Sokeyefry - you're back. Missed your come-backs. You stated: I did not try to blame "all" of the fish meal woes on salmon farming alone (please reread my postings if in doubt). Are there other significant users of that resource - yes. Do those issues also need to be addressed - yes. That wasn't my focus, however, since we were focused on and discussing salmon farming impacts. We can also talk about those pesky chicken farmers, if you want - as well. Then we would also need to talk about all the fuel used-up to capture those forage fishes, and then talk about the fuel used in the transport, and then about the energy needs in rendering them into to fish meal and fish oil, and then the talk would lead to global warming, and then onto carbon credits, and so-on. It's just that I was pointing-out the hypocrisy of PR boosters stating that salmon farming was "helping to feed the world's poor", by using-up a significant source of fish protein through trophic level transfer - and being disingenuousness by then blaming those pesky chickens. That fish protein could instead be used DIRECTLY to feed humans, at a much greater efficiency. GET IT? No matter what else is going on - those hundred of thousands of tons of farmed, carnivorous salmon use-up significantly more forage fish to feed those salmon - to suggest anything else is being truly dishonest. While we are on the topic - I think I know one of the reasons salmon farmers do not want to give-up the open net-cage technology...their farmed salmon would lose a significant, alternative food source that swims into the salmon pens - local stocks of herring and salmon smolts. Thinks those lights used to night feed don't attract other food? When your feed costs for a single site are something like 60% of your total costs (you can give me more accurate numbers if you want), then it's millions of $$$ a year in just feeding these fish. If they succeed in reducing that by only 10%, then - no - I guess they wouldn't want to be forced into closed technology. That leads nicely into your next point: Well - lets, then. How about there is no political will to make it happen, and everyone is happy with the status quo. We have all sorts of alternative energy sources that could be used for pumping water, here on the BC coast - like rain i.e. hydro), wind, and even solar. Wind-generated air pumps have been used in the southern US catfish pond aquaculture for generations. That could be used to offset the reduction in oxygen by going closed containment. Also, in Norway they use big, open blasted ponds to raise halibut. I guess it would be too "simple" to do the same here in BC, even though that technology is available.I guess all that technology is too "simple" for the currently permitted dense cage-culture? you then mouth the industry rallying-cry by declaring: First-off that work has been done, and been published in peer-reviewed journals, and the industry and DFOs best response has been to try to sell the public doubt about the findings. The science is in on this topic, sockeyefry - and the reason the salmonfarmers don't like it - is because it doesn't paint a very pretty picture of their impacts. Lets go back to the start for this - okay... Salmon farms stock their pens with Atlantic salmon smolts from FRESHWATER hatcheries. They then get SEA lice. They get sea lice through the mechanism of the open net-pen, which allows the free flow of water that contains the free-swimming forms of sea lice, as well as other disease and parasite vectors. No apparent hubbablou in getting the salmon farming industry to understand this one. This proves that the open net-cage technology is INEFFECTIVE in containing the interactions between wild and cultured stocks - and that sea lice move through the cage. Get this so far? The we have some 27-29 operating farms in the Broughton with from 600,000 to 6 MILLION farmed fish, each (depends upon whether they are smolts, or nearing market size). Maybe an average of what - 2 MILLION each, say? You can give me better numbers, here sockeyefry - if you have them - but ballpark - how many farmed salmon in the Broughton - 50 MILLION seem ball-parky? That's not a significant potential source of lice, sockeyefry? What? Why are you even trying to say it's probably not the single, most likely source of the lice source in the Broughton? Let's explore this one more. I don't have the time to look-up the references right now - but we will return to this. I very much agree with your statement: And do you know why the papers can only suggest this - the farmers refuse to release their sea lice data on a site-by-site basis - claiming "intellectual property rights". The truth is they don't want anyone to know. That is not what I said. I said there are conflicts that you were not admitting. We'll pick the rest of this thread up later. Looking forward to your response.