed salmon smolts free of L. salmonis infections are stocked in sea cages and may subsequently contract L. salmonis infections, probably from wild fish. The contribution of gravid L. salmonis at Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., farms to populations of L. salmonis larvae in the water column has in the past been based on estimated parameters, such as louse fecundity. This present study augments these calculations by combining empirical data on densities of infective L. salmonis copepodids in the field with estimates of the number of gravid L. salmonis on farmed and wild salmonids in Loch Torridon. Data collected between 2002 and 2007 show a significant correlation between mean densities of L. salmonis copepodids recovered in the water column and the numbers of gravid L. salmonis at the local salmon farms. Generally, the farms with greatest numbers of salmon were observed to have stronger correlations with densities of copepodids in the water than the farms with fewer fish. The study suggests that louse management approaches, e.g. treatment trigger levels, need to take account of individual farm biomass, or numbers of fish. This study highlights the importance of control of L. salmonis on salmon farms for the co-existence of both wild salmonid populations and the aquaculture industry.

Received: 27 March 2008 Revision received: 19 June 2008 Accepted: 1 July 2008
DIGITAL OBJECT IDENTIFIER (DOI)
10.1111/j.1365-2761.2008.00986.x About DOI

 

[SnapperAttacker]

Anyone know what measures the fish farms take to keep out killer whales? Interested if there is insight on the way the farms protect themselves from such.

 

[agentaqua]

The BC Pacific Salmon Forum submitted the following Final Report and Recommendations to the Province of BC on January 6, 2009 and released it publicly on February 5, 2009:
http://www.pacificsalmonforum.ca/final/BCPSFFinRptqSm.pdf

In addition to that report, they now have released their interim research results from 2008 at:

http://www.pacificsalmonforum.ca/pdfs-all-docs/2008BroughtonResearchResults.pdf

And those 2008 research summaries at:

http://www.pacificsalmonforum.ca/pdfs-all-docs/2008ResearchProgram.pdf

The 2007 Interim Research Findings are found at:
http://www.pacificsalmonforum.ca/pdfs-all-docs/2007InterimFindingsFeb8-08.pdf


from what I understand, SnapperAttacker, fish farms don't protect themselves from orcas, specifically. Seals and other "nuisance" marine mammals are driven away by sonic noisemakers (called "acoustic deterrent devices") at sites where they are problems. That noise would also affect orca behaviour.

check-out:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/acoustics/interactions.pdf

 

[sockeyefry]

Agent,

I do not think that they use the sonic deterrents anymore, as they proved to be ineffective. They use netting to exclude predators, which typically are seals and sea lions. I have not heard of Orca being an issue, although one company was selling a 20' plastic orca as a "scare crow" against seals.

 

[cuttlefish]

quote:originally posted by sockeyefry
They use netting to exclude predators, which typically are seals and sea lions.

Netting worked real well at the brand new state-of-the-art Lime Point ff near Klemtu. Late last December a sea lion gets in, 43,000 Atlantic salmon escape. Sea lion gets shot.

 

[agentaqua]

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

Agent,

I do not think that they use the sonic deterrents anymore, as they proved to be ineffective. They use netting to exclude predators, which typically are seals and sea lions. I have not heard of Orca being an issue, although one company was selling a 20' plastic orca as a "scare crow" against seals.

Maybe you could have phrased it: "I hope or wish", rather than "I think", sockeyefry.

from what I can find, fish farms in BC can (and occasionally do) still use ADD's where they may be needed. Nobody seems to hav stats on this that I can find any wheres. Apparently elsewhere in the fish farming world (e.g. Scotland, etc) ADDs are still used. And yes - ADDs become less effective as seals get used to the sound.

In the 2007 BC Aquaculture Fish regulations it states (p. 13) that fish farms need to get a permit from DFO to legally operate an ADD at:
http://www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/public/Pubdocs/bcdocs/416295/BC_FinfishRegulation.pdf

That's if they want to be legal, even though shooting seals is highly illegal for fishermen to do - but is sometimes also done during the operation of a fish farm.

two other reports on the effects of ADD's can be found at:

http://www.agobservatory.com/library.cfm?refID=70191

http://fp.ukecologic.free-online.co.uk/ecologicUK/SNHADDReview.pdf

 

[agentaqua]

I think this is virtually the same article that cuttlefish posted - maybe with some additional info...

