New Fed. Report says should explore moving Fish Farms to Land

[ClayoquotKid]

Talk about "preconceived notions"...ClayoquotKid you appear to be incapable of understanding (or rather admittng) that there is a net loss of fish protein when you rear caniverous fish - something like 3.5lbs per 1lb of reared Atlantic salmon.

Are other readers of this thread understanding this and what I wrote previously about the FCR?

The other talk from ClayoquotKid about chickens, and pet food may be valid points in themselves if what ClayoquotKid says is true: BUT, BUT, BUT...

THESE POINTS DO NOT INVALIDATE THE FACT AND ARGUMENT THAT REARING FARMED FISH IS A NET LOSS OF PROTEIN FROM THE OCEAN.

end of story. PERIOD. Full stop. ClayoquotKid!!!

Your other arguments appear to be an attempt to hide this fact, rather than the other inane reasons you submit as a reason to ignore this reality. Just admit it ClayoquotKid. You are starting to sound foolish not admitting it after we have been over the numbers numerous times now. GEESSH!!

Your calculation fails to recognize the fact that not all of that 3.5 lbs of forage fish was protein - only 5% was protein (oil) and 22% was solids (meal) - the rest was water.
You can't disregard that point going one way and then count it going the other way.
Sure, I will concede the point that there is a net loss of protein, but qualify that with the fact that it is not as large as you think and is still one of the most effective means of creating food for humans.
A wild salmon will eat 10 lbs of forage fish to make 1 lb of flesh - because only 5% is protein and it takes a lot of energy to chase down and catch them.
Farmed salmon get the benefit of their food having 16% protein and don't have to chase it down.
No industry can survive being inefficient or wasteful, and when it comes to effective use of feed ingredients there are shareholders demanding it be done well - because that impacts the bottom line.

 

[Andrew P]

Our feed is approximately 16 % fishmeal and 13 % fish oil.

Fishmeal and fish oil is made from processing small wild fish. Wild fish yields about 22.5 % fishmeal and about 5% oil, and both fishmeal and oil are produced from the same fish.

The percentage of fishmeal and oil used in the diet (16% + 13% = 29%), divided by the total yield of fishmeal and oil from wild fish (22.5% + 5% = 27.5%), multiplied by our feed conversion ratio (FCR, 1.2), gives the actual amount of wild fish used to grow one kilogram of salmon, which is 1.265 kilograms.

Well, I have don't know if my math is correct....but yours does not make any sense.

If YOUR base numbers are correct for the percentages(skeptical...)...then it would actually take 3.12kg of forage fish to produce the oil needed, but there would obviously be an excess of fish meal from that much forage fish(feed pigs and cats??!!). Any way you cut it this is not sustainable....especially since a lot of this fish mean and oil comes from the left over of the herring roe fishery, which has questionable sustainability issues with current management. Why don't you do us all a favour and get some real and straight forward facts? Your formula there just took you down quite a few notches on the credibility front...


1.2kg Fish Food Requires:
16% Fish meal: 192g
13% Fish Oil: 156g


1kg Forage Fish Yields:

22.5% Fish meal: 225g
5% Oil: 50g

Kg of Forage Fish Needed to Produce 1.2kg Fish food: .

Needed to Produce required fish meal: 85kg
Needed to Produce required oil: 3.12kg

 

[ClayoquotKid]

This paper might explain it better:

"Published work to date (Naylor et al. 1998,
2000; Naylor & Burke 2005; Pinto & Furci 2006; Tacon &
Metian 2008; Anon 2009) has used whole fish weight-based
calculations to estimate that salmon farming uses between 3.2
and 8.5 kg of capture fish to produce 1 kg of farmed salmon
and thus conclude that salmon farming is a net user of
marine seafoods rather than a net producer. This highlights
concern that large fisheries for fishmeal and fish oil could
collapse and raises the issue of the responsible use of this
resource by the salmon industry. However, this calculation
method is an over simplification of the resource usage
because it neglects the nutrient composition of both the
capture fish and the salmon, thus ignoring the value of the
production to human nutrition. The lipid content of capture
fish varies enormously between species and with weight,
environmental conditions and season"
"Because the lipid content of salmon is nearly three
times higher than in capture fish calculations of reliance
should preferably allow for this difference, which can be
easily achieved by using, not simple weight-to-weight ratios,
but nutrient-to-nutrient ratios."
http://www.ewos.com/wps/wcm/connect...and+oil+Aquaculture+Nutrition.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

