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

[sockeyefry2]

Visual evidence of farmed ballan wrasse delousing Atlantic salmon
UK: Scottish scientists have gathered visual evidence that confirm delousing behaviour of wrasse never exposed to sea lice or salmon


Tips en venn Utskriftsvennlig
Clinical sea-lice infections remain a health issue in the Atlantic salmon industry. These are commonly controlled through integrated pest management strategies including cohabitation of cleaner fish (wrasse) for natural removal of salmon`s ectoparasites.

Delousing efficacy of wild wrasse has been known for several decades although direct behavioural evidences are scarce.

Leading Scottish salmon producers (Marine Harvest Scotland Ltd in collaboration with Scottish Sea Farms Ltd) and scientists from the Institute of Aquaculture’s Reproduction & Genetics group have been awarded co-funding of £2.1m from the Technology Strategy Board to develop protocols and technology to farm wrasse and implement results in the Scottish salmon industry.

One of the most important tasks during the first year of the project has been to confirm the efficiency of farmed wrasse in removing sea lice from salmon.

In addition to the experimental trials, efforts were placed on capturing visual evidence of farmed wrasse picking sea-lice from salmon. The aim was to confirm the delousing behaviour of farmed ballan wrasse which had never been exposed to sea-lice or salmon and were previously fed on artificial pellets Video footage was captured within 20 hours of cohabitation between Atlantic salmon infected with sea-lice and farmed Ballan wrasse. A total of 65 parasitic sea-lice were presented and cleared over the 20h cohabitation period (water temperature of 7 °C).

 

[sockeyefry2]

Agent,

Those water requirememnts are for a recirc running at only 2% make up. And yes the water make up essentially takes care of the nitrate, but also reduces the accumulated proteins and other oragnics which the biofilter cannot remove. You can remove the nitrates chemically, but it of course increases your operating costs. The figure of 7600 lpm is directly from the Atlantic Salmon Feds paper.

BTW Campbell River uses only 745,000 liters of water per day.

 

[agentaqua]

Thanks for the info on water needs, SF. I take it that number is only for the freshwater smolts stage - not for a grow-out in SW?

So, what is your verdict on CC? Can't be done? Business as usual?

 

[Dave]

Hey Dave,

So I assume that you are involved in some of this....http://www.chilliwacktimes.com/news...d+with+deadly+salmon+virus/5797701/story.html

This has been discussed many times; go back a few pages.

 

[Andrew P]

This has been discussed many times; go back a few pages.

ha, that's what I did and why I deleted. I went back and read your input and as I assumed, you were involved in the testing. You sounds like a very unbiased person on the matter...

 

[Charlie]

I don't think you need to worry much about water supply! Last time I checked, BC is on the west coast with some pristine wilderness with access to the waters of the Pacific Ocean. Are you aware the Pacific Ocean has 707.5 million km(3) of water, which is more than Atlantic and Indian Ocean - combined? IF... your industry can't figure out how to filter it, maybe you should contact 'SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment,' as they have been doing it for YEARS!

If you don't believe YOUR "open net fish pens" are on their way out, I suggest you read the 'CLOSED CONTAINMENT SALMON AQUACULTURE' Report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

Ocean-Based Solid-Wall Systems:
"The water intake allows water to be drawn into the tank from varying depths (which provides for control over water quality and temperature). Supplemental oxygen is pumped into the tank to maintain optimal dissolved oxygen levels. Waste feed and feces are filtered out via a drain at the bottom of the tank and pumped away with the expectation that it could be treated for disposal on land as a fertilizer, while the remainder of the relatively clear water is allowed to overflow over the top of the tank into the surrounding waters.

" Such systems are not completely closed because the intake water is not treated before entering the tank and water from the tank is released back into the ocean. Nevertheless, the system is successful in removing 90% of settleable wastes, which, in an open-net pen aquaculture system, would otherwise settle to the ocean floor or be dispersed by ocean currents. In addition, due to the solid walls, the system provides for separation of wild and farmed populations and reduces the risk of escapes and predation.