When Fish Farms Are Built Along The Coast, Where Does The Waste Go?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090215151758.htm

ScienceDaily (Feb. 25, 2009) — If you are a fish eater, it's likely that the salmon you had for dinner was not caught in the wild, but was instead grown in a mesh cage submerged in the open water of oceans or bays. Fish farming, a relatively inexpensive way to provide cheap protein to a growing world population, now supplies, by some estimates, 30 percent of the fish consumed by humans.

Two hundred and twenty species of finfish and shellfish are now grown in farms.

Intuitively, it seems a good idea—the more fish grown in pens, the fewer need be taken from wild stocks in the sea. But marine aquaculture can have some nasty side effects, especially when the pens are set near sensitive coastal environments. All those fish penned up together consume massive amounts of commercial feed, some of which drifts off uneaten in the currents. And the crowded fish, naturally, defecate and urinate by the tens of thousands, creating yet another unpleasant waste stream.

The wastes can carry disease, causing damage directly. Or the phosphate and nitrates in the mix may feed an algae bloom that sucks the oxygen from the water, leaving it uninhabitable, a phenomenon long associated with fertilizer runoff.

It has been widely assumed that the effluent from pens would be benignly diluted by the sea if the pens were kept a reasonable distance from shore, said Jeffrey Koseff, a professor of civil and environmental engineering and co-director of Stanford's Woods Institute for the Environment. But early results from a new Stanford computer simulation based on sophisticated fluid dynamics show that the icky stuff from the pens will travel farther, and in higher concentrations, than had been generally assumed, Koseff said.

"What we've basically debunked is the old adage that 'The solution to pollution is dilution,' " he said. "It's a lot more complicated."

The computer modeling (with new Stanford software that goes by the acronym SUNTANS) was conducted by Oliver Fringer, an assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering. He created a virtual coastal marine area resembling California's Monterey Bay.

Previous software, he said, has not been up to the task of accurately predicting where the unhealthy effluent from fish pens will end up, and should probably not be used by state or federal regulators when they approve locations for fish farms.

Existing software is typically derived from models that attempt to describe the drift of effluent from sewage outfall pipes, even though the substances and situations are different from fish farms. (Sewage outflow, for example, is often warmer than the ocean water.)

The fine details of modeling the flow of dissolved fish poop from a submerged cage are not as simple as they may seem. The design of the cage itself can affect the outcome. How much of the current flows through the cage, and how much goes around? Does the moving water swirl into eddies at the edges of the pen? Even the effects of the rotation of the earth on the waste plume comes into play.

The fish farmer would prefer that currents flush out his pens frequently, but as those currents take out the garbage they might unfortunately deliver it to a mangrove ecosystem or a public beach. On the other hand, insufficient flow through the pen can create a "dead zone" on the ocean floor as the fecal matter and uneaten food pile up beneath the fish.

Fringer is designing his software so that it can be used to asses any site—Puget Sound, perhaps—where sufficient digital mapping of the area already exists. SUNTANS comes just in time, said Stanford oceans expert Rosamond Naylor, as federal and local officials begin spelling the details of new health and environmental regulations for fish pens.

Also participating in the research was former postdoctoral researcher Subhas Karan Venayagamoorthy, now at Colorado State University.

Stanford scientist Oliver Fringer spoke about what happens to the dangerous wastes produced by fish farms in the ocean at the AAAS Annual Meeting in Chicago on Feb 15.

The presentation, "Characteristics of Waste Plumes from Aquaculture Pens in the Marine Environment," was part of the session, "Aquaculture Impacts, Standards, and Sustainability."
Adapted from materials provided by Stanford University, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.

 

[agentaqua]

Large fish going hungry as supplies of smaller species dwindle: report
Published: Monday, March 2, 2009 | 3:12 AM ET
Canadian Press NewsItem/NewsComponent/NewsLines/ByLine

HALIFAX, N.S. - Dolphins, sharks and other large marine species around the world are going hungry as they seek out dwindling supplies of the small, overlooked species they feed on, according to a new study that says overfishing is draining their food sources.

