Norway Study Recommends Moving to Closed Containment Salmon Farms

Not sure why you avoided admitting these points:
1/ The so-called "ocean ranching" done in AK uses broodstock/smolts from their natal (or normal/natural) areas that should be exposed to whatever pathogens the returning/spawning adults would normally bring, and
2/ The feeding only happens for a few weeks - so these "farms" won't have adult fish concentrating and releasing new and/or elevated pathogens and parasites when the next years juvies outmigrate.

The last point is really the key difference - and is the important difference wrt disease risk management.
Agent, other than the obvious differences I mentioned there is no difference. Farms here have their own brood stock. Well, I assume salmon ranching would use brood stock from natal areas as I'm not sure where else they would get them from......

Never avoided point #2 as I said that the obvious difference was that Atlantic salmon are raised to adult size in net pens. The "part of their life history" part was directed at ranch salmon. Ranched salmon remain captive in ocean net pens until they are large enough to compete with wild salmon for food and space so I'm not sure that would be just a few weeks unless you have something more on that. Your 2nd point avoids some context around those contentions such as fish husbandry, parasite management and routine testing for high risk pathogens. Done with this...go check out this site and hassle with them...lol.

http://www.alaskasalmonranching.com
 
You keep missing the point around disease resistance, disease amplification and transmission vis-a-vis fish farming verses ocean ranching. There are substantial differences that still remain - and yes - thanks for admitting that you are unsure of how long it takes to increase smolt size to release - which depends on the species - which only takes a few weeks. There are additional issues generated by the hatcheries/ocean-ranching - such as introgression and ocean productivity - as mentioned.

Alaska statute 16.40.210 prohibits finfish farming. However, Alaska does allow nonprofit ocean ranching. Finfish farming is defined as growing or cultivating finfish in captivity. Ocean ranching, on the other hand, involves releasing young fish into public waters and being available for harvest by fishermen upon their return to Alaskan waters as adults. The ranched fish have to compete with the wild fish to survive and return.

Thanks for posting the aquaculture standard Vivian Krause website link - but no thanks. I'd rather look at what the Alaska Fish and Game Department references. See:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/Y1805E/y1805e07.htm
https://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/assets/26/7340_07232012_135712_Mahnken.et.al.1983.pdf
www.adfg.alaska.gov/static-f/fishing/PDFs/aquaticfarming/a_look_at_aquatic_farming_in_alaska.pdf
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/FedAidPDFs/RIR.5J.2016.03.pdf
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/FedAidPDFs/FMR15-15.pdf
http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/FedAidPDFs/RIR.5J.2010.01.pdf
 
You keep missing the point around disease resistance, disease amplification and transmission vis-a-vis fish farming verses ocean ranching. There are substantial differences that still remain - and yes - thanks for admitting that you are unsure of how long it takes to increase smolt size to release - which depends on the species - which only takes a few weeks. There are additional issues generated by the hatcheries/ocean-ranching - such as introgression and ocean productivity - as mentioned.

Alaska statute 16.40.210 prohibits finfish farming. However, Alaska does allow nonprofit ocean ranching. Finfish farming is defined as growing or cultivating finfish in captivity. Ocean ranching, on the other hand, involves releasing young fish into public waters and being available for harvest by fishermen upon their return to Alaskan waters as adults. The ranched fish have to compete with the wild fish to survive and return.

Thanks for posting the aquaculture standard Vivian Krause website link - but no thanks. I'd rather look at what the Alaska Fish and Game Department references. See:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/Y1805E/y1805e07.htm
https://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/assets/26/7340_07232012_135712_Mahnken.et.al.1983.pdf
www.adfg.alaska.gov/static-f/fishing/PDFs/aquaticfarming/a_look_at_aquatic_farming_in_alaska.pdf
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/FedAidPDFs/RIR.5J.2016.03.pdf
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/FedAidPDFs/FMR15-15.pdf
http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/FedAidPDFs/RIR.5J.2010.01.pdf

Gish galloping totally off topic again agent? Thats like a days reading in one post. lol

Maybe alaska russia and china should consider raising all their fish in closed containment so as to not effect the wild salmon allowing them to truly have a chance to return to historic populations.
 
Ya - I know. Much simpler just taking Vivian Krause's word on everything...
 
Vivian has nothing to do with alaskansalmonranching.com. Not sure where your getting that from.
 
BN - you realize that going to the source - doing your own research over these issues is what we all should be doing? Instead you make some derogatory and paternalistic remarks about the links I provided for everyone to check it out themselves - as "Gish galloping totally off topic again..." Thanks for demonstrating how the pro-farm lobby keeps it emotional, derisive and acrimonious - rather than addressing the issues and people with data/science and respect. That's enough side-tracking on this issue - thank you for your patience admin. Finished...
 
