Fish Farm trouble in BC.

Status
Not open for further replies.
spopadyn, you remind me of a past poster on this site ... absolon. Brilliant debater.
Just because a person debates well, Dave - doesn't mean they are either right nor informed.

But thank you for this post - because it really highlights the necessity for an environmental assessment process for the open net-cage industry.

W/o a legal, mandatory process that forces conflicting perspectives and conflicts of interest into a refereed forum/process that both vets and validates both submitted information and a term of reference for procedures - we are instead stuck with this untenable and unresolved sniping process instead vetted only by the PR firms and news media.

And to whom does that benefit?

To whom does the status quo benefit?

To whom does the lack of responsible science-based evidence benefit?

Certainly not the people who are afraid of the impacts from the open net-pen industry and need better info to base decisions on.
 
Now that your taking my quotes from another thread to a different thread I guess I have to also reply to a different thread


I'd rather people read the whole article and decide for themselves. That's why the link is there. There was plenty damming in there besides the fact that farmed atlantic salmon contain 2 to 10 times the levels of PCBs, DDT, dioxins, pesticides, mercury and other suspected carcinogens that most wild salmon do, apparently because the rich meal they eat contains bits of oily fish in which these contaminants tend to concentrate.. The article also touched on the environmental impacts, etc of fish farming.
this was also in the article and I didn't mention it..

Bigdogeh - I was calling you out because you used part of a quote from the linked article to draw a conclusion that farmed salmon wasn't safe. The author had concluded the exact opposite to your conclusion. Maybe not a big deal from your perspective, but certainly the readers of your quote not reading what you linked would be misled. I was not stating I agree with the author or support the authors other conclusions, only that you attempted to parse the authors words to support your sentiments. These are the things which effect our discussion and our credibility the most. It drives me crazy when someone posts a picture on a Sea Lice thread showing a smolt covered in lice and implying it is relevant. It was actually a picture from 10 years before and was published by AM. That is not the same as "See, this fish farm has wild salmon smolts covered in lice and a picture is worth a thousand words".
 
Just because a person debates well, Dave - doesn't mean they are either right nor informed.

But thank you for this post - because it really highlights the necessity for an environmental assessment process for the open net-cage industry.

W/o a legal, mandatory process that forces conflicting perspectives and conflicts of interest into a refereed forum/process that both vets and validates both submitted information and a term of reference for procedures - we are instead stuck with this untenable and unresolved sniping process instead vetted only by the PR firms and news media.

And to whom does that benefit?

Well, now we are getting to what is likely the crux of the problem. To whom does it benefit? This is the greasy side of what is happening here.

Above, Bigdoegeh uses a paper that was released by Hites et al in 2004 (https://www.preventivecare.com/shared/pdf/GlobalAssessmentSalmon-Hites.pdf)

We know from freedom of information acts (and partially to Vivian Krause) that this research was funded by Pew Charitable Trusts. All is fine and well at this point.

The conclusions drawn in this research were widely tested and proven to have been certainly overreaching from the real science, and if memory serves me correctly, both the BC governments and Washington state were unable to replicate the results that Hites concluded. As well, Fogged In posted a quote from the website www.desmog.ca which has criticized the government for discrediting labratories (based on a government coverup) and they have taken great pains to discredit Vivian Krause (she may be the anti-alex Morton).

But you know what is really shocking, on that same desmog.ca website it also calls out Pew Charitable Trust for this https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/12/...texas-public-policy-foundation-hartnett-white.

"The Pew Charitable Trusts, one of the world’s biggest funders of environmental conservation groups, has given almost $5 million since 2011 to an organization that rejects the overwhelming evidence that human-caused climate change is dangerous, DeSmog has found.

Between 2011 and 2015, financial returns show the Pew Charitable Trusts gave $4.7 million to the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), while giving millions more to dozens of worthy conservation causes."

Wow - just wow. In the US the number one problem cited by scientists for salmon declines is rising ocean temps. But, Pew is funding the opposite side of the debate in their country.

In our country, they are supplying money to Anti-FF science and research and attempting to link the decline in salmon to the FF problem.

I actually can't make this up and I don't need a right wing blogger like Vivian Krause to support this argument. This is on the left wing conservationist website.

Are we all being played?
 
