Fish Farms

Status
Not open for further replies.
So, you are saying a possibly 1to 2% mortality could be attribulated from fish farms, sea lice, diseases etc.?

So, page after page for a possible 1% and this is where we should be spending our efforts?




We've had this discussion numerous times, Whitebuck - on this and other threads.

There are numerous impacts on wild stocks - but when the ocean survival rate is in the tank - an additional 1-2% of mortality (from fish farms, sea lice, diseases, etc - or anything else) means the difference between low but stable stock trajectories and numbers dropping precipitously - which we have seen. We can't do much wrt management actions for the drop in ocean survival - except reduce fishing pressure - which has been done. The open net-cage technology is another management action we can affect - but largely HAVE NOT ADDRESSED.

Let me put it back on you Whitebuck - how do you rationalize your assertion that spending time on the Skeena will magically change the fish farm debate?
 
so you saying the weight of damage from diseases (doesn't have a name) and sea lice is 1-2%........ fascinating
Negative - nope! Not what I am saying.

In the context of ocean survival rates - from outmigrating smolts to returning adults - there is a tipping point. If a particular run/year/cohort has an ocean survival rate of maybe ~5-7% - they are doing fairly well - the run increases. From something like 2-3% ocean survival rate - the run is just hanging on. Below this (say 1-2%) - it's typically on a steep decline.

At higher survival rates - there is more scope for additional impacts - including those from FFs.

HOWEVER - at say 2% ocean survival rates - any extra impacts become critical. An extra 1% mortality rate (which admittedly sounds innocuous - but doubles the actual mortality) will drive the stock into a steep decline.

That's why (IMHO) the additional mortality from fish farms is not only likely sporadic - but also very harmful when dealing with stocks at risk with low ocean survival rates - & stocks that are adjacent to open net-pen operations.

Over time - the extra mortality from fish farms can drive the "at risk" stock trajectories into a steep decline.
 
Last edited:
Hes says a 1-2% increase in ocean survival. Current numbers for ocean survival depend on the system. Some lower then 1% and some i have seen as high as 4%. So a 1-2% increase in ocean survival would be essential doubling the current returns.

Edit: AA beat me to it but i think he's saying that the current returns could double for some systems.
 
- but when the ocean survival rate is in the tank - an additional 1-2% of mortality (from fish farms, sea lice, diseases, etc - or anything else) means the difference between low but stable stock trajectories and numbers dropping precipitously - which we have seen.
 
Last edited:
Yes, if the mortality is halved – one would expect the escapement numbers to also double – if there is no density dependent interactions or stress-related mortalities (like from an introduced or existing disease vector). The actual numbers wrt marine mortality "limits" is dependent upon year, stock, species, area, and watershed and associated environmental conditions. Different impacts may operate and overlap at different scales. One would expect that the smaller juvenile salmon that spend extended time in the nearshore areas that contain fish farms to be most affected by those potential impacts.

From: p. 213 R. J. Beamish and C. Neville CLIMATE-OCEAN CHANGES AND THE IMPACTS ON YOUNG SALMON IN THE STRAIT OF GEORGIA; IN: Emmett, R.L., and M.H. Schiewe (Editors). 1977. Estuarine and Ocean Survival of Northeastern Pacific Salmon: Proceeding of the Workshop. U.S. Dept. Comm., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-29, 313 p.

https://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/assets/25/6622_08042010_100759_Emmett.and.Schiewe.1997-rev.pdf

Catches of chinook salmon in the Strait of Georgia began to decline in 1979 (Fig. 1). Synchronous with this decline was an abrupt and precipitous decrease in marine survival from an average of 4.8% from 1974 to 1977 (year to sea) to 0.7% from 1978 to 1988 (year to sea). If overfishing was the major cause of the decline, there would be a gradual reduction in smolt production at the time of the decrease in catch and marine survival. However, the total number of wild and hatchery reared chinook salmon smolts produced after the declines actually increased from a yearly average of about 30 x 106 from 1974-76 to about 82 x 106 in the early 1990s (Beamish et al. 1995).

There was a decline in coho salmon survival shortly after the decrease occurred for chinook salmon (Fig. 2). Although the average catch of coho salmon in the Strait of Georgia remained about the same, there was an increase in smolt production from about 15 x 106 before the change in survival to about 25 x 106 smolts in the early 1990s. Because the marine mortality for hatchery reared and wild coho salmon is about equal, it is clear that the addition of smolts to the Strait of Georgia did not increase the total abundance of post-juvenile fish over the pre-1977 levels.
 