Land-based Recirculating Aquaculture Systems (RAS):
"Land-based RAS use large, circular concrete tanks arranged in modules on land. Because the tanks are land-based, they must be located in proximity to an adequate supply of either groundwater or seawater. Water is pumped into the tank and continually recirculated; water quality is maintained through various means, including mechanical filtration, UV irradiation, CO2 strippers and ozone injection. Solid wastes are drained out the bottom of the tank and removed to a settling basin, and can ultimately be treated to be used as compost or fertilizer. Through this constant recirculation and treatment of water,these systems can reuse 98% of the input water.

" Land-based RAS are designed to physically separate fish from the external environment. Because water is treated before entering the tanks and no water is released to the natural environment, there are virtually no vectors for disease, pathogen or parasite transfer between wild and farmed populations. These systems also offer near complete control over water quality, temperature, oxygenation and other parameters, although electricity and technology requirements are necessarily greater.

"The Committee heard from Marine Harvest that their salmon spend approximately the first third of their lives in closed containment RAS (up to the point where the smolts are transferred to the net pen sites). In addition, half of their broodstock is raised entirely in a dedicated RAS facility. These practices are now common in the industry in order to exercise greater control over environmental factors and reduce business risk.

Recommendation 1
The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada study the socio-economic impacts of a possible transition to closed containment technologies, including the resulting impacts on employment in rural and coastal communities.

Recommendation 2
The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada continue to work with rural, coastal and First Nations communities to encourage economic growth through the development of aquaculture operations, including the use of closed containment technologies.

Recommendation 3
The Committee recognizes the important contributions made by Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) and recommends that the Government of Canada work with SDTC to ensure that its application and reporting requirements facilitate the funding of research and development of sustainable closed containment technologies.

Recommendation 4
The Committee recognizes that any commercial adoption of closed containment aquaculture or other innovative aquaculture technologies will require public and private financial support to complete research and ultimately to allow promising new and viable technologies to advance from demonstration to commercialization. Therefore, the Committee recommends that the Government of Canada, in conjunction with industry, review the financing options to ensure that resources are available to close the commercialization gaps. The Committee further recommends that the government-industry review considers a dedicated fund for closed containment demonstration projects.

Recommendation 5
The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada develop a national policy and regulatory framework for aquaculture including an aquaculture act.

CONCLUSION
During its study the Committee was exposed to many opinions and positions on the development of Atlantic salmon aquaculture in Canada. Presentations on technology, fish health, environmental concerns, socio-economic benefits and many more issues provided representatives, for example, acknowledge that their activities have certain environmental impacts, while representatives of environmental groups acknowledge that the aquaculture industry has come a long way over the past decade in terms of its environmental management practices. The industry's future is strong with our competitive advantages and opportunities to diversify with supporting technology to provide strength to rural Canada. However, we still have much to learn.

Recommendation 6
The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada, supported by industry, establish a canadian centre of excellence for salmon aquaculture development at a university to study all aspects of salmon aquaculture development, including its impact on surrounding communities.

The Committee is optimistic that ongoing pilot projects will demonstrate the commercial viability of closed containment technology for salmon aquaculture. As one of a suite of different technologies, the Committee recognizes the potential for closed containment to contribute to the development of a thriving and sustainable aquaculture industry in Canada. The Committee understands the need for the right policies and programs to be in place for Canada to capitalize on its advantages and realize the full
economic benefits of the aquaculture industry.

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

 

[sockeyefry2]

Agent,

All CC's for the production of market salmon use freshwater. Saltwater is more difficult to pump ashore because you have to design for the tidal range, and biofouling.

The recirc rate is the same whether you are growing smolt or markets. Its all based basically on feed input and ammonia production. Only difference is the size and the number of fish produced. A RAS that can produce 400 tonnes annually will be able to produce 4 million 100g smolt, or 50,000 8 kg markets. This RAS would use 500 lpm of make up water. The 4 million smolt when put in net pens produces 28,8000,000 kgs of salmon. To duplicate this annual production of market fish, you would need 72 of the 400 tonnes recircs, requiring 36000 lpm of freshwater.