Last edited:
... It doesn't mean that FF's are perfect but it is generating $1.14B for the BC economy and is the largest agriculture export product in the province. It is the most economically important agricultural industry in BC...
You didn't really expect to get away with not being accurate - yet but again, spopadyn???

According to the latest data available from the BC government: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/f...snapshots/bc_seafood_sector_snapshot_2016.pdf

ALL seafood harvesting in 2016 (commercial fisheries & aquaculture) was worth $1.2B, the commercial fishery $392.8M/yr; while FFs farm-gate value accounted for only $776.8M/yr.

Meanwhile, the marine sportsfishery accounted ~ $231 M/yr in output and contributed $116 M/yr to provincial GDP in 2005:
http://www.leg.bc.ca/CMT/38thparl/session-3/aquaculture/index.htm

And in 2013, the Freshwater Sportsfishing Society of BC pegged the FW component as being worth $957M/yr:
https://www.gofishbc.com/PDFs/Footer/2013_bc_freshwater_sport_fishing_economic_impact_r.pdf

Then there is marine tourism $120-180M (InterVISTAS Consulting 2012), GDP $139-198M/yr.

So - even if we were to ignore the logic of looking at all potential ecological impacts and instead look solely and incorrectly at only economic filters - as you suggested spopadyn - you can see how justification of the status quo is unsupported just using the above economic numbers.

Your debating skills may land you some admirers in the pro FF camp, spopadyn because they see it as a contest of one side verses another instead of a search for truth and good governence (IMHO) - but both your credibility and honesty is lacking here, IMHO. Too bad we weren't in a formal EA process - where your unsubstantiated and simply wrong data was vetted away - as it should be...
 
I have no idea what you folks all read to become informed on the topic of marine conservation and management on the west coast. Certainly the subject is about more than just salmon, key as they may be to the overall debate. Here's a link to a post by D.C. Reid that imho is worth a look. He has actually calculated some of the costs and dollar values associated with a number of the questions that often seem to have fuzzy answers. You'll have to contact him for details as to the "how", but I think he has the credentials to do a creditable job on this.
 
I have no idea what you folks all read to become informed on the topic of marine conservation and management on the west coast. Certainly the subject is about more than just salmon, key as they may be to the overall debate. Here's a link to a post by D.C. Reid that imho is worth a look. He has actually calculated some of the costs and dollar values associated with a number of the questions that often seem to have fuzzy answers. You'll have to contact him for details as to the "how", but I think he has the credentials to do a creditable job on this.

Great link! Thxs for that!
A lot of very good reading and info in there.:)
 
Last edited:
You didn't really expect to get away with not being accurate - yet but again, spopadyn???

According to the latest data available from the BC government: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/f...snapshots/bc_seafood_sector_snapshot_2016.pdf

ALL seafood harvesting in 2016 (commercial fisheries & aquaculture) was worth $1.2B, the commercial fishery $392.8M/yr; while FFs farm-gate value accounted for only $776.8M/yr.

Meanwhile, the marine sportsfishery accounted ~ $231 M/yr in output and contributed $116 M/yr to provincial GDP in 2005:
http://www.leg.bc.ca/CMT/38thparl/session-3/aquaculture/index.htm

And in 2013, the Freshwater Sportsfishing Society of BC pegged the FW component as being worth $957M/yr:
https://www.gofishbc.com/PDFs/Footer/2013_bc_freshwater_sport_fishing_economic_impact_r.pdf

Then there is marine tourism $120-180M (InterVISTAS Consulting 2012), GDP $139-198M/yr.

So - even if we were to ignore the logic of looking at all potential ecological impacts and instead look solely and incorrectly at only economic filters - as you suggested spopadyn - you can see how justification of the status quo is unsupported just using the above economic numbers.

Your debating skills may land you some admirers in the pro FF camp, spopadyn because they see it as a contest of one side verses another instead of a search for truth and good governence (IMHO) - but both your credibility and honesty is lacking here, IMHO. Too bad we weren't in a formal EA process - where your unsubstantiated and simply wrong data was vetted away - as it should be...


I think the truth hurts some people AA.
Thxs for being a member of this site and showing where science, honesty, credibility and a good sense of ethics will always come out ahead and prevail in the long run.
 
Certainly not the people who are afraid of the impacts from the open net-pen industry and need better info to base decisions on.