In a report released Monday, scientists with the international conservation group Oceana said they found several species were emaciated, reproducing slowly and declining in numbers in part because their food sources are being fished out.

"This is the first time that we're seeing a worldwide trend that more and more large animals are going hungry," Margot Stiles, a marine biologist at Oceana and the author of the report, said from Washington, D.C.

"It's definitely starting to be a pattern."

The researchers looked at the health of prey species stocks, like herring, pollock, mackerel, squid and anchoveta, to determine what effect overfishing is having on the larger predators that feed on them.

Using data from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, they found that the majority are over exploited by the fishery. Only 20 per cent of the prey species being fished can sustain the larger predators.

In Canada, scientists said Atlantic cod in the Gulf of St. Lawrence are becoming skinny because they are having more trouble finding reliable sources of small prey like capelin. In Maryland's Chesapeake Bay, striped bass are turning up emaciated because of shrinking supplies of herring and anchovies.

Whales too are having a difficult time finding prey, which researchers say might be affecting their ability and decision to mate. For many endangered whale species, diminished food sources could mean their populations will have trouble recovering.

Seabirds are being particularly hard hit as they choose not to mate because they can't guarantee food sources, Stiles said, citing the example of puffins in Norway where there was a 64 per cent drop in the number of birds having chicks in one year.

The problem is that as stocks of larger species are depleted, fishermen work their way down the marine food chain and fish smaller prey. Biologists warn that there might be little left in the world's oceans as fishermen fish out the seas.

"What we're asking for is that we fish more responsibly so you leave a few fish for the whales, the seabirds and the tuna," said Stiles.

Landings today of prey species, like blue whiting, skipjack tuna and Chub mackerel, are four times higher than they were in 1950, with more than 10 million tonnes of tiny anchoveta being harvested every year. Seven of world's 10 biggest fisheries aren't the large, more glamorous species, but the small anchoveta, pollack and Atlantic herring.

In the Mediterranean, that's caused widespread problems for dolphins that are washing up malnourished or sick because of poor nutrition and are more vulnerable to disease.

For fishermen in the Atlantic, the loss of prey species is raising concern that it will affect the lucrative bluefin tuna that feed on herring.

"They're feeding heavily on herring and a lot of fishermen are worried that the herring fishery is taking some of the bluefin's food," said Stiles, whose paper was released in Rome at a UN meeting on the state of the world's fisheries.

The paper says aquaculture is probably the greatest source of overfishing for prey species, accounting for 81 per cent of the small fish that are caught and ground up into meal or oil to feed raised fish.

"It's the primary demand for these fish," she said. "People eat sardines, but that's not what's causing the overfishing - it's the demand for aquaculture."

Climate change is also taking its toll on prey fish, which are more sensitive to warming ocean temperatures than their larger predators. So, if the world's waters continue to warm, scientists worry stocks will have even more difficulty recovering.

The researchers are calling for governments to manage the prey species fisheries more carefully, add protections for breeding hotspots so they might be able spawn and refrain from starting new prey fisheries.

"We can't take prey fish for granted any more," said Stiles. "We've always thought they're abundant, that they'll bounce back, but that's not happening. We've exhausted their ability to bounce back."

She said a change in the way we approach fisheries needs to change.

"We need to stop starting up new fisheries simply because we've exhausted all the big fish."
© The Canadian Press, 2009
CP

 

[sockeyefry]

More BS agent, Aquaculture does not account for that level of fish meal usage. It is currently in the 45% range. Chicken production, pet food and fertilizer make up the rest of the user. You know this, but this articles makes for sensational reading for the rest of the bunch here at the ole forum, and you couldn't pass up the opurtunity.

 

[sockeyefry]

More BS agent, Aquaculture does not account for that level of fish meal usage. It is currently in the 45% range. Chicken production, pet food and fertilizer make up the rest of the user. You know this, but this articles makes for sensational reading for the rest of the bunch here at the ole forum, and you couldn't pass up the opurtunity.

 

[Gunsmith]

I will go along with that if you can prove it. So far it is just your word.