Or, this site has some more explanations of how feed is sourced and made:
http://www.ewos.com/wps/wcm/connect/ewos-content-group/ewos-group/sustainability/sustainable-feed/

 

[agentaqua]

well done Andrew P

Your calculation fails to recognize the fact that not all of that 3.5 lbs of forage fish was protein - only 5% was protein (oil) and 22% was solids (meal) - the rest was water.
You can't disregard that point going one way and then count it going the other way.
Sure, I will concede the point that there is a net loss of protein, but qualify that with the fact that it is not as large as you think and is still one of the most effective means of creating food for humans.
A wild salmon will eat 10 lbs of forage fish to make 1 lb of flesh - because only 5% is protein and it takes a lot of energy to chase down and catch them.
Farmed salmon get the benefit of their food having 16% protein and don't have to chase it down.
No industry can survive being inefficient or wasteful, and when it comes to effective use of feed ingredients there are shareholders demanding it be done well - because that impacts the bottom line.

Well done Andrew.

and ClayoquotKid: Whatever measure of reduction we use - we MUST compare apples with apples and not cumquats. I was comparing wet weights as a correction and illustration of the misleading promotion of the FCR as an example of "good" corporate behaviour by pro-farm advocates. It's just one of the many, many lies and misleading comments pro-farm advocate tell themselves and the public.

FINALLY - the penny dropped for you - and you admitted that there is a net loss of protein. We can argue about the exact amounts of that loss using dry-to dry weights, wet-to-wet weights, nutrients, trophic levels or anything else we want.

It really doesn't matter - the production of caniverous farm fish means there is less fish protein (and oils and nutrients, etc) for other fish, marine mammals, sea birds, pets and humans.

It's really not the rocket science you make it out to be - or that confusing and unexpected.

 

[Andrew P]

This paper might explain it better:

"Published work to date (Naylor et al. 1998,
2000; Naylor & Burke 2005; Pinto & Furci 2006; Tacon &
Metian 2008; Anon 2009) has used whole fish weight-based
calculations to estimate that salmon farming uses between 3.2
and 8.5 kg of capture fish to produce 1 kg of farmed salmon
and thus conclude that salmon farming is a net user of
marine seafoods rather than a net producer. This highlights
concern that large fisheries for fishmeal and fish oil could
collapse and raises the issue of the responsible use of this
resource by the salmon industry. However, this calculation
method is an over simplification of the resource usage
because it neglects the nutrient composition of both the
capture fish and the salmon, thus ignoring the value of the
production to human nutrition. The lipid content of capture
fish varies enormously between species and with weight,
environmental conditions and season"
"Because the lipid content of salmon is nearly three
times higher than in capture fish calculations of reliance
should preferably allow for this difference, which can be
easily achieved by using, not simple weight-to-weight ratios,
but nutrient-to-nutrient ratios."
http://www.ewos.com/wps/wcm/connect...and+oil+Aquaculture+Nutrition.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

Or, this site has some more explanations of how feed is sourced and made:
http://www.ewos.com/wps/wcm/connect/ewos-content-group/ewos-group/sustainability/sustainable-feed/

So then the ratio is no where near 1.2:1 it is more like between 3.2:1 and 8.5:1......

Now that is some good evidence of how bad the true conversion ratio really is.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

Nutrient to Nutrient vs. Weight to Weight - Did you actually read it past the point that (seemingly) confirmed your view?
You're so bent on making it out to be bad that you can't even see it might be a very good thing - for the present, and for the future.
I fully expected to be lambasted and held to task coming on here trying to put another point of view out there, but if all it comes down to the view that no matter how efficient and well managed the production of farmed salmon may be, anything that is used for farmed fish instead of left in the wild is unacceptable - then trying to come to a mutually acceptable ratio of wild protein used vs. farmed salmon gained is moot.
Wasting my effing time.
But, I'm not going to give up - you can expect me to keep putting the information available out there that might allow some to reconsider their obviously strongly held views about salmon farming - even if it might not be you guys posting.
Like I said before, I have been a sporty for about three times as long as I've been a farmer - so I know both sides well.

 

[fortyfour]

http://www.cbc.ca/player/Shows/ID/2331135651/

what do you have to say about this one boys...

 

[agentaqua]

...You're so bent on making it out to be bad that you can't even see it might be a very good thing - for the present, and for the future...

ClayoquotKid there is not 1 single example ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD of open net-pen aquaculture successfully co-existing with unimpacted wild stocks over a long time frame. NOT 1."Good thing"?

You're only fooling yourself, CK.

 

[rockdog]

If I change the subject, or move the conversation in another direction it is simply because some points can be argued endlessly, and if they can't be agreed upon there is no point in continuing.

Exactly. See ya!

You won't be changing any minds here. I read the Cohen report, that's good enough for me. We are all here because we want to be. You are here, be ause you are paid. What does that tell you?

 

[agentaqua]

wild salmon runs are a treasue

but ppl NEED their salmon man, ppl gotta eat man, there is nothing else to eat, there are no other fish man, farmed atlantic salmon are the only fish ppl NEED.....right?......morons......and if it is 150 times more costly to produce than the market price?...TOO BAD...looks like you will cease to exist........holmes*

When given a chance - the wild salmon runs come back to our very doorsteps on their own - feeding a multitude of animals on the way there and back. They are a treasure from the past and it is our responsibility to pass them onto the future. We do NOT have the right to impoverish future generations for somebody's short-term greed.

That's what the open net-cage technology brings - impoverishment. That's how corporations work. It's economic colonization centered on resource acquisition and control in the hands of the few for the benefit of the few. Societal needs - including maturity of civilization - are direct threats to the few stealing as much as they can from the many.

So the many are told lies, and corruption succeeds over other commual forms of governing like democracy. That is - succeeds for a short time until that form of governence fails - again. It's a reoccuring theme in the development and maturity of human civilization. Those societies who mature into inclusive, consensus building governences survive - those who do not often fail in spectacular fashion.

You'd think we'd learn from our failures by now. You'd think we'd look at the history of industrial corporate technology like the open net-cage technology, and not allow those lies and sociopaths (like Harper) to succeed and flourish. Maybe we would even try them for treason.

If we were more engaged in our direct governance and less zoned-out on sitcoms, and computer games - maybe if every person took 1 thing on as a personal responsibility to improve - maybe we could take back the governence of our lives away from the corporate shrills and corrupt politicians and bureaucrats.

Thats how I feel about this - and as I read - so do many others on this forum. Thank you for being so altruistic and supportive. We owe it to our future generations.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

Exactly. See ya!

You won't be changing any minds here. I read the Cohen report, that's good enough for me. We are all here because we want to be. You are here, be ause you are paid. What does that tell you?

If you did read the Cohen Report you would have seen this line: "there is no evidence proving causation between any stressor related to salmon farming and the decline of Fraser River sockeye"
http://www.cohencommission.ca/en/pdf/FinalReport/CohenCommissionFinalReport_Vol02_04.pdf#zoom=100 Page 67

The rest of the aquauculture related discussion and recommendations were purely interpretations of risk, "What if's" "Could's" "Might's" and "May's"

There is nothing to support the idea that salmon farms actually harm wild populations in any measurable way.

