N.S. fish farm rejected: risk to wild salmon.

[GDW]

I don't like the idea of CC with open net pens especially when you say it's not about ensuring the net pens are not stocked with salmon during out migration but ensuring the salmon that are there pose minimal risk.

I don't think fish farms can prove any net pen fish pose minimal risk all their effort is put into re directing blame not investigating what impact they are having.

 

[sockeyefry2]

GDW,

Nothing humans do has zero impact on their environment. Simply breathing uses oxygen that could have been used by another organism.

I am tallking about identifying and quantifying an impact that a farm is doing to a particular environment and taking steps to lessen the severity. I don't mean reacting to potential risks and applying the "precautionary principle" ad nauseum. I mean identifying real impacts and dealing with them, eliminating if possible or making them acceptable if not.

You of course realize that CC's impact their environments right?

 

[GDW]

What a ridiculouse argument that was. CC's don't impact wild fish unless their waste is recklessly disposed of into the ocean. I don't care about the impact on the piece of land the facility is built on I'm only talking about wild salmon and other fish. Now your saying its ok to have net pens because people breath air and it impacts other organisms so let's just screw over everything?

I think fish farms have had long enough (decades of operation) to prove they are not a risk to wild runs and fish farm advocates have also been saying for decades there is no impact. Now that we are finally making a little progress for those same fish farm advocates to say we will asses and reduce impact is not acceptable to me. That should have been done from the beginning. IMO it's too late this is just more distract and annoy tactics from fish farm supporters who want to leave their net pens up and running as long as possible.

 

[sockeyefry2]

Maybe not directly, but CC's are not without their impacts on the environment, typically greater than net pen farms.

You don't really believe that wild salmon populations are only impacted by a few fish farms and nothing else do you?

 

[agentaqua]

Senate CLOSED CONTAINMENT SALMON AQUACULTURE REPORT

Agent, Where are the trials and reports that indicate the profitability? I can't see an industry based on 100% CC production in BC surviving.

From: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublicat...94887&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=1&File=72

FULL report: http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/Committee/411/FOPO/Reports/RP5994887/foporp03/foporp03-e.pdf

THE ECONOMICS OF CLOSED CONTAINMENT AQUACULTURE

A. The Viability of Closed Containment Atlantic Salmon Aquaculture

Very early in the Committee's study, it became clear that closed containment technologies are well-developed and have been used for decades for a number of different species of fish. The debate is no longer centered on whether or not it is technically possible to raise Atlantic salmon in closed containment operations; it is, rather, whether or not this can be done at a cost that will allow closed containment Atlantic salmon producers to be competitive with open-net pen salmon producers. As stated by Colin Brauner from the University of British Columbia:

Land-based closed containment aquaculture is technically possible, but its economic feasibility is a topic of debate. What is clear is that profitability is dependent on optimizing water quality and the biological conditions for growth of salmon at high densities. Recirculating aquaculture systems, abbreviated RAS, are unique in aquaculture in that they provide an opportunity to completely control the environmental rearing conditions, such as salinity, temperature, ammonia, carbon dioxide, and density, all of which can greatly influence growth. Complete control over these conditions allows salmon to be reared under optimal conditions, promoting fish welfare and product quality, maximizing growth and economy of production.[64]

Compared to open-net pen Atlantic salmon farming, a land-based RAS is a relatively high-tech and high-cost endeavour. To offset these additional costs, however, RAS offer a number of potential advantages, including faster growth rates, and the potential to stock salmon at three to seven times the density possible in conventional net pens. For example, the Committee heard that whereas the density of biomass at open-net pen Atlantic salmon aquaculture sites tends to be approximately 15 kg/m3,[65] the density possible in RAS (due to increased control over water quality and oxygenation) ranges from 50 to 80 kg/m3,[66] though could be as high as 100 kg/m3.[67] Research is still ongoing at the University of British Columbia, research centres such as the Freshwater Institute in West Virginia, and through pilot projects such as the one currently being built by the ‘Namgis First Nation, in order to determine what these optimal growing conditions and maximum densities are.

As these parameters are refined, and economic uncertainties are reduced, closed containment could become increasingly competitive with open-net pen aquaculture. As it was explained to the Committee, competitiveness with the open-net pen aquaculture industry matters because Atlantic salmon is a global commodity product. As Daniel Stechey said:

I'd just like to make it really clear that in my opinion — and there are many examples of this — closed containment is economically viable today. We have coho farms that are producing coho and selling into a niche market. We've got tilapia farms that have been growing fish in closed containment systems and selling to live markets in Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, and New York City for 15 to 20 years already. These are closed containment systems. They work.