 

[Gunsmith]

I will go along with that if you can prove it. So far it is just your word.

 

[sockeyefry]

Gun

Here ya go. This is from the Positive Aquaculture Awareness website:

www.farmfreshsalmon.org. You can go there verify, and maybe learn something.

MYTH #4
It takes 3-4 kilograms of wild fish, such as herring and anchovy, to make the feed necessary to produce one kilogram of farmed salmon. The result is a net loss of edible animal protein worldwide.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Facts:
The myth that people are losing valuable animal protein worldwide because it is being used for fish feed relies on the assumption that had this feed not gone to fish, it would have gone to humans. The assumption is false; the fishmeal fed to farmed salmon is made from trimmings in fish processing plants, from fish that are not suitable for human consumption, and from fish that humans do not desire to eat.
If there were a demand for direct human consumption of the fish used to make fishmeal, it is likely the fish would be delivered to those markets. Fish used directly for human consumption is always more valuable than fish used for meal.
Historically the Peruvian anchovy and Chilean mackerel fisheries – where a significant percentage of fish feed is derived – could not find a suitable market for their product in any form other than as fishmeal for animal feed.
The fish used for fishmeal production are caught in sustainably managed fisheries; the Chilean anchovy fishery, for example, is one of the world’s most highly regulated.
Farmed fish grow very efficiently compared to other farmed animals. This is because they don’t need to use energy to counter-act gravity as land animals do. Further, they are cold-blooded and therefore don’t need to expend energy to stay warm. By comparison, chickens and pigs - which are also fed large quantities of fishmeal - grow less efficiently than do salmon. If activists were really sincere about the need to conserve “animal protein worldwide” they would be highlighting chicken and pig farming, not fish farming.

Click for larger image
Calculations based on the actual conversion of fish meal to farmed salmon indicate that it actually takes 1.2 – 1.5 kilograms of wild fish to produce 1 kilogram of farmed salmon, not the 3 – 4 kilograms claimed by activists. By comparison, it takes about 5 kilograms of small wild fish to produce 1 kilogram of wild codfish. The fact is, on the issue of conversion, farming in general is more efficient than the wild.

 

[sockeyefry]

Gun

Here ya go. This is from the Positive Aquaculture Awareness website:

www.farmfreshsalmon.org. You can go there verify, and maybe learn something.

MYTH #4
It takes 3-4 kilograms of wild fish, such as herring and anchovy, to make the feed necessary to produce one kilogram of farmed salmon. The result is a net loss of edible animal protein worldwide.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Facts:
The myth that people are losing valuable animal protein worldwide because it is being used for fish feed relies on the assumption that had this feed not gone to fish, it would have gone to humans. The assumption is false; the fishmeal fed to farmed salmon is made from trimmings in fish processing plants, from fish that are not suitable for human consumption, and from fish that humans do not desire to eat.
If there were a demand for direct human consumption of the fish used to make fishmeal, it is likely the fish would be delivered to those markets. Fish used directly for human consumption is always more valuable than fish used for meal.
Historically the Peruvian anchovy and Chilean mackerel fisheries – where a significant percentage of fish feed is derived – could not find a suitable market for their product in any form other than as fishmeal for animal feed.
The fish used for fishmeal production are caught in sustainably managed fisheries; the Chilean anchovy fishery, for example, is one of the world’s most highly regulated.
Farmed fish grow very efficiently compared to other farmed animals. This is because they don’t need to use energy to counter-act gravity as land animals do. Further, they are cold-blooded and therefore don’t need to expend energy to stay warm. By comparison, chickens and pigs - which are also fed large quantities of fishmeal - grow less efficiently than do salmon. If activists were really sincere about the need to conserve “animal protein worldwide” they would be highlighting chicken and pig farming, not fish farming.

Click for larger image
Calculations based on the actual conversion of fish meal to farmed salmon indicate that it actually takes 1.2 – 1.5 kilograms of wild fish to produce 1 kilogram of farmed salmon, not the 3 – 4 kilograms claimed by activists. By comparison, it takes about 5 kilograms of small wild fish to produce 1 kilogram of wild codfish. The fact is, on the issue of conversion, farming in general is more efficient than the wild.