I'm here because I want to be, as a lifelong fisherman who happens to also work in the aquaculture industry.

I have a personal, vested interest in the management and sustainability of salmon farming because I too depend on wild salmon - I love to catch them and eat them.

I don't get paid to go out and kill them - but that's another story.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

ClayoquotKid there is not 1 single example ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD of open net-pen aquaculture successfully co-existing with unimpacted wild stocks over a long time frame. NOT 1."Good thing"?

You're only fooling yourself, CK.

What is a long time frame? - 30 to 40 years?

What is an "unimpacted stock" - One that isn't also fished? Or have its freshwater habitat disrupted by logging or development?

All I'm saying is that you can't seem to pick out the supposed impact of aquaculture from the rest of the things that harm wild salmon - like people killing and eating them.

You can wax poetic and pose grand economic conspiracies all you like (even throw in a little Harper bashing for good measure) - but if you can't measure an impact I would argue that it may not exist.

 

[tincan]

Way to grab a single line from the report to help support your cause. I can do it as well from the same page you quoted (see below). If you read the Cohen commission you will also know that he called for the immediate stoppage of any new fish farming licenses and a full study over the next several years at which time if the threat to wild salmon from these farms is greater than 'minimal' than they should be closed down and removed from their locations. He also emphasized that DFO has a conflicted mandate in promoting fish farms and protecting wild salmon, and that fish farms do hold potential to infect wild fish and should therefore be removed from vital locations in the Discovery Islands. The fact that you can take the Cohen commission findings and try to manipulate them in a way that supports your agenda goes to show just how far industry will go try to keep the 'debate' going. I realize there is still lot's of research to be done before anything is conclusive but the reason for that is because of people like you and your industry apologists whose strategy is to delay, delay, delay and muzzle sciencists and throw up smoke and mirrors. It's pathetic, tragic and a threat to our democracy.

Disease from fish farms
. Dr. Dill said of all the
fish farm stressors, “disease” was the most likely
candidate to provide a mechanism for a negative
impact of salmon farms on sockeye productivity.
567
(As discussed below, Dr. Dill concluded that salmon
farms do have “some sort” of negative impact on
Fraser River sockeye.) Dr. Dill testified that having
open-net pens in the ocean is a “game changer” in
terms of the disease environment.
568
He said that fish
farms can result in biomagnifications of pathogens,
and that the high densities of hosts on fish farms “are
likely to select for fast-growing, early-transmitted
and more virulent pathogens.”
569
He also set out
several possible routes of transmission from farmed
to wild fish: direct horizontal transfer through the
water, through fish feces in the benthos, transmission
from escaped Atlantic salmon, transmission by sea
lice, and discharges of bloodwater from processing
plants

If you did read the Cohen Report you would have seen this line: "there is no evidence proving causation between any stressor related to salmon farming and the decline of Fraser River sockeye"
http://www.cohencommission.ca/en/pdf/FinalReport/CohenCommissionFinalReport_Vol02_04.pdf#zoom=100 Page 67

The rest of the aquauculture related discussion and recommendations were purely interpretations of risk, "What if's" "Could's" "Might's" and "May's"

There is nothing to support the idea that salmon farms actually harm wild populations in any measurable way.

I'm here because I want to be, as a lifelong fisherman who happens to also work in the aquaculture industry.

I have a personal, vested interest in the management and sustainability of salmon farming because I too depend on wild salmon - I love to catch them and eat them.

I don't get paid to go out and kill them - but that's another story.

 

[agentaqua]

If you did read the Cohen Report you would have seen this line: "there is no evidence proving causation between any stressor related to salmon farming and the decline of Fraser River sockeye"
http://www.cohencommission.ca/en/pdf...4.pdf#zoom=100 Page 67.

EXCEPT for the Discovery Islands area.

The rest of the aquauculture related discussion and recommendations were purely interpretations of risk, "What if's" "Could's" "Might's" and "May's".

Yep-BUT the Precautionary Principle still applies...