The thing that sets them apart is that they're producing a premium priced product, so you can afford the technology… When you go to a commodity product like Atlantic salmon and you're competing with producers around the world who are using a lower-cost technology to produce it, that is, net pens, then you're going to have a hard time competing unless you become extremely large scale with very high capital costs.[68]

Coho salmon, the Committee was told, is produced at a cost of $1.97 per pound ($4.3 per kg) in the relatively small land-based RAS in Montana and Agassiz, BC. With a selling price of $3.50 to $4.00 per pound ($7.7 to $8.8 per kg), this provides a healthy profit margin.[69] Atlantic salmon, on the other hand, has experienced market lows, recently selling for $2.30 to $2.60 per pound ($5.1 to $5.7 per kg), which significantly reduces the potential profit margin if the costs of the production are the same as they are in the existing small-scale closed containment units for coho. Many believe, however, that at a larger scale, the cost of production can be significantly lower. But, without a commercial-scale closed containment Atlantic salmon aquaculture facility in operation, the debate surrounding the economic feasibility of these systems relies heavily on models, which in turn rely on a number of assumptions. Two of these economic feasibility studies (as well as the variables that produce the greatest discrepancies) are discussed below.

 

[agentaqua]

B. Economic Feasibility Studies and Key Variables

Two economic feasibility studies were published in 2010, one by DFO[70] and one by Andrew Wright,[71] both of which demonstrate that at least under certain circumstances, closed containment could show positive returns. Beyond this, however, different assumptions produced very different results.

In DFO's feasibility study, a preliminary assessment of several different types of aquaculture facilities was conducted. These facilities included conventional open net systems, ocean-based closed containment systems with rigid walls, ocean-based closed containment systems with flexible walls, land-based flow-through systems, and land-based recirculating systems.

DFO's feasibility study demonstrated that a 2,500 tonnes (annual production capacity) RAS would require an initial capital investment of $22.6 million and annual operating costs of $7.2 million in order to generate an annual net profit of $381,467. This corresponds to a rate of return of 3.4%. By way of comparison, the study demonstrated that a similar capacity open net aquaculture operation would require an initial capital investment of only $5 million and would generate an annual net profit of $2.6 million (for an expected rate of return of 40.3%).

Dr. Wright's analysis, on the other hand, suggests that a land-based RAS could be significantly more profitable than the DFO analysis concludes. It should be noted at the outset that the figures presented in the two analyses are not directly comparable since the DFO study was based on a 2,500 tonnes annual production capacity, whereas Dr. Wright's was based on a 1,000 tonnes annual production capacity. In any case, even with this smaller size (and, more conservative figures for a number of variables), Dr. Wright's analysis resulted in required capital costs of approximately $12 million for a net annual income of at least $5.1 million (or up to $8.2 million if one factors in a 25% premium that the fish may be able to generate if they are marketed as sustainable and chemical-free). In addition, net annual income would climb to between $9 and $13.1 million if the waste stream is utilized for aquaponics and compost. These assumptions relating to possible revenue from the capture and sale of the waste stream were supported by Steven Summerfelt of the Freshwater Institute, who told the Committee of a 1000 tonnes closed containment facility currently producing another type of fish that is generating $250,000 per year solely by selling its waste as fertilizer.

Dr. Summerfelt also shared his own economic analysis with the Committee. He highlighted the need for access to inexpensive land close to markets and low electricity costs, in the range from $0.02-$0.06/kWh. Given these two conditions, he concluded that a 1000 tonnes land-based RAS would be able to operate at a profit, even without factoring in a price premium that many predict could be obtained for closed containment salmon. At a 3000 tonnes production capacity, he concluded that a land-based RAS would not only be profitable, but would be competitive with open-net pen production in North America.[72]

The Committee notes that any conclusion about economic feasibility is based on assumptions and variables relating to market price, utilization of the waste stream, optimal densities, energy costs and costs relating to depreciation and interest on loans.

Some witnesses also pointed out that current costs of net pen production are only so low because a number of costs are not factored in, what are often called externalities. Eric Hobson of SOS Marine Conservation Foundation, for example, expressed his desire to see the development of a regulatory regime for net pen aquaculture that requires industry to bear the full costs of net pen production methods, including externalities such as the monitoring of impacts on the marine environment. This, he suggested, would level the playing field for new technologies such as closed containment.[73]

As also noted by the Living Oceans Society, the externalities of open-net pen aquaculture production can also include the costs to government associated with the industry:

Closed containment operators are by and large internalizing those costs. If we switch to closed containment, DFO is not going to have to deal with escapes, with sea lice and disease transfer to wild salmon, predator deaths, waste deposition in the marine environment, and toxic residues. The moneys currently allocated for that, with the kind of enforcement and monitoring and public relations that are required, could be transferred to supporting the development of a new and innovative industry, particularly the development of a product that the marketplace is increasingly demanding.[74]

While the Committee acknowledges the concerns of witnesses it is not in a position to say whether all of the externalities cited by witnesses necessarily have the environmental, social or economic costs that have been ascribed to them or whether it would be fair to assign those costs to the industry.

 

[GDW]

Maybe not directly, but CC's are not without their impacts on the environment, typically greater than net pen farms.

You don't really believe that wild salmon populations are only impacted by a few fish farms and nothing else do you?

How can you pretend to know the impact of a CC system when not many exist? And the impact on the ant hill the CC system was built on isn't my worry its wild fish and the Pacific Ocean. Nothing else.

Salmon face a ton of challenges but I do believe one of the bigger ones is navigating through the many many fish farms placed all over their migration routes. You said a few fish farms? Who are you trying to fool? Try HUNDREDS of fish farms according to this source there were 700 fish farms in BC as of 2010.

http://liberationbc.org/issues/fish

That's closer to one thousand farms then the few you suggest. Your making light of the situation as if its just a few farms here and there the farms are stacked thick and most are on vital migration routes.

 

[agentaqua]

Namgis CC Project Backgrounder:
http://www.namgis.bc.ca/CCP/Documents/Project Backgrounder 2013-02-26.pdf

 

[ClayoquotKid]

How can you pretend to know the impact of a CC system when not many exist? And the impact on the ant hill the CC system was built on isn't my worry its wild fish and the Pacific Ocean. Nothing else.

Salmon face a ton of challenges but I do believe one of the bigger ones is navigating through the many many fish farms placed all over their migration routes. You said a few fish farms? Who are you trying to fool? Try HUNDREDS of fish farms according to this source there were 700 fish farms in BC as of 2010.

http://liberationbc.org/issues/fish

That's closer to one thousand farms then the few you suggest. Your making light of the situation as if its just a few farms here and there the farms are stacked thick and most are on vital migration routes.

You are way off there GDW.
"There are 130 salmon farming licenses in the province. Because of operational regulations and regular fallowing periods there are 75 to 80 farms, on average, operating at any given time. Those farms produce roughly 75,000 metric tonnes of salmon each year."
http://www.salmonfarmers.org/faqs

 

[Foxsea]

B. Economic Feasibility Studies and Key Variables
...
Some witnesses also pointed out that current costs of net pen production are only so low because a number of costs are not factored in, what are often called externalities. Eric Hobson of SOS Marine Conservation Foundation, for example, expressed his desire to see the development of a regulatory regime for net pen aquaculture that requires industry to bear the full costs of net pen production methods, including externalities such as the monitoring of impacts on the marine environment. This, he suggested, would level the playing field for new technologies such as closed containment.[73]
As also noted by the Living Oceans Society, the externalities of open-net pen aquaculture production can also include the costs to government associated with the industry:

Closed containment operators are by and large internalizing those costs. If we switch to closed containment, DFO is not going to have to deal with escapes, with sea lice and disease transfer to wild salmon, predator deaths, waste deposition in the marine environment, and toxic residues. The moneys currently allocated for that, with the kind of enforcement and monitoring and public relations that are required, could be transferred to supporting the development of a new and innovative industry, particularly the development of a product that the marketplace is increasingly demanding.[74]

While the Committee acknowledges the concerns of witnesses it is not in a position to say whether all of the externalities cited by witnesses necessarily have the environmental, social or economic costs that have been ascribed to them or whether it would be fair to assign those costs to the industry.

Thanks for this. It should be clear to any independent observer that the externalizing of the social, environmental and economic costs identified above are the subsidies that salmon net-pen feedlots require to stay in business. Closed containment systems are penalized economically because they are not subsidized to near the extent that feedlots are. There are no offsets to compensate the C/C systems for operation of a superior model in all considerations, whether social, economic or environmental.