I see CC facilities growing smolt of a larger size. Typically right now the average smolt size is around 100g. If you grew the smolt to 600 - 800g, this would shorten the time spent in net pens, allowing for longer fallowing and scheduling production to avoid negative interactions with wild salmon. I do not see CC replacing the entire industry production in BC.

Use of surface water increases the likelihood that the recirc will be contaminated by a pathogen. All the UV and Ozone in the world isn't fool proof. They do break down and can allow the pathogen entry. Ground water is as pathogen free as you can get, but you would still UV and ozone it. If you want to see a bad disease episode, just allow a pathogen into a recirc, where it goes round and round.

Charles

I don't read about Recircs and Closed Comtainment systems. I design, construct and operate them, and have been for over 10 years. I know what they can and can't do. I find your post to be offensive and condescending in nature.

 

[Rockfish]

Agent,

If you grew the smolt to 600 - 800g, this would shorten the time spent in net pens, allowing for longer fallowing and scheduling production to avoid negative interactions with wild salmon.

Interesting, and why is this an issue? That is to say, working on mitigating a problem that the industry trolls on here keep telling us does not exist as according to them there are no negative interactions with wild salmon. Perhaps their BS and the facts don’t square after all.

 

[Rockfish]

Agent,


Charles

I don't read about Recircs and Closed Comtainment systems. I design, construct and operate them, and have been for over 10 years. I know what they can and can't do. I find your post to be offensive and condescending in nature.

I find your single purpose presence hear shrilling for the net pen industry “offensive and condescending” not to mention self serving and motivated by personal gain since it is where you sell your knowledge as you have previously indicated you do not want to give them advice for free. One gets the impression your shrilling for them is nothing more than one continues job/contract interview.

I have few problems with your skills being used for closed containment or land based fish farms but I and many British Columbians do have concerns about Alien Atlantic Salmon in open net pens in our inlets and as you put it, having negative interactions with wild salmon.

No, we don’t care if it will add to cost and decrease profits for Norwegian fish farm corporations or even close them down. We do care about Pacific Salmon and Trout and our local fisheries, the coastal economy and our way of life. We don ’think the greed of a few should be allowed to destroy all that.

 

[Charlie]

Agent,

All CC's for the production of market salmon use freshwater. Saltwater is more difficult to pump ashore because you have to design for the tidal range, and biofouling.

The recirc rate is the same whether you are growing smolt or markets. Its all based basically on feed input and ammonia production. Only difference is the size and the number of fish produced. A RAS that can produce 400 tonnes annually will be able to produce 4 million 100g smolt, or 50,000 8 kg markets. This RAS would use 500 lpm of make up water. The 4 million smolt when put in net pens produces 28,8000,000 kgs of salmon. To duplicate this annual production of market fish, you would need 72 of the 400 tonnes recircs, requiring 36000 lpm of freshwater.

I see CC facilities growing smolt of a larger size. Typically right now the average smolt size is around 100g. If you grew the smolt to 600 - 800g, this would shorten the time spent in net pens, allowing for longer fallowing and scheduling production to avoid negative interactions with wild salmon. I do not see CC replacing the entire industry production in BC.

Use of surface water increases the likelihood that the recirc will be contaminated by a pathogen. All the UV and Ozone in the world isn't fool proof. They do break down and can allow the pathogen entry. Ground water is as pathogen free as you can get, but you would still UV and ozone it. If you want to see a bad disease episode, just allow a pathogen into a recirc, where it goes round and round.

Charles

I don't read about Recircs and Closed Comtainment systems. I design, construct and operate them, and have been for over 10 years. I know what they can and can't do. I find your post to be offensive and condescending in nature.

You do understand I have the ability to track your IP address, right?

 

[Dave]

And why would you want to do that Charlie?

 

[Englishman]

Nah just letting the wave of inconsequential drivel pass over.