So, not being a Fish Farmer, I think the most sensible thing is to address our issues in an open manner where we stop trying to find the boogeyman. Much of the debate revolves around everyone trying to discredit everyone else. As you know, I challenged most of the Anti-FF advocates to list in order the issues facing the BC salmon declines. Very few stepped up to really engage on this - and it was not intended as a "gotcha" moment. I think we have successfully seen that the scientific evidence against FF's is at best inconclusive but likely proves the effect they are having on salmon returns is <5% and more likely <1%. Not that this is too be ignored, because the industry can continue to improve and should be forced to do that. But, when we have warm water blobs etc. we shouldn't somehow confuse those 50+% reduction in salmon returns with the negative effects from FF's.

FF's need to be accountable and address issues as they arise. Likely shutting every ocean pen down and forcing them to move to Land will make there product uneconomic. Anyone who has been in the Okanagan will tell you how depressing it is to see all the apples fall to the ground because the Chilean ones in the supermarket are cheaper. The orchard's are out of business because they can't economically compete with other countries. Do we want to do that with salmon as well?

The BC salmon farming industry is providing a a huge economic benefit and is a supplier of a much needed source of protein in the market place. I get that we can raise issues out of context (PCB's, mercury etc...) but when compared to other food sources, farmed salmon is far superior, healthier and safer than chicken, pork, and beef (not as good as wild though). And that is coming from an Alberta Boy!
 
I have no idea what you folks all read to become informed on the topic of marine conservation and management on the west coast. Certainly the subject is about more than just salmon, key as they may be to the overall debate. Here's a link to a post by D.C. Reid that imho is worth a look. He has actually calculated some of the costs and dollar values associated with a number of the questions that often seem to have fuzzy answers. You'll have to contact him for details as to the "how", but I think he has the credentials to do a creditable job on this.


"
  1. We need to feed killer whales now, by actually giving them fish – hake, pollack, sablefish – or injecting nutrition into their veins, if possible.
  2. There are no genetic issues with diploid or triploid chinook as they are sterile, and I don’t buy the argument that they would eat the food of wild fish, because there are no wild fish, and thus the feed is not being eaten."

"I would say two things: DFO has consistently over the decades not done enough freshwater habitat restoration and salmon numbers have been declining to the point where the commercial harvest was pretty much non-existent in 2017. By comparison, Alaska, that forbids fish farms, and does ocean ‘ranching’ had a huge commercial haul of 243 million salmon."

This article sticks of his own personal greed to kill every last Chinook. Wants to stop fish farms but their okay to use net pens, FF and ranching to raise Chinook.

Yeah I understand a lot of people want FF gone because they think they will be able to harvest more wild salmon. At lest is AA in consistent in his message to save all wild salmon.
 
I have no idea what you folks all read to become informed on the topic of marine conservation and management on the west coast. Certainly the subject is about more than just salmon, key as they may be to the overall debate. Here's a link to a post by D.C. Reid that imho is worth a look. He has actually calculated some of the costs and dollar values associated with a number of the questions that often seem to have fuzzy answers. You'll have to contact him for details as to the "how", but I think he has the credentials to do a creditable job on this.
Thanks for the link, megabite. I found this quote informative: "For example, fish farm sewage in BC can be conservatively estimated at $10.4B, and they kill 5.76 billion forage fish to bring in one harvest in a BC sized industry – they don’t save fish, they kill fish."
 
agentaqua said:
You didn't really expect to get away with not being accurate - yet but again, spopadyn???

According to the latest data available from the BC government: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/f...snapshots/bc_seafood_sector_snapshot_2016.pdf

ALL seafood harvesting in 2016 (commercial fisheries & aquaculture) was worth $1.2B, the commercial fishery $392.8M/yr; while FFs farm-gate value accounted for only $776.8M/yr.

Meanwhile, the marine sportsfishery accounted ~ $231 M/yr in output and contributed $116 M/yr to provincial GDP in 2005:
http://www.leg.bc.ca/CMT/38thparl/session-3/aquaculture/index.htm

And in 2013, the Freshwater Sportsfishing Society of BC pegged the FW component as being worth $957M/yr:
https://www.gofishbc.com/PDFs/Footer/2013_bc_freshwater_sport_fishing_economic_impact_r.pdf

Then there is marine tourism $120-180M (InterVISTAS Consulting 2012), GDP $139-198M/yr.

So - even if we were to ignore the logic of looking at all potential ecological impacts and instead look solely and incorrectly at only economic filters - as you suggested spopadyn - you can see how justification of the status quo is unsupported just using the above economic numbers.

Your debating skills may land you some admirers in the pro FF camp, spopadyn because they see it as a contest of one side verses another instead of a search for truth and good governence (IMHO) - but both your credibility and honesty is lacking here, IMHO. Too bad we weren't in a formal EA process - where your unsubstantiated and simply wrong data was vetted away - as it should be...

I think the truth hurts some people AA.
Thxs for being a member of this site and showing where science, honesty, credibility and a good sense of ethics will always come out ahead and prevail in the long run.


Thanks for pointing out that the harvested salmon was worth 776.8M from the farms. Have you calculated the additional value that happen from this harvest?

We all understand the the sport fishing industry isn't just the licenses sold by the government to recreational fishermen? Right? So Bigdoegh was quick to pat you on the back, maybe he will be so quick with this:

CAMPBELL RIVER, B.C. – An independent economic analysis of the salmon aquaculture industry in British Columbia shows an increase of 37% over the past three years in its value to the province, resulting in the creation of over 1,600 jobs. Overall, farming and processing 92,800 Metric Tonnes of salmon in 2016 resulted in over $1.5-billion towards the B.C. economy.
• The total output generated by the B.C. farm-raised salmon industry increased 37 percent from $1,144.0 million to $1,561.9 million.
• The total GDP generated by the B.C. farm-raised salmon industry increased 36 percent from $411.5 million to $557.8 million.
• The total employment generated by the B.C. farm-raised salmon industry increased 33 percent from 4,977 to 6,610 full-time equivalents.
• The government taxes generated by the B.C. farm-raised salmon industry increased 39 percent from $62.0 to $86.1 million.
• The total production of farm-raised salmon in B.C. has increased 8% since 2002.


I probably shouldn't understate the numbers like I did, you are right AA - got me again. The industry is actually worth $1.5B to BC. Oops - my bad.

PS: Numbers have been verified by Price Waterhouse - probably the worst firm ever - we all know how they messed up the Oscars!
 
NOAA wants to fund more fish farms
ASSOCIATED PRESS

PORTLAND (AP) — Federal marine regulators are making $450,000 available to try to foster more seafood farming on the East Coast.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says it’s providing $450,000 to expand aquaculture operations and production off the eastern states. The agency says it wants to offset the U.S.’s $14 billion seafood trade deficit.

NOAA saying it’s looking to fund pilot projects for fish, shellfish, seaweed and other facets of the domestic aquaculture industry that it considers “newcomers.” It also wants to help develop environmentally sustainable ocean farming.



The money will be distributed through the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. NOAA also is making money available for aquaculture projects in the Gulf of Mexico and Pacific."

http://www.journaltribune.com/news/2017-12-13/State|Regional/NOAA_wants_to_fund_more_fish_farms.html
 
Thank you Terrin for your post.
Alexandra Morton has led this fight with her supporters and scientists who recognized the real threat Fish Farms present to our Wild Salmon from the very beginning. This battle is nowhere near over but much progress has been made!
It was only a few years ago when scientists were muzzled by our Government and forbidden to publish their studies on the subject allowing B.C.

Is this true? Seems like an allegation which, to be honest, I would be very worried about and would support those who are have there fundamental rights being violated by the government. I would never believe a science paper should be suppressed because the government doesn't like it or the items in it.

In the alternate, it is important for our governments to prevent false information that may be detrimental to our public's safety. How many miracle drugs has our government removed for the shelf because a pitchman purported that it was something that it wasn't? Remember the Natural Cures Guru - Kevin Trudeau? Sitting in jail now for 10 years for fraud. You should never be allowed to make intentional false statements that may cause others harm. (This doesn't mean that mistakes made by many of the posters on this forum are intentional)
 
The BC Salmon Farmers press release makes some good points, but one just has to read the study to find out that the claims made are sketchy at best. First, it was a very poor sample size with very unequal representation. Look at the raw data provided to see where the samples were from within the Fraser watershed - those upstream and downstream of Hope. Most are downstream of Hope. Look at the data in the columns. Of course infection rate is greater in the lower regions if that’s where most of the samples are from.
Well, IF the BC Salmon Farmers press release makes any good points - this is certainly NOT one of those purported "good" points.

Sample size does affect your statistical power - and there are mathematical/statistical ways to determine whether you have a large enough sample to accurately state how representative your sample size was - or if you took enough samples to even find a low-prevalence disease - both something I would expect the PR people at the good ol' BCSFA to already know. If the power was low - I would have instead expected a critique looking at statistical power from them. More samples actually increases your statistical power and accuracy.

However they or birdie are instead stating that by simply taking more samples - it results in finding a greater prevalence rate - which is total and utter BS.
Within those catch areas the fish could have all been handled differently if caught by recreational anglers and First Nations. In order to make broad population inferences one should do a more extensive, structured surveillance of wild salmonids which the authors admitted was lacking in their study.
Handling should not affect presence of disease organisms - but preservation techniques might - esp. for more fragile viruses like ISAv - where the evidence of virus would be expected to DECREASE or even eradicate evidence of viral presence. Methods of capture may/may not affect results due to sick fish might not wish to eat or chase prey - again - would be expected to DECREASE sampled prevalence rates if angled fish are included.

I guess the trustworthy, good ol' folks at BCSFA neglected to add this to their critique.
Second, the authors categorizing of “significant migratory challenges” is too vague and incomplete and doesn’t address WHAT THE ACTUAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS WERE AT THE TIME.
Interesting claim. I would agree that if water temps were under 19C - it is less likely that HMSI would happen - the cooler the better wrt stress and its effects.

However, after reading Miller's HMSI paper - there is a time lag between virus outbreak and HMSI evidence. So, a Miller genomics test would be informative here - but these researchers were testing for PRv using PCR - not testing for HMSI - as I understand it.

So - if elevated water temps trigger HMSI - and HMSI adds mortality to the affected host fish - then sampling after water temps are elevated would LOWER the sampled PRv prevalence due to compromised fish being selectively taken out of circulation - again - something the good ol' folks at BCSFA neglected to add to their critique.
Lastly, HSMI has not been documented in wild salmon in BC or even in Norway.
http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0082202&representation=PDF

Phylogenetic Evidence of Long Distance Dispersal and Transmission of Piscine Reovirus (PRV) between Farmed and Wild Atlantic Salmon

A˚se Helen Garseth1,2*, Torbjørn Ekrem2, Eirik Biering1
1Department of Health Surveillance, Norwegian Veterinary Institute, Trondheim, Norway, 2Department of Natural History, Norwegian University of Science and Technology University Museum, Trondheim, Norway

Abstract
The extent and effect of disease interaction and pathogen exchange between wild and farmed fish populations is an ongoing debate and an area of research that is difficult to explore. The objective of this study was to investigate pathogen transmission between farmed and wild Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) populations in Norway by means of molecular epidemiology. Piscine reovirus (PRV) was selected as the model organism as it is widely distributed in both farmed and wild Atlantic salmon in Norway, and because infection not necessarily will lead to mortality through development of disease. A matrix comprised of PRV protein coding sequences S1, S2 and S4 from wild, hatchery-reared and farmed Atlantic salmon in addition to one sea-trout (Salmo trutta L.) was examined. Phylogenetic analyses based on maximum likelihood and Bayesian inference indicate long distance transport of PRV and exchange of virus between populations. The results are discussed in the context of Atlantic salmon ecology and the structure of the Norwegian salmon industry. We conclude that the lack of a geographical pattern in the phylogenetic trees is caused by extensive exchange of PRV. In addition, the detailed topography of the trees indicates long distance transportation of PRV. Through its size, structure and infection status, the Atlantic salmon farming industry has the capacity to play a central role in both long distance transportation and transmission of pathogens. Despite extensive migration, wild salmon probably play a minor role as they are fewer in numbers, appear at lower densities and are less likely to be infected. An open question is the relationship between the PRV sequences found in marine fish and those originating from salmon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLoS One. 2016 Oct 27;11(10):e0165424. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0165424. eCollection 2016.
Full-Genome Sequencing and Confirmation of the Causative Agent of Erythrocytic Inclusion Body Syndrome in Coho Salmon Identifies a New Type of Piscine Orthoreovirus.
Takano T1, Nawata A2, Sakai T1, Matsuyama T1, Ito T1, Kurita J1, Terashima S1, Yasuike M3, Nakamura Y3, Fujiwara A3, Kumagai A2, Nakayasu C1.
Author information
Abstract

Erythrocytic inclusion body syndrome (EIBS) causes mass mortality in farmed salmonid fish, including the coho salmon, Onchorhynchus kisutchi, and chinook salmon, O. tshawytscha. The causative agent of the disease is a virus with an icosahedral virion structure, but this virus has not been characterized at the molecular level. In this study, we sequenced the genome of a virus purified from EIBS-affected coho salmon. The virus has 10 dsRNA genomic segments (L1, L2, L3, M1, M2, M3, S1, S2, S3, and S4), which closely resembles the genomic organization of piscine orthoreovirus (PRV), the causative agent of heart and skeletal inflammation (HSMI) in Atlantic salmon and HSMI-like disease in coho salmon. The genomic segments of the novel virus contain at least 10 open reading frames (ORFs): lambda 1 (λ1), λ2, λ3, mu 1 (μ1), μ2, μNS, sigma 1 (σ1), σ2, σ3, and σNS. An additional ORF encoding a 12.6-kDa protein (homologue of PRV p13) occurs in the same genomic segment as σ3. Phylogenetic analyses based on S1 and λ3 suggest that this novel virus is closely related to PRV, but distinctly different. Therefore, we designated the new virus 'piscine orthoreovirus 2' (PRV-2). Reverse transcription-quantitative real-time PCR revealed a significant increase in PRV-2 RNA in fish blood after the artificial infection of EIBS-naïve fish but not in that of fish that had recovered from EIBS. The degree of anemia in each fish increased as the PRV-2 RNA increased during an epizootic season of EIBS on an inland coho salmon farm. These results indicate that PRV-2 is the probable causative agent of EIBS in coho salmon, and that the host acquires immunity to reinfection with this virus. Further research is required to determine the host range of PRV species and the relationship between EIBS and HSMI in salmonid fish.
 
Last edited:
Is this true? Seems like an allegation which, to be honest, I would be very worried about and would support those who are have there fundamental rights being violated by the government. I would never believe a science paper should be suppressed because the government doesn't like it or the items in it.

In the alternate, it is important for our governments to prevent false information that may be detrimental to our public's safety. How many miracle drugs has our government removed for the shelf because a pitchman purported that it was something that it wasn't? Remember the Natural Cures Guru - Kevin Trudeau? Sitting in jail now for 10 years for fraud. You should never be allowed to make intentional false statements that may cause others harm. (This doesn't mean that mistakes made by many of the posters on this forum are intentional)

lots of info here. Ever read any of it? Maybe you can find a "Simon" Fraser Institute link in there somewhere. Seems many are of the opinion that yes, our scientists were muzzled by government.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=scie...x-b&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=jnM5Wvz9A4jQ-APFrIHgDQ
 
"
Aquaculture Then and Now
The practice of raising seafood in a controlled environment has been practiced for thousands of years. It was used by indigenous people of Australia and within the Roman Empire. Aquaculture practices in China during the Tang Dynasty led to a mutation that created the goldfish, now a ubiquitous household pet.

In modern times, aquaculture is one of the fastest growing food production sectors in the world. Natural fisheries have limitations on how many fish can be caught and are only available during certain months of the year. As an alternative, aquaculture can provide large and consistent quantities of fish and seafood. The addition of aquacultural stocks such as salmon and oysters into the marketplace has helped meet current seafood demands.

Aquaculture plays an important role in the economy, providing thousands of jobs in operations and ancillary services.


According to the Environmental Defense Fund, a non-profit environmental organization, global fisheries exports now earn more revenue than any other traded food commodity in the world, including rice, cocoa or coffee."

"
Low Environmental Impact
Studies conducted by NOAA indicate aquaculture poses a low risk to the environment, with most impact local and temporary. In some cases, aquaculture can benefit the environment. In cases where filter-feeding shellfish, such as oysters, are cultured in-situ, water quality in ponds and lakes can improve.


Fish and shellfish can be farmed using methods that do not harm the environment and that help meet the growing demand for seafood by supplementing wild harvests.