 

[sockeyefry]

In addition, I am not opposed to the article, just the highlighting done by AA. The article is pointing out a serious problem.

 

[sockeyefry]

In addition, I am not opposed to the article, just the highlighting done by AA. The article is pointing out a serious problem.

 

[Gunsmith]

I see your point on fish feed and how much it takes. When I previously stated fish plant by-products you now include this,but you stated previously it didn't happen.
I see your point that the fish used to make feed is not used for human consumption but the void this makes in the food chain forces the predators to seek feed elsewhere or starve. This in a way has nothing to do with salmon but it widens the impacts of the farms in a different way. Nothing is perfect but no matter what we do we leave a mark and alter the process of nature. I wholly agree that something must be done to feed humans but my stand against the fish farming has to do with the net pens in sensitive areas that aggravate the problems the salmon are going through. I would like to see them moved.

 

[Gunsmith]

I see your point on fish feed and how much it takes. When I previously stated fish plant by-products you now include this,but you stated previously it didn't happen.
I see your point that the fish used to make feed is not used for human consumption but the void this makes in the food chain forces the predators to seek feed elsewhere or starve. This in a way has nothing to do with salmon but it widens the impacts of the farms in a different way. Nothing is perfect but no matter what we do we leave a mark and alter the process of nature. I wholly agree that something must be done to feed humans but my stand against the fish farming has to do with the net pens in sensitive areas that aggravate the problems the salmon are going through. I would like to see them moved.

 

[sockeyefry]

Gun,

Yep, it widens the impact of these industrial fisheries which provide raw materials and feed for a number of human activities which happens to include, but not limited to fish farms.

The main beef I have is when this is discussed it is always in the context of why farms are bad and why we should get rid of them, but nothing is ever said about the rest of the story.

Ditto for the demise of the wild salmon populations. There are stats provided by DFO which indicate that the salmon in the Broughton are not in trouble, and if you accept their numbers then the claims of Morton et al seem to be a creation for media consumption to make good people come out in force against farming. It all seems to contrived for me.

I would not like to see a salmon run impacted by anything, and if possible all impacts should be removed or mediated, including the farms. However, I also feel that it should come out of proper investigation, not the emotional media based kangaroo court which we have now.

If the farms are shown to have an impact through this proper investigation then by all means have them removed from the areas which are the most sensitive, and allow them to operate in other areas.

In essence I agree with you in that if a farm is in an area which is sensitive, and is having an impact on the local populations, which has been documented through proper investigation, then it should be removed.

 

[agentaqua]

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

Gun

Here ya go. This is from the Positive Aquaculture Awareness website:

www.farmfreshsalmon.org. You can go there verify, and maybe learn something.

Like learn how to lie, you mean? Her ya go _ RIGHT!! Come-on, sockeyefry - this is your "scientific proof"? Everything they say has to be "positive" about aquaculture since it's their economic meal ticket - look at their name. Give me a break.

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

MYTH #4
It takes 3-4 kilograms of wild fish, such as herring and anchovy, to make the feed necessary to produce one kilogram of farmed salmon. The result is a net loss of edible animal protein worldwide.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Facts:
The myth that people are losing valuable animal protein worldwide because it is being used for fish feed relies on the assumption that had this feed not gone to fish, it would have gone to humans. The assumption is false; the fishmeal fed to farmed salmon is made from trimmings in fish processing plants, from fish that are not suitable for human consumption, and from fish that humans do not desire to eat.
If there were a demand for direct human consumption of the fish used to make fishmeal, it is likely the fish would be delivered to those markets. Fish used directly for human consumption is always more valuable than fish used for meal.
Historically the Peruvian anchovy and Chilean mackerel fisheries – where a significant percentage of fish feed is derived – could not find a suitable market for their product in any form other than as fishmeal for animal feed.
The fish used for fishmeal production are caught in sustainably managed fisheries; the Chilean anchovy fishery, for example, is one of the world’s most highly regulated.
Farmed fish grow very efficiently compared to other farmed animals. This is because they don’t need to use energy to counter-act gravity as land animals do. Further, they are cold-blooded and therefore don’t need to expend energy to stay warm. By comparison, chickens and pigs - which are also fed large quantities of fishmeal - grow less efficiently than do salmon. If activists were really sincere about the need to conserve “animal protein worldwide” they would be highlighting chicken and pig farming, not fish farming.