Last edited:
BN - you realize that going to the source - doing your own research over these issues is what we all should be doing? Instead you make some derogatory and paternalistic remarks about the links I provided for everyone to check it out themselves - as "Gish galloping totally off topic again..." Thanks for demonstrating how the pro-farm lobby keeps it emotional, derisive and acrimonious - rather than addressing the issues and people with data/science and respect.


Hey bud, Your the guy who just posted a days worth of reading links on salmon ranching on a Norwegian closed containment study thread which the mods of this forum repeatedly told you to stay on topic.
I think its fine to discuss salmon ranching in the discussion but your post is gish gallop and clearly demonstrates that you do not understand how the moderators want these discussions here to go.

Anyway, I agree with dave.
A six year old study in Norway that is totally irrelevant to what is happening here in BC and Washington ... there are no documented diseases passed to wild salmon here, no interbreeding with wild salmon, and the environmental pollution is nothing compared to what Vancouver and Victoria are dumping daily into our ocean. Lame.

Try again.
 
Comparative economic performance and carbon footprint of twofarming models for producing Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar): Land-based closed containment system in freshwater and open netpen in seawater. 2016. Yajie Liua, Trond W. Rostena, Kristian Henriksena, Erik Skontorp Hognesa,Steve Summerfeltb, Brian Vincib,∗aSINTEF Fisheries & Aquaculture, P.O. Box 4762, 7465 Trondheim, NorwaybThe Conservation Fund, Freshwater Institute, 1098 Turner Road, Shepherdstown, WV, USA
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2016.01.001

Abstract
Ocean net pen production of Atlantic salmon is approaching 2 million metric tons (MT) annually and has proven to be cost- and energy-efficient. Recently, with technology improvements, freshwater aquaculture of Atlantic salmon from eggs to harvestable size of 4–5 kg in land-based closed containment (LBCC) water recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS) has been demonstrated as a viable production technology. Land-based, closed containment water recirculating aquaculture systems technology offers the ability to fully control the rearing environment and provides flexibility in locating a production facility close to the market and on sites where cost of land and power are competitive. This flexibility offers distinct advantages over Atlantic salmon produced in open net pen systems, which is dependent on access to suitable coastal waters and a relatively long transport distance to supply the US market. Consequently, in this paper we present an analysis of the investment needed, the production cost, the profitability and the carbon footprint of producing 3300 MT of head-on gutted (HOG) Atlantic salmon from eggs to US market (wholesale) using two different production systems—LBCC-RAS technology and open net pen (ONP) technology using enterprise budget analysis and carbon footprint with the LCA method. In our analysis we compare the traditional open net pen production system in Norway and a model freshwater LBCC-RAS facility in the US. The model ONP is small compared to the most ONP systems in Norway, but the LBCC-RAS is large compared to any existing LBCC-RAS for Atlantic salmon. The results need to be interpreted with this in mind. Results of the financial analysis indicate that the total production costs for two systems are relatively similar, with LBCC-RAS only 10% higher than the ONP system on a head-on gutted basis (5.60 US$/kg versus 5.08 US$/kg, respectively). Without interest and depreciation, the two production systems have an almost equal operating cost (4.30 US$/kg for ONP versus 4.37 US$/kg for LBCC-RAS). Capital costs of the two systems are not similar for the same 3300 MT of head-on gutted salmon. The capital cost of the LBCC-RAS model system is approximately 54,000,000 US$ and the capital cost of the ONP system is approximately 30,000,000 US$, a difference of 80%. However, the LBCC-RAS model system selling salmon at a 30% price premium is comparatively as profitable as the ONP model system (profit margin of 18% versus 24%, respectively), even though its 15-year net present value is negative and its return on investment is lower than ONP system (9% versus 18%, respectively). The results of the carbon footprint analysis confirmed that production of feed is the dominating climate aspect for both production methods, but also showed that energy source and transport methods are important. It was shown that fresh salmon produced in LBCC-RAS systems close to a US market that use an average US electricity mix have a much lower carbon footprint than fresh salmon produced in Norway in ONP systems shipped to the same market by airfreight, 7.41 versus 15.22 kg CO2eq/kg salmon HOG, respectively. When comparing the carbon footprint of production-only, the LBCC-RAS-produced salmon has a carbon footprint that is double that of the ONP-produced salmon, 7.01 versus 3.39 kg CO2eq/kg salmon live-weight, respectively.
 
Back
Top