The Committee is concerned "...whether it would be fair to assign those costs to the (feedlot) industry." Of course it's fair. The subsidization is what's unfair. If even a portion of these legitimate costs were transferred to the feedlots they would be long gone from the B.C. coast, being uneconomic operations. It's time for B.C. and Canada to tax net-pen feedlot operations to offset the free ride they have had here for so long.

 

[agentaqua]

well said Foxsea!

 

[ClayoquotKid]

Thanks for this. It should be clear to any independent observer that the externalizing of the social, environmental and economic costs identified above are the subsidies that salmon net-pen feedlots require to stay in business. Closed containment systems are penalized economically because they are not subsidized to near the extent that feedlots are. There are no offsets to compensate the C/C systems for operation of a superior model in all considerations, whether social, economic or environmental.

The Committee is concerned "...whether it would be fair to assign those costs to the (feedlot) industry." Of course it's fair. The subsidization is what's unfair. If even a portion of these legitimate costs were transferred to the feedlots they would be long gone from the B.C. coast, being uneconomic operations. It's time for B.C. and Canada to tax net-pen feedlot operations to offset the free ride they have had here for so long.

You seem to have missed a pretty important part of that quote:
"While the Committee acknowledges the concerns of witnesses it is not in a position to say whether all of the externalities cited by witnesses necessarily have the environmental, social or economic costs that have been ascribed to them or whether it would be fair to assign those costs to the industry."

It's not that it might not be fair, it's that it might not be reasonable, logical or even possible to monetize any of those impacts and transfer those costs.

The farms bear the costs of escapes because it is their fish they are losing.

Sea lice costs companies money in monitoring and treatment, but have to this date never been seen to impact wild stocks in an measurable way. (Check out the Cohen report for the last close look)

Disease transfer to wild salmon? You can't even show if that is happening let alone put a value to it. If you can't measure it, you can't charge for it.

Are commercial and sport fishermen to be charged for predator deaths as well? Seems to me that the historical toll on predators has weighed heavily on the shoulders of the fishers...

Waste deposition and toxic residues? Are you going to say that the copper leaching out of the bottom paint found on most all boats on the coast is going to be billed back to the source as well?

As far as all the monitoring for this - the companies already pay for it.

The whole argument is just an effort to create the impression that aquaculture is subsidized and it fails miserably.

If you hate the fact that farms use renewable energy to produce a product and can't seem to accept that it, environmentally speaking, is a very sustainable and effective use of resources - don't try to fabricate an entire host of "vampire" costs to justify the world not favouring an inefficient and unproven alternative.

 

[Foxsea]

ClayoquotKid = Jedi Master of Specious Arguments

for example: "The farms bear the costs of escapes because it is their fish they are losing." ROTFLMFAO

Are you for real???

 

[ClayoquotKid]

ClayoquotKid = Jedi Master of Specious Arguments

for example: "The farms bear the costs of escapes because it is their fish they are losing." ROTFLMFAO

Are you for real???

I am real - In fact, reality is entirely the realm I work in.

Seems to me that your argument is the one which depends on hypotheses and extrapolations to support your views.

Numbers - Bring 'em.

 

[Foxsea]

I am real - In fact, reality is entirely the realm I work in.

Seems to me that your argument is the one which depends on hypotheses and extrapolations to support your views.

Numbers - Bring 'em.

The impact of salmon farming on wild salmon and trout is a hotly debated issue in all countries where salmon farms and wild salmon coexist. Studies have clearly shown that escaped farm salmon breed with wild populations to the detriment of the wild stocks, and that diseases and parasites are passed from farm to wild salmon. An understanding of the importance of these impacts at the population level, however, has been lacking. In this study, we used existing data on salmon populations to compare survival of salmon and trout that swim past salmon farms early in their life cycle with the survival of nearby populations that are not exposed to salmon farms. We have detected a significant decline in survival of populations that are exposed to salmon farms, correlated with the increase in farmed salmon production in five regions. Combining the regional estimates statistically, we find a reduction in survival or abundance of wild populations of more than 50% per generation on average, associated with salmon farming. Many of the salmon populations we investigated are at dramatically reduced abundance, and reducing threats to them is necessary for their survival. Reducing impacts of salmon farming on wild salmon should be a high priority. http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060033


How's 50% for a number, Kid?