Timeline

1985–90: BC’s salmon farming industry expands from 10 to over 180 sites;1


Catches of chinook salmon in the Strait of Georgia began to decline in 1979 (Fig. 1). Synchronous with this decline was an abrupt and precipitous decrease in marine survival from an average of 4.8% from 1974 to 1977 (year to sea) to 0.7% from 1978 to 1988 (year to sea). If overfishing was the major cause of the decline, there would be a gradual reduction in smolt production at the time of the decrease in catch and marine survival. However, the total number of wild and hatchery reared chinook salmon smolts produced after the declines actually increased from a yearly average of about 30 x 106 from 1974-76 to about 82 x 106 in the early 1990s (Beamish et al. 1995).




Yes, if the mortality is halved – one would expect the escapement numbers to also double – if there is no density dependent interactions or stress-related mortalities (like from an introduced or existing disease vector). The actual numbers wrt marine mortality "limits" is dependent upon year, stock, species, area, and watershed and associated environmental conditions. Different impacts may operate and overlap at different scales. One would expect that the smaller juvenile salmon that spend extended time in the nearshore areas that contain fish farms to be most affected by those potential impacts.

From: p. 213 R. J. Beamish and C. Neville CLIMATE-OCEAN CHANGES AND THE IMPACTS ON YOUNG SALMON IN THE STRAIT OF GEORGIA; IN: Emmett, R.L., and M.H. Schiewe (Editors). 1977. Estuarine and Ocean Survival of Northeastern Pacific Salmon: Proceeding of the Workshop. U.S. Dept. Comm., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-29, 313 p.

https://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/assets/25/6622_08042010_100759_Emmett.and.Schiewe.1997-rev.pdf

Catches of chinook salmon in the Strait of Georgia began to decline in 1979 (Fig. 1). Synchronous with this decline was an abrupt and precipitous decrease in marine survival from an average of 4.8% from 1974 to 1977 (year to sea) to 0.7% from 1978 to 1988 (year to sea). If overfishing was the major cause of the decline, there would be a gradual reduction in smolt production at the time of the decrease in catch and marine survival. However, the total number of wild and hatchery reared chinook salmon smolts produced after the declines actually increased from a yearly average of about 30 x 106 from 1974-76 to about 82 x 106 in the early 1990s (Beamish et al. 1995).

There was a decline in coho salmon survival shortly after the decrease occurred for chinook salmon (Fig. 2). Although the average catch of coho salmon in the Strait of Georgia remained about the same, there was an increase in smolt production from about 15 x 106 before the change in survival to about 25 x 106 smolts in the early 1990s. Because the marine mortality for hatchery reared and wild coho salmon is about equal, it is clear that the addition of smolts to the Strait of Georgia did not increase the total abundance of post-juvenile fish over the pre-1977 levels.
 
Will land based fish farms possible and profitable in the future? There is plenty of evidence (see links below) to say YES!

Looks like lots of companies and countries are working on it making it work and there is much research, investment and projects that indicate that they will!

Just a matter of time till it is the standard way of doing business for those that care about protecting the marine environment from the negative impacts of net pen fish farms. Ya gotta like it!

Corporations, politicians and FF supporters who stubbornly prop up the problematic net pen operations are most likely going to look a bit like silly dinosaurs soon enough.

http://niri.com/
https://www.fastcompany.com/3068608...farms-the-odd-solution-to-both-hunger-and-cli
https://civileats.com/2016/01/07/can-land-based-fish-farms-solve-farmed-seafood-woes-aquaculture/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/farming-salmon-on-land-is-possible-project-suggests-1.2482754
http://www.akvagroup.com/products/land-based-aquaculture
http://time.com/3592229/salmon-sustainable-seafood-indoor-farms/
https://www.denverpost.com/2010/05/05/sustainable-land-based-fish-farms-in-colorado/
https://www.seafoodsource.com/news/...-land-based-salmon-farms-to-be-built-in-maine
https://www.undercurrentnews.com/20...-salmon-farm-to-launch-first-sales-this-week/
 
Last edited:
http://salmonbusiness.com/land-based-farms-in-canada-years-away-from-being-profitable/


Namgis Chief Don Svanvik said the project just needs to scale up to become profitable. “If the farm is even twice the size it is now, we’d be making money,” Svanvik said.

The project’s original capital cost was $8.8 million. It ended up costing $10 million, Kuterra chairman Eric Hobson confirmed. When operating costs are added, he said the total investment in the project thus far is about $15 million.