There is nothing to support the idea that salmon farms actually harm wild populations in any measurable way.".

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!! There are many peer-rviewed studies and reports detailing this. Just because you are uninformed does not mean these do not exist.

What is a long time frame? - 30 to 40 years?

good question - yep. 20+ years

What is an "unimpacted stock"?

another good question - one that has had population-level effects that threaten it's genetic, environmental and/or ability to provide benefits to humans.

All I'm saying is that you can't seem to pick out the supposed impact of aquaculture from the rest of the things that harm wild salmon - like people killing and eating them.

another good question - yes you can - and it has been done.

 

[rockdog]

I have a personal, vested interest in the management and sustainability of salmon farming because I too depend on wild salmon - I love to catch them and eat them.

Funny how, as a farmer, you eat wild salmon. Just sayin'.
I dont eat farmed salmon either, and when I see a store that sells that crap, I tell them why I won't touch the stuff.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

EXCEPT for the Discovery Islands area.
Yep-BUT the Precautionary Principle still applies...
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!! There are many peer-rviewed studies and reports detailing this. Just because you are uninformed does not mean these do not exist.
good question - yep. 20+ years
another good question - one that has had population-level effects that threaten it's genetic, environmental and/or ability to provide benefits to humans.
another good question - yes you can - and it has been done.

Show me where causation of harm has been documented in the Discovery Islands area - or anywhere else for that matter.

You claim to have them and that I am uninformed - link it or it didn't happen.

If Cohen didn't find it I have serious doubts that you did, or if it was discussed in the commission maybe he just forgot about it when he made the statement I quoted.

We've had farms in BC since the '80s - you can pull all the "Precautionary Principle" you want, it doesn't change the fact that we have over 30 years of history to show that wild and farmed co-exist just fine.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

Funny how you assume that because I eat wild, I don't eat farmed.
I've got a freezer full of delicious hot smoke I did up, and it's always nice to know you can get a fresh fillet in January.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

Way to grab a single line from the report to help support your cause. I can do it as well from the same page you quoted (see below). If you read the Cohen commission you will also know that he called for the immediate stoppage of any new fish farming licenses and a full study over the next several years at which time if the threat to wild salmon from these farms is greater than 'minimal' than they should be closed down and removed from their locations. He also emphasized that DFO has a conflicted mandate in promoting fish farms and protecting wild salmon, and that fish farms do hold potential to infect wild fish and should therefore be removed from vital locations in the Discovery Islands. The fact that you can take the Cohen commission findings and try to manipulate them in a way that supports your agenda goes to show just how far industry will go try to keep the 'debate' going. I realize there is still lot's of research to be done before anything is conclusive but the reason for that is because of people like you and your industry apologists whose strategy is to delay, delay, delay and muzzle sciencists and throw up smoke and mirrors. It's pathetic, tragic and a threat to our democracy.

Disease from fish farms
. Dr. Dill said of all the
fish farm stressors, “disease” was the most likely
candidate to provide a mechanism for a negative
impact of salmon farms on sockeye productivity.
567
(As discussed below, Dr. Dill concluded that salmon
farms do have “some sort” of negative impact on
Fraser River sockeye.) Dr. Dill testified that having
open-net pens in the ocean is a “game changer” in
terms of the disease environment.
568
He said that fish
farms can result in biomagnifications of pathogens,
and that the high densities of hosts on fish farms “are
likely to select for fast-growing, early-transmitted
and more virulent pathogens.”
569
He also set out
several possible routes of transmission from farmed
to wild fish: direct horizontal transfer through the
water, through fish feces in the benthos, transmission
from escaped Atlantic salmon, transmission by sea
lice, and discharges of bloodwater from processing
plants

"most likely candidate to provide a mechanism" - Could happen, hasn't been shown to though
"have "some sort" of negative impact" - So he thinks it does, but can't quite seem to pin it down
"can result in biomagnifactions" - So what do biomagnifications mean to wild fish, and if they are a bad thing - where is it shown in the numbers?
"several possible routes" - Yes, disease transfer occurs in a number of ways - It doesn't mean that it is appening resulting in negative impacts to wild populations

The entire discussion hinges around the idea that there are many theoretical ways salmon farms COULD harm wild stocks - and entirely ignores the fact that all these things have been occurring for several decades and not one scientist has ever definitively shown these speculative risks to actually cause wild stocks to decline beyond what is seen from all other known factors.

