Closed containment salmon heading to market
- Thread starter salmonkiller01
- Start date
Our Canadians from coast to coast should be all over this !
This is the right way to FARM Salmon.
The Canadian government should be ashamed of them selves to allow all these net pens that have PROVEN to harm our wild stocks. Re the muffle in the Canadian government staff when test results Proved they are allowing the poisoning to continue. Harper and friends are Pathetic !
This is the right way to FARM Salmon.
The Canadian government should be ashamed of them selves to allow all these net pens that have PROVEN to harm our wild stocks. Re the muffle in the Canadian government staff when test results Proved they are allowing the poisoning to continue. Harper and friends are Pathetic !
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
The R and D design and technology of this system was developed on Vancouver island...Very huge thing for Nanaimo...Glad to see it worked but the price will be deciding factor for most...
BTW this was this experimental project was funded by government.... So there you go. Why would the government fund this if there is no risk from net pens. Because there is an impact, and if the government takes them out there has too be an alternative...I believe this exactly why this is being tried...We all know government doesn't just give out money...
BTW this was this experimental project was funded by government.... So there you go. Why would the government fund this if there is no risk from net pens. Because there is an impact, and if the government takes them out there has too be an alternative...I believe this exactly why this is being tried...We all know government doesn't just give out money...
Last edited by a moderator:
Sharphooks
Well-Known Member
Not so sure about that. Due to the fact that salmon and other aquaculture species with tails and fins are able to swim and float with neutral buoyancy, they don't have to fight gravity like you or I (or cattle or pigs or chickens)
That results in a very efficient feed conversion ratio (1 lb of feed produces approx. 1 lb of fish protein---compared to a cow, that's roughly 7 times more efficient of a conversion ratio)
With the rapid global population growth, people are competing for commodities such as grain and soy beans. Cheap fish like anchovies and sardines that used to be produced into fish meal to support both feed lots and aquaculture were plentiful. Not any more--- commodities of all types are spiking. So with expensive feed, aquaculture has a distinct advantage over meat protein
Aquaculture has come a long way. It's estimated that today, salmon farms are producing 10 times the pounds of fish they did in the 1990's with much less pollution. Like the approach to ocean farming or not, efficiencies breed additional margins to owners.
And the technology is getting better: the promising new (old) technology----polyculture ---China has been doing it for thousands of years in rice paddies with carp and pigs and kelp; that same dynamic is now being used with blackcod, cockles, oysters and kelp (on Van Isle ---a tip of the hat to Van Isle!) .
Down current of the blackcod pen are shellfish beds---the organic excretions from the blackcod get filtered out by the oysters, cockles and mussels then what the shellfish don't get the kelp gets further down current.
All the items in the polyculture food chain are marketable.
Once you get efficiencies of scale, you get greater percentages of protein and vegetable matter for each pound of feed you add to the mix.
I'm optimistic, though the disease and sea lice problems associated with open-ocean salmon farming have poisoned both the fjords and the investment waters and require a totally new approach, no doubt.
The problem with inland production---huge demands for water and power. Not a good dynamic for profit margin in that approach
Last edited by a moderator:
be careful when you are quoting the feed conversion ratio, Sharphooks. The fish farmers use it differently than everyone else - you have to convert. Its misleading.
It is the amount of DRY feed (with oil added) to produce 1lb of wet weight farm-gate product - NOT a wet-to-wet ratio. If you look at the fishmeal used to produce that oil which is added, along with the fishmeal rendered into dry pellets used in the feed - the actual wet-to-wet ratio is more like 4-5lbs forage fish to produce 1lb of high-end salmon. Prob. still a good ratio when compared to top-end meat producing farming - but it would be interesting to compare energy in and food out when compared to smaller farm animals like chickens
It is the amount of DRY feed (with oil added) to produce 1lb of wet weight farm-gate product - NOT a wet-to-wet ratio. If you look at the fishmeal used to produce that oil which is added, along with the fishmeal rendered into dry pellets used in the feed - the actual wet-to-wet ratio is more like 4-5lbs forage fish to produce 1lb of high-end salmon. Prob. still a good ratio when compared to top-end meat producing farming - but it would be interesting to compare energy in and food out when compared to smaller farm animals like chickens
Sharphooks
Well-Known Member
First, I have no axe to grind. Seeing a pen in a quiet inlet in the middle of nowhere never did much for me, and I'd rather eat a sardine then a farmed Atlantic
But I recently read an article that stated salmon feed these days is typically no more then 10% fish meal. I can believe that feed manufacturers are trying to find alternatives to forage fish-based fish meal due to cost---no doubt a salmon farmer is competing with a Chinese pig farmer for that fish meal and costs have spiked hugely
Whatever the feed conversion ratio is, I think the data supports the fact that the aquaculture guys have it over the cattle and pig and chicken guys as far as what poundage of feed produces a pound of flesh
If you focus on costs, that's another matter---farmed salmon will lose it's sex appeal without the Omega-3 fatty acids and that can' t be supplied by cheaper soy bean meal
They've raped and pillaged the sardines and mackerel--- the next frontier is krill in Antarctica ---I hope that harvest gets managed in a hurry because it's a stampede of boats down there
But I recently read an article that stated salmon feed these days is typically no more then 10% fish meal. I can believe that feed manufacturers are trying to find alternatives to forage fish-based fish meal due to cost---no doubt a salmon farmer is competing with a Chinese pig farmer for that fish meal and costs have spiked hugely
Whatever the feed conversion ratio is, I think the data supports the fact that the aquaculture guys have it over the cattle and pig and chicken guys as far as what poundage of feed produces a pound of flesh
If you focus on costs, that's another matter---farmed salmon will lose it's sex appeal without the Omega-3 fatty acids and that can' t be supplied by cheaper soy bean meal
They've raped and pillaged the sardines and mackerel--- the next frontier is krill in Antarctica ---I hope that harvest gets managed in a hurry because it's a stampede of boats down there
GLG
Well-Known Member
Not to mention that for food conversion, there is a big difference between feeding livestock plants and feeding salmon forage fish. In most places you can grow a plant in one year. Some places you can get 2 or more crops a year. You can't say that for forage fish.
Just seems that we are living dangerous with salmon feedlots on salmon migration routes. As the guy that release thousands of Coho smolts each year, I am troubled when I think of them swimming past all the feedlots on the way to the open ocean. I also wonder what the returning adults are bring back with them as they pass the feedlots on the way back in the fall. Coho life stages are 18 months in the river and 18 months in the ocean, so there is an overlap in the fresh water that can pass bad things to your young fish.
GLG
Well-Known Member
Back on topic....
When this news broke a few weeks back my wife was asked by important people here in town. One group was the local PAC, they wanted to know if this salmon should be given the green light to buy. PAC is mostly mothers of school age kids and I assume they do most of the shopping. Another was a local church group that our across the street neighbour belongs to. The last was a group of walking friends that my wife has.
Wife's answer was this is defiantly the only Atlantic salmon that she could recommend. It still has problem with sourcing the feed but it is a step in the right direction.
I married better then my wife did...
When this news broke a few weeks back my wife was asked by important people here in town. One group was the local PAC, they wanted to know if this salmon should be given the green light to buy. PAC is mostly mothers of school age kids and I assume they do most of the shopping. Another was a local church group that our across the street neighbour belongs to. The last was a group of walking friends that my wife has.
Wife's answer was this is defiantly the only Atlantic salmon that she could recommend. It still has problem with sourcing the feed but it is a step in the right direction.
I married better then my wife did...
Last edited by a moderator:
Englishman
Well-Known Member
Sharphooks I don't know here you got your figures from which Agent rightly corrected. The numbers I have read have all been in the range 3 to 5 : 1, wet forage fish to wet salmon by weight.
However, the important point which you have alluded to at the end of you post is the devastating impact on the marine ecology of the removal of all this forage fish to make feed lot pellets. The impact on local communities far from these shores has been highlighted on this forum.
http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/showthread.php?27449-The-Cost-of-Salmon-in-Senegal
http://tidechange.ca/2014/04/23/the-cost-of-salmon-in-senegal-by-ray-grigg/
And there are other sources out there which raise the same issue.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v405/n6790/abs/4051017a0.html
http://www.theecologist.org/trial_in...s_in_peru.html
Your comparison with food conversion ratios for chickens and pigs is a bit of "red herring " as neither are inherently carnivores. Raising carnivores in pens has never been done before in all of human history because it is clearly a zero sum game. More animal protein has to be fed to the pen occupants than is output. That is what is so ridiculous and wasteful about salmon feed lots......and the above articles highlight who is paying for this madness.....
Sharphooks
Well-Known Member
Again-- I have zero axe to grind on this subject. Zero. But with due respects, the discussion was inland salmon farming. The last two articles you cited are somewhat dated -- 5- 6 years (Nature--2008) and 14 years (The Ecologist--2000)
From what I have read---there have been significant changes in food formulations for salmon since 2000. Fish meal has been supplanted by vegetable meal (soy and grain) by upwards of 80% . Forage fish meal has been reduced to 10 - 15 %.
The forage fish harvests in Senegal and Peru you mentioned--- fish meal for China---pigs and chickens get the lion's share of that.
I think the point is aquaculture interests have been sensitive to FCR and have responded by promoting efficiencies in their food formulations.
Like it or not, naturally occurring protein based food sources absolutely cannot keep up with global population growth. Whether the FCR is 1 to 1 or 3 to 1 with salmon, it still outstrips the FCR's associated with cattle and pigs. And every year it gets whittled down further and further.
Resource extraction is not a pretty business. Just the simple act of putting your trousers on in the morning is a political act, not much prettier.
From what I have read---there have been significant changes in food formulations for salmon since 2000. Fish meal has been supplanted by vegetable meal (soy and grain) by upwards of 80% . Forage fish meal has been reduced to 10 - 15 %.
The forage fish harvests in Senegal and Peru you mentioned--- fish meal for China---pigs and chickens get the lion's share of that.
I think the point is aquaculture interests have been sensitive to FCR and have responded by promoting efficiencies in their food formulations.
Like it or not, naturally occurring protein based food sources absolutely cannot keep up with global population growth. Whether the FCR is 1 to 1 or 3 to 1 with salmon, it still outstrips the FCR's associated with cattle and pigs. And every year it gets whittled down further and further.
Resource extraction is not a pretty business. Just the simple act of putting your trousers on in the morning is a political act, not much prettier.
The food conversion ratio (FCR) is perhaps not the best metric of efficiency for the conversion of food stocks into meat protein since it varies wildly depending on the protein content of the food stock. While cattle may have low FCR's that's generally due to the relatively low protein content of the dry grain food stock. While feedlot salmon may have low FCR's as was noted above F part is (at present) mostly still coming from forage fish and not plants (which can extract C and in many cases N from the air). A more meaningful number might be protein conversion ratio. Poultry has a low FCR also.
As for the statement "Like it or not, naturally occurring protein based food sources absolutely cannot keep up with global population growth", I don't think that's true as we can, if we so chose, get our required protein from plant sources (soy, nuts, high protein grains etc). While I'm not a vegetarian myself, one of the many reasonable arguments made by vegetarians is that a diet that is more focussed on plant consumption is better for the environment as we take the animal based FCR out of the middle.
As for the statement "Like it or not, naturally occurring protein based food sources absolutely cannot keep up with global population growth", I don't think that's true as we can, if we so chose, get our required protein from plant sources (soy, nuts, high protein grains etc). While I'm not a vegetarian myself, one of the many reasonable arguments made by vegetarians is that a diet that is more focussed on plant consumption is better for the environment as we take the animal based FCR out of the middle.
GLG
Well-Known Member
Here are the numbers.... it starts at eowos-08
http://www.reporting.ewos.com/sustainability-reports/gri-report-2013/performance/
Yup they sure have improved over the years and that's a good thing.
Thanks sharphooks for pointing that out as i does need to be said.
One thing that I don't understand is the fish oil number.
How many forage fish does it take to produce a ton of fish oil?
Feed Sales Volume (tons) 1,145,430
9.8% fish oil would equal 116,880 tons of fish oil.
carpeweekend posted this Ted talk link on another thread.
In this talk - they talk about fishmeal and it's ability to feed from 400-750 million people. Also someone in this talk figured-out the numbers of metric tons of fish protein produced per $100,000 invested. Wild fish harvests produce 90.5 metric tones per $100K investment, while aquaculture only gives us 53 tons per $100K - or is investment , or is 41.4% less efficient as wild capture fisheries - presumably due to extra transport and processing costs - which will only get worse as fuel prices continue to rise. The old tired refrain that open net-cage aquaculture takes the pressure off wild fisheries is also bogus considering the fishmeal lost in conversion to aquaculture salmon and the potential and realized impacts to adjacent wild salmon stocks.
Birdsnest
Well-Known Member
Wild salmon covert feed far worse than farmed salmon roughly 10:1.
http://seafoodforthefuture.org/aquaculture-efficiency-and-feeds/
http://seafoodforthefuture.org/aquaculture-efficiency-and-feeds/
Whole in the Water
Well-Known Member
... and your point is?
Similar threads