 

[ClayoquotKid]

The impact of salmon farming on wild salmon and trout is a hotly debated issue in all countries where salmon farms and wild salmon coexist. Studies have clearly shown that escaped farm salmon breed with wild populations to the detriment of the wild stocks, and that diseases and parasites are passed from farm to wild salmon. An understanding of the importance of these impacts at the population level, however, has been lacking. In this study, we used existing data on salmon populations to compare survival of salmon and trout that swim past salmon farms early in their life cycle with the survival of nearby populations that are not exposed to salmon farms. We have detected a significant decline in survival of populations that are exposed to salmon farms, correlated with the increase in farmed salmon production in five regions. Combining the regional estimates statistically, we find a reduction in survival or abundance of wild populations of more than 50% per generation on average, associated with salmon farming. Many of the salmon populations we investigated are at dramatically reduced abundance, and reducing threats to them is necessary for their survival. Reducing impacts of salmon farming on wild salmon should be a high priority. http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060033


How's 50% for a number, Kid?

"reduction in survival or abundance of wild populations of more than 50% per generation"

That looks like something Justice Cohen would have noticed when he looked at the numbers...

Sure seems like after 30 odd years we would be pretty close to zero everywhere farms exist - not the case at all.

Kind of sounds like Morton's Pink extinction theory.

It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
Richard P. Feynman

(Plus, this was a paper written about Atlantic salmon farms in the Atlantic ocean, where other Atlantic salmon live - which still doesn't explain how flawed it is)

 

[GDW]

I got the number from the article I linked CK. You should read it I might pull some quotes forward.

Anyways it's hard for scientists to get concrete numbers when farms won't let their fish be tested, the governing body has a conflicting mandate, politicians don't want to know the truth, fish farms don't want to know the truth and there is not much real funding for research.

Salmon farms have and will continue to hide behind this until the public demands real answers and politicians decide they can't play dumb any longer.

CK do you know how much the aquaculture industry or its major players on their own donate to political parties?
Same question regarding commercial fishermen (IE Jim P). That would be interesting to know.

 

[sockeyefry2]

Agent,

Sorry I should have been more clear. When I said reports I meant actual production costs from operating farms, not fairy tales. Read the DFO report down near the bottom. It speaks of a coho farm in Montana and its great profitability. This one closes last month. It was run by Hutterites. They have closed it up as un economical, and they don't have any labour costs.

The Namgis just got some smolt last week. I hope they have their ducks in a row so that at the end of the cycle the actual reflects accurately the cost of producting a kg of market salmon from a RAS.

GDW There are thousands of CC farms all over the world. There just aren't any which produce market sized salmon. There have been many attempts, none have survivied. There are 7 or more in BC. They produce smolt, sturgeon and sablefish. The technology is all the same, been around for decades. The tech is not in question, the economics are.

 

[agentaqua]

It's interesting how all pro-salmon farm supporters IMMEDIATELY claim an article is "flawed" and "junk science" whenever it puts their operations in a poor light - w/o EVEN READING IT.

Case in point - CK claiming the Ford report is "flawed" because it is "a paper written about Atlantic salmon farms in the Atlantic ocean, where other Atlantic salmon live". It's obvious that CK never read the report or may never even wanted to because it throws his hypothesis in the toliet were it belongs.

Because if he had of read the report he firstly would have noticed the title: "A GLOBAL Assessment of Salmon Aquaculture Impacts on Wild Salmonids", and then noticed they explain in their methods: "we performed 11 comparisons, involving many stocks from both sides of the Atlantic and from British Columbia in the Pacific (Table 1, Data section of Materials and Methods)".

You're only showing your self-imposed ignorance to others on this forum, CK - and your lack of science-based arguments to defend your corporate propoganda.

If you want a real dialogue and debate - then lets use what science we have CK - or maybe you don't really want an open honest debate - may that'd be too painful to change your indoctrinated mind. Try rolling into the fetus position while praying to Wallings photo and murmuring "anti fish farm people are evil - Walling is the light".

SF: I purposely stayed away from pro- and anti- reports, and went with the slightly pro- and cautious Senate report that analyses DFO reports, among others. The reason I don't have the "actual production costs from operating farms" is because your industry REFUSES to switch from open net-cage technology.

 

[Gunsmith]

Fish farms you say use renewable energy sources, have you ever thought that they might be impeding the speed at which they renew?