 

[agentaqua]

Show me where causation of harm has been documented in the Discovery Islands area - or anywhere else for that matter. You claim to have them and that I am uninformed - link it or it didn't happen..

Here's just few links- ed-u-macate yerself CK:

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060033
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060046
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2293942/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1591297/
http://www.esf.edu/efb/limburg/Fish...i_07_Wild_salmon_decline_from_aquaculture.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/42/15277.full
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/274/1629/3141.full
http://www.math.ualberta.ca/~mlewis/Publications 2009/Krkosek-Morton-Volpe-Lewis-Sea-lice(1).pdf
http://medwayriversalmonassociation...n_Net_Pen_Salmon_Aquaculture_March_1_2012.pdf
http://www.farmedanddangerous.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Science-Bibliography_Jan11.pdf
http://salmoncoast.org/publications
http://www.farmfreshsalmon.org/sites/default/files/SeaLouseUpdate2009.pdf

I find it hard to believe you don't know how to access Google.

If Cohen didn't find it I have serious doubts that you did, or if it was discussed in the commission maybe he just forgot about it when he made the statement I quoted...

Cohen is cautious - he is a judge. He did identify the need for more studies and the application of the precautionary principle.

We've had farms in BC since the '80s - you can pull all the "Precautionary Principle" you want, it doesn't change the fact that we have over 30 years of history to show that wild and farmed co-exist just fine. January..

Ya - fine for the fish farmers.

 

[tincan]

"
The entire discussion hinges around the idea that there are many theoretical ways salmon farms COULD harm wild stocks - and entirely ignores the fact that all these things have been occurring for several decades and not one scientist has ever definitively shown these speculative risks to actually cause wild stocks to decline beyond what is seen from all other known factors.

I don't think you understand this "precautionary principle CARD" you refer to and I'm sure Chile, Norway and Scotland in addition to Cohen don't believe that decades of happy co-existence between fish farms and wild stocks have been a reality.

http://www.sehn.org/ppfaqs.html

Wingspread Conference on the Precautionary Principle
January 26, 1998

Last weekend at an historic gathering at Wingspread, headquarters of the Johnson Foundation, scientists, philosophers, lawyers and environmental activists, reached agreement on the necessity of the Precautionary Principle in public health and environmental decision-making. The key element of the principle is that it incites us to take anticipatory action in the absence of scientific certainty.

At the conclusion of the three-day conference, the diverse group issued a statement calling for government, corporations, communities and scientists to implement the "precautionary principle" in making decisions.

The 32 conference participants included treaty negotiators, activists, scholars and scientists from the United States, Canada and Europe. The conference was called to define and discuss implementing the precautionary principle, which has been used as the basis for a growing number of international agreements. The idea of precaution underpins some U.S. policy, such as the requirement for environmental impact statements before major projects are launched using federal funds. But most existing laws and regulations focus on cleaning up and controlling damage rather than preventing it. The group concluded that these policies do not sufficiently protect people and the natural world.

Participants noted that current policies such as risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis give the benefit of the doubt to new products and technologies, which may later prove harmful. And when damage occurs, victims and their advocates have the difficult task of proving that a product or activity was responsible. The precautionary principle shifts the burden of proof, insisting that those responsible for an activity must vouch for its harmlessness and be held responsible if damage occurs. The issues of scientific uncertainty, economics, environmental and public health protection which are embedded in the principle make this extremely complex. We invite your thought and conversation on these topics.