The Government of Canada invested $6 million in the project, Tides Canada and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation provided $4 million through the Sustainable Aquaculture Innovation Fund. Another $1 million came from private donors. The Namgis covered operating costs totalling about $4.5 million – $1.5 million in equity and $3 million in loans.
 
LOL
"December 3, 2017 06:00 AM"
a lot has changed from over a year ago Bones
I assume you will read Whole in the Water's post above!
Did you read the latest polling results concerning how the general public, now that they are becoming educated, are turning against Fish Farms?

yes i did briefly look at it, and in your words..... most of it is pre "December 3, 2017 06:00 AM"
it is also mostly targeted at fish other than salmon........ its and excellent choice if your lease is for trout or steelhead, but if you read, you will see there is no profit......in salmon:(

you should read this maybe two or three times
https://static1.squarespace.com/sta.../1479341303532/ISFA_LandFarmingreport_web.pdf
 
http://salmonbusiness.com/land-based-farms-in-canada-years-away-from-being-profitable/


Namgis Chief Don Svanvik said the project just needs to scale up to become profitable. “If the farm is even twice the size it is now, we’d be making money,” Svanvik said.

The project’s original capital cost was $8.8 million. It ended up costing $10 million, Kuterra chairman Eric Hobson confirmed. When operating costs are added, he said the total investment in the project thus far is about $15 million.

The Government of Canada invested $6 million in the project, Tides Canada and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation provided $4 million through the Sustainable Aquaculture Innovation Fund. Another $1 million came from private donors. The Namgis covered operating costs totalling about $4.5 million – $1.5 million in equity and $3 million in loans.

Read the links I posted, observe the overall trend of the industry wanting, needing to move from net pens to land based. It is profitable right now, May 4 2018, not so much. Can it be in the future, you have to be pretty myopic and pessimistic to say no. Can you find some examples of where and how it is not currently profitable - yes. Can you find many more examples of how it is being worked on to be profitable in the future - yes! The Aquaculture industry associations and corporations as we speak are spending $$$ to make it so. They see the handwriting on the wall the net pen farms are not the future for this industry.

There are too many indicators, emerging technologies, companies and projects at work right now all over the world (with salmon - see links below - all salmon focussed, including links from aquaculture companies and associations) that indicate it is just a matter of time before the industry changes (like many other industries in the past) to a more environmentally sustainable mode of operations. No need to get angry and stubborn, what about being open minded to new and better possibilities.

https://www.undercurrentnews.com/2017/03/29/land-based-salmon-farming-the-numbers-now-make-sense/
https://www.seafoodsource.com/news/...-land-based-salmon-farms-to-be-built-in-maine
http://niri.com/
http://www.asf.ca/landbased-aquaculture.html
https://aquabounty.com/innovation/technology/
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...e-economic-sense-report-finds/article4318250/
 
Last edited:
OMG
If Agentaqua’s post above does not bring our Government and DFO to their senses what will…
“Cermaq’s documentation on salmon lice for April show that the numbers of salmon lice on seven of their fourteen Clayoquot farm sites are up to ten times higher than the threshold which requires treatment. The regulatory threshold is three motile salmon lice per farm fish.
Salmon lice continue to plague the salmon farming industry globally. The chemical treatments Cermaq plans have not solved the salmon lice problem anywhere in the world.”

The Sea Lice video link below is a MUST WATCH! Be sure to watch the video on the top right...Could be slow to load, please be patient.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ps-GumjM4j7RmsYT-kVu1GjJR2ojltqz
The Sea Lice problem, just one of many problems, with Fish Farms, has been discussed on this forum before and the Fish Farm guys have dismissed it.
 
Last edited:
OMG
If Agentaqua’s post above does not bring our Government and DFO to their senses what will…
“Cermaq’s documentation on salmon lice for April show that the numbers of salmon lice on seven of their fourteen Clayoquot farm sites are up to ten times higher than the threshold which requires treatment. The regulatory threshold is three motile salmon lice per farm fish.
Salmon lice continue to plague the salmon farming industry globally. The chemical treatments Cermaq plans have not solved the salmon lice problem anywhere in the world.”

The Sea Lice video link below is a MUST WATCH! Be sure to watch the video on the top right...Could be slow to load, please be patient.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ps-GumjM4j7RmsYT-kVu1GjJR2ojltqz
The Sea Lice problem, just one of many problems, with Fish Farms, has been discussed on this forum before and the Fish Farm guys have dismissed it.
I wonder if the same sea lice problem combined with the resulting disease and virus explosion after slice treatment could possibly be the cause of all the missing Chinook smolts that try and migrate past the Broughton Fish Farms?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top