Now who started out being “offensive and condescending”. It is hard to argue with the facts isn’t it? Easier to just ignore them. You just carry on in your deluded world of trying to reproduce what nature does best by applying massive amounts of technology, pesticides, processed feeds, energy, pharmaceuticals, dyes and antibiotics to fish living in crowded unnatural conditions. Trying to raise carnivores in those concentrations is a ludicrous proposition and a zero sum game, unless you externalise all those environmental impacts and costs. Those costs which you choose to ignore are telling you something. Trying to raise carnivorous fish in open net pens can never work; the equations never balance.

Do you know what the ultimate issue for "heading inland" is? it ain't that you can't make money with them, which you can't, it ain't that they have a greater environmental impact which they do, it ain't the myth that CC fish can't get sick which they can, or the inability to find sufficient land. No the ultimate final nail in the coffin of CC, which no supporter ever mentions is the huge amount of freshwater which would be necessary. According to ASF's own report, one farm producing 3300 mt would require 7600 lpm of new freshwater (That's 7600 liters of water every minute of every day). This can't be from surface water, which may contain diseased wild salmon, which could infect the farm. It has to be water from drilled wells. At current industry production of somewhere in the order of 60,000 mt a year, that would require finding a minimum of 138,000 lpm. of feshwater from ground water aquifers. That's 198,720,000 liters of freshwater a day every day. So for pundits to espouse CC as a replacement for the entire industry, I would suggest you ask them where's the water going to come from, and what's the impact on other users and watersheds when all that water is sucked from the ground?

These figures claimed by you do not surprise me. As soon as you start to pick up the externalised costs of free water volumes, flows and sewage plus nitrate discharge you “pass on” to the ecosystem with ocean net pens, and actually put in yet more technology to try and manage all that, the complexity goes up and so does the costs. Not mention the water that you now have to find and pay for (instead of all that “free” ocean). When will you get it into your head that raising carnivores in pens in large unnatural concentrations can never be viable!

 

[Dave]

ha, that's what I did and why I deleted. I went back and read your input and as I assumed, you were involved in the testing. You sounds like a very unbiased person on the matter...

I've never pretended to be anything but biased - I believe wild salmon and farmed salmon have co-existed for some time now in BC, for the most part in harmony, and I see that continuing. What do you see in the next 20 or so years?

 

[Charlie]

And why would you want to do that Charlie?

You do understand I have the ability to track your IP address, also... right?

 

[Charlie]

I've never pretended to be anything but biased - I believe wild salmon and farmed salmon have co-existed for some time now in BC, for the most part in harmony, and I see that continuing. What do you see in the next 20 or so years?

"I" see "YOU" have been completely brainwashed by your government, DFO, and the industry! In the next 20 Years or so... "open net pens" will be OUTLAWED" - WORLDWIDE! and to that "I" can only...

 

[Dave]

You do understand I have the ability to track your IP address, also... right?

pm me and I will send you my address and home phone number if that's what you want; will you do the same? ... sorry bud but your'e starting to sound far too American for me.

 

[Dave]

"I" see "YOU" have been completely brainwashed by your government, DFO, and the industry! In the next 20 Years or so... "open net pens" will be OUTLAWED" - WORLDWIDE! and to that "I" can only...

Again, the capital letters and quotation marks .. why?

 

[agentaqua]

Strange as it may sound - I want to hear the technical and logistical constraints on the "pro" side. I do want to get past the propaganda and BS - which means hearing and evualuating what other specialists (verses media shrills AND you know who you are) on this forum have to offer as far as their experiences and insights.

AND I can tell when someone actually knows something about this topic and when they lack the experience or background. So I appreciate accurate information verses the same, old-tired PR talking points.

As much as I'd like to completely remove the open net-cage technology yesterday - I am also pragmatic enough to realize that we have to transition (transition verses delay) into a more sustainable industry with CC.

SF has given us his insights into that process and the constraints with CC from the industry's perspective - and for that I would like to thank him for those insights.

Dave has given us insights into DFOs mind - such that it is. Thank you for that.

CC has given us the standard pro-industry media shrills' perspective on it. Thanks for reminding us of the narrative from the other side - the narrative that makes it easy for some well-intentioned folks to sleep at nite, and easy for the ill-intentioned to abuse.