Click for larger image
Calculations based on the actual conversion of fish meal to farmed salmon indicate that it actually takes 1.2 – 1.5 kilograms of wild fish to produce 1 kilogram of farmed salmon, not the 3 – 4 kilograms claimed by activists. By comparison, it takes about 5 kilograms of small wild fish to produce 1 kilogram of wild codfish. The fact is, on the issue of conversion, farming in general is more efficient than the wild.

We already discussed this exact issue i year earlier on the forum at:
http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8847&whichpage=2
near the bottom of the page.

In it Agentaqua already debunked the cr@p offered by the PAA website by stating "globally, the fish meal industry has an enormous impact. Carnivorous finfish species consumed 52.8% and 81.9% of the total fishmeal and fish oil used in global aquafeeds in 2003. "

AND

"Up to the 1990’s - a typical average composition for Atlantic salmon feed is 35% fish meal and 25% fish oil. The current feed conversion ration (FCR) on British Columbia salmon farms can vary from 1.3 to 1.7 (ie: 1.3 to 1.7 tonnes of dry feed to make 1 tonne of farmed salmon for market), depending on farm efficiency and type of feed used. But what amount of wild fish is needed to make this quantity of dry feed?

It takes about 4.7 tonnes of wild fish to make one tonne of fish meal. At 35% fish meal content, a tonne of dry feed contains 350 kilograms fishmeal. Therefore, 1.65 tonnes of wild fish is needed to make the fish meal used for one tonne of feed. However, it takes 8.3 tonnes of wild fish to make one tonne of fish oil (5). To make the 250 kilograms of fish oil found in one tonne of feed requires 2.08 tonnes of wild fish.

At this point one must be careful not to double count the amount of wild fish used, since a given amount of wild fish will supply both fish meal (mainly protein) and fish oil (mainly fat). In the above example, the 2.08 tonnes of wild fish used to make the fish oil in one tonne of feed is more than enough to supply the fish meal component as well (only 1.65 tonnes of wild fish required for that). At 25% fish oil content then, it is the oil that determines how much wild fish is consumed to make the dry feed.

Since a salmon farm in BC currently uses between 1.3 and 1.7 tonnes of dry feed (ie: FCR of 1.3 to 1.7) to make one tonne of farmed salmon, then the total amount of wild fish used to make one tonne salmon is between 2.7 and 3.5 tonnes (ie: the FCR multiplied by 2.08).

Let's say then, 3 tonnes wild fish = 1 tonne of farmed Atlantics. This feed conversion ratio (FCR) estimation compares well to the FAO (2005a) FCR of 3.1-3.9 for salmon. Interestingly, the FCR of the non-carniverous tilapia is given as 0.23-0.28.

Since the global world production of Atlantic salmon is some 1.5 MILLION tonnes - then 4.5 MILLION tonnes of wild forage fishes (~20% of the worlds fishmeal/fishoil supplies) are used to make that feed which makes 1.5 MILLION tonnes of Atlantic salmon.

In other words, the global footprint of the carniverous salmon fish farming industry means 3 MILLION tonnes of fish protein are lost EACH YEAR in the conversion to salmon. This is not taking the pressure off the world's oceans - nor is it feeding the world's poor and needy.</u>"

Now, the Oceana group, and the lead authors of their new report Hungry Oceans agree. Unlike sockeyefry and the Orwellian-named "positive" Awareness Group; in it they use scientific literature.

One example (p.11) is the statement: "Penguins, cormorants, terns, and other bird species are currently threatened by a developing anchovy fishery in the Patagonian ecosystem (Skegwar et al. 2007)."

download the Hungry Oceans report at:
http://www.oceana.org/fileadmin/oceana/uploads/Hungry_oceans/hungry_oceans_OCEANA_Embargoed.pdf

and read it for yourselves, especially the section on aquaculture beginning on page 18...