There are documented problems associated with aquaculture, including water pollution and the use of chemicals, as well as threats to the natural fish population. But, governmental agencies believe it is a long-range and sustainable solution to the world's wild marine fish populations.
"

https://www.thebalance.com/the-benefits-of-aquaculture-1301626
 
Environment
Read the facts on these 8 common Myths about Salmon Farming and the Environment
MYTH #1 -Consumers are doing the environment a favour by eating wild salmon and boycotting farmed salmon. The Facts
MYTH #2 -Wild salmon are on their way to extinction thanks to sea lice (parasites) from surrounding salmon farms in British Columbia's Broughton Archipelago and other areas. The Facts
MYTH #3 -Farmed Atlantic salmon are escaping from salmon farms and colonizing local BC rivers, threatening to displace native stocks of wild salmon. The Facts
MYTH #4 -It takes 3-5 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
MYTH #5 -Open net cages are environmentally destructive, allowing both farmed salmon and their effluent to escape into the ocean. Land-based fish farms or closed containment systems are the solution. The Facts
MYTH #6 -Fish waste released by salmon farms in BC is harmful to the ocean environment and is equivalent in impact to the raw sewage from a city of 500,000 inhabitants. The Facts
MYTH #7 -10 million sockeye salmon from the Fraser River disappeared in 2009 because of sea lice and disease generated from salmon farms in Okisollo Channel (branded by activists as "Wild Salmon Narrows") and these salmon farms need to be permanently shut down. The Facts
MYTH #8 - Salmon in British Columbia have Infectious Salmon Anemia (ISA). The Facts
[paste:font size="4"]naturally occurring organisms that attach themselves to the outside of marine fish, both farmed and wild. They don't harm the fish unless their numbers reach critical mass. They have existed for tens of thousands of years, prior to the arrival of salmon farming on the BC coast. DFO Fact Sheet. Farmed salmon initially receive sea lice from these natural wild sources.
Over the past decade, activists have made many predictions of salmon extinction - they have said sea lice from salmon farms are killing juvenile pink salmon. Not only does scientific literature strongly disagree with this accusation - so do the fish. The fall of 2009 and 2010 saw some of the best years for pink salmon returning to British Columbia rivers. Of course, activists have been silent on this good news.

Instead, activists are now suggesting that sea lice may have changed their taste from pink salmon to the more delicious sockeye salmon and that sea lice from salmon farms are responsible for the loss of sockeye that should have returned to the Fraser River in the fall of 2009. Of course, there is no scientific evidence to prove these claims (see Myth #7).

The fact is, every year BC salmon farmers carefully manage sea lice levels on their fish - especially during those times of the year when small wild salmon may be at risk from sea lice. And because all salmon species migrate from river to ocean at the same time of year (spring and early summer), all wild salmon are safe to travel past salmon farms regardless of species.

Brian Harvey prepared Science and Sea Lice: What do We Know? for the Pacific Salmon Forum in 2008. It provides a comprehensive overview of critical scientific papers related to sea lice and its interaction with wild and farm-raised salmon.

To view pink salmon returns to the Broughton Archipelago area from 1952 to 2009, click here.

UPDATE (December 2010): A study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences concludes that sea lice from salmon farms were not the cause of the decline in pink salmon in the Broughton Archipelago in 2002. At the same time, activist and salmon farming critic Alexandra Morton quietly published this study (on demand of the Pacific Salmon Forum) which concludes "the survival of the pink salmon cohort was not statistically different from a reference region without salmon farms". Ms. Morton has not promoted these results.

[paste:font size="4"]has not occurred. Researchers point out that multiple attempts at establishing sea-going populations of Atlantic salmon outside its native range can be traced back to the mid-19th century, such as in Tasmania in 1864. Since then, many attempts have been made to establish naturalized sea-run and land-locked populations in South Africa, India, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, Chile, Ecuador, Columbia, India, Indonesia, Japan and Western North America. All have ended in failure.

From 1905 to 1935, some 8.5 million Atlantic salmon were deliberately placed into 60 different lakes and rivers in BC in an intentional effort to establish Atlantic salmon in the BC wild. These transplants occurred primarily on Vancouver Island, as well as in the Alberni District, the lower Fraser River and Skeena River drainages, and in some interior lakes and streams.

Today they and their offspring are nowhere to be found; the attempt was futile. Judging from this and many other failed attempts to transplant Atlantic salmon in other parts of the world it is highly unlikely that they will ever become established in the wild.

In 2001, 55 different river systems in BC were surveyed by trained First Nations crews looking for Atlantic salmon. 280 kilometers (about 166 miles) of streams were examined, and over 389,000 salmon were found- none of them was an offspring of spawning Atlantic salmon. Two fish of the 389,000 found were adult Atlantic salmon.

Salmon farmers know it's in their best interest not to allow their salmon to escape. Salmon farming in BC has made huge changes over the last two decades to ensure the risk of escape is reduced. As salmon farmers have steadily increased their investments in state-of-the-art net cages and equipment, the incidence of escapes has been drastically reduced.
 
If demand existed 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.

In September 2009 the International Fishmeal and Fish Oil Organization (IFFO) responded to incorrect information regarding “wild fish feeding farmed fish”.

Farmed fish grow very efficiently compared to other farmed animals because they don’t need to use energy to counteract gravity as land animals do. In addition, 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 sincere about the need to conserve “animal protein worldwide” they would be highlighting chicken and pig farming, not fish farming.

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 – 5 kilograms claimed by activists. Interestingly, it takes more wild fish to produce hatchery salmon (see ‘What is Salmon Ranching’) than it does to produce a farm-raised salmon (see ‘What is Salmon Farming’).
unproven – showing neither economical nor environmental benefit. Closed containment systems are also not required to protect wild fish.

Aquaculture has historically used a form of closed containment system during the freshwater stage of fish development, a common practice that continues today. For approximately one-third of its life cycle, farmed fish are already raised in an enclosed environment in freshwater hatcheries.

For the remaining two-thirds of the fish’s life cycle, net pens utilize ocean tides to move water and provide fresh oxygen to the fish. For comparison, land-based farms would pump water and inject oxygen - requiring vast amounts of energy to do so . One would think that environmental activists would be trying to reduce energy consumption used to raise fish – not increase it.

Despite these common sense limitations to closed containment farming, BC salmon farmers are always looking to utilize new technologies that continue to provide a healthy and sustainable protein.

One study by activist Alexandra Morton did find that juvenile sockeye salmon host sea lice. But this isn't news, as all juvenile Pacific salmon host sea lice with or without salmon farms. The study did not provide proof that salmon farms are a risk to wild sockeye salmon and even stated that due to small sample sizes (7 fish), no conclusion could be made. But true to activist behaviour; ignore fact, overstate risk and issue a press release titled "Fraser River sockeye may be at risk of sea lice infection from salmon farms".

A well-funded activist group called the Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform has repeated this call for a "farm-free migratory path". Perhaps they should look at their own map, which clearly shows Discovery Passage and Johnstone Strait provides a salmon farm free corridor for salmon migration. Fisherman in the area know that salmon are most likely to migrate through Johnstone Strait.

Regardless of proof, and as noted in Myth #2, BC salmon farmers manage for sea liceduring the spring out-migration of juvenile Pacific salmon (March-June) and ensure salmon farms are not a source of sea lice.

The BC Salmon Farmers Association had participated in the Fraser River Sockeye Judicial Inquiry which also put this myth to rest in its 2012 Final Report.

UPDATE (October 2010): The 2010 return of Fraser River sockeye has now returned to their spawning grounds. A whopping 30 million sockeye salmon have returned - a return not seen in over 100 years!! Click here to view a video that strikes back at those activists who have incorrectly predicted salmon extinction.

[paste:font size="4"]lost its international accreditation. Additionally, the Canadian and U.S. governments have confirmed no evidence of ISA in wild or farm-raised salmon in the North Pacific region.

http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum...-farm-trouble-in-bc.67598/page-50#post-856167
 
lots of info here. Ever read any of it? Maybe you can find a "Simon" Fraser Institute link in there somewhere. Seems many are of the opinion that yes, our scientists were muzzled by government.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=scie...x-b&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=jnM5Wvz9A4jQ-APFrIHgDQ
Got me on the Simon Fraser instead of Fraser - was busy looking at universities for my kids and screwed that one up. I will go and edit that old post for you Bigdoegeh as it seems to be really bothering you. Now, can I get a pat on the back for understating the Salmon Farming industry is really worth $1.5B?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top