That does not mean we have to agree with everything presented to us, but I think we need to understand the technical/logistical constraints from their side - if we are to have usable input into the reform process.

The 1st thing I would do is to get farm sites off major migratory routes, then get defensible siting criteria, and then do an actual environmental review for each site using the defensible siting criteria.

Then we need to have a process and institute objective, inclusive and well-informed panels to examine and evualuate what risks we may (or may not) be comfortable with - as a society. I think Cohen was quite explicit in outlining what risk we should NOT be allowing.

I'd be okay with immediately fleshing-out Cohen's recommendations and seeing where that leads us. Along with that comes effective enforcement, 3rd party monitoring, and public data. All that - or you don't operate, PERIOD. No tenure. FULL STOP.

Denying that there is no risk or impact is a stalling tactic - as I see it. That's why I have such little patience with the media shrills - we've stalled long enough - enough lies and half-truths.

Maybe we can't remove every open net-cage tomorrow - but we should be okay with rapidly generating the science we need, while not waiting for conclusive evidence of a "less than miminal risk" (re: Cohen) to develop strategies to decrease that risk by relocating and/or removing farm sites where appropriate.

It's called the "Precautionary Approach" - and many smart PhDs world-wide came up with that approach that Canada is signed onto.

It's way past time to apply it and utilize it.

PS this is not a bowl of copy-pasta - rather a bowl of you havta pasta.

 

[sockeyefry2]

Charles,

So what.

I'm not a Net Penner, and I could care less if another salmon ever gets grown in BC. Doesn't affect me one bit.

What I thought was occuring here was an exchange, a discussion. I've learned lots here, and I hope I've added something to the knowledge base.

You start talking like that. Making threats, and bullying, really shows what the anti salmon farm campaign is all about.

 

[Charlie]

Charles,

So what.

I'm not a Net Penner, and I could care less if another salmon ever gets grown in BC. Doesn't affect me one bit.

What I thought was occuring here was an exchange, a discussion. I've learned lots here, and I hope I've added something to the knowledge base.

You start talking like that. Making threats, and bullying, really shows what the anti salmon farm campaign is all about.

You consider having the ability to track an IP address as “Making threats, and bullying” –WOW! Hate to inform, but the fish farming industry has been tracking Morton’s, and others, including mine for YEARS. I actually don’t have anything to hide and suggest one taking that as any type of threat and bullying just might?

You have actually have contributed quite a bit of good information throughout the years, with some good information posted, with references. That is what creates the exchange of information and discussion. Recently, I have to agree with agentawua:

YA SF I am. I'm wondering if you are reading your posts...
Englishman already covered this one. The cost of the extra aeration and pumping for closed containment is the reason you claim that the industry can't transition to CC. Remember that excuse coming on your own posts? I do. Are you sure you are reading your own posts? Thanks English for picking-up on this.
I truly wish that were true, SF.

Yes, once the green or red light is given from above – the on-the-ground CFIA inspectors do run with whatever enforcement decisions made on the “higher” levels.

BUT there is substantial political interference in that decision-making process. There is pressure from the PMO and Communications Branches, pressure from industry lobbyists, and pressure from independents like Morton et. al. (if they actually find-out about some of the stupid errors of judgement that seem to be rife in the regulation of your industry).

I don't need to remind you of the media stories we have seen about the Harper government silencing everyone from cabinet ministers to scientists to librarians.

As far as the CFIA goes – it soley had industry pressure until recently, and is most comfortable engaging with industry lobbyists and PR shrills - "winning" the PR war over us dumb, i-litter-ate peasants who "only read the headlines" (see Con Kiley's emails on the Cohen transcripts). This consulting with the public and FN thang is really uncomfortable and unwelcome for them.

Why is it that INSTEAD of notifying affected FN about suspected disease outbreaks – CFIA INSTEAD has a meeting with Rob Morley for the B.C. Seafood Alliance, Ruth Salmon for the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance, and Mary Ellen Walling for the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association?

Why is it that when they are questioned about this at the Cohen hearings, they respond that their primary duty is to protect the fish farm trade?

They are very well aware of the trade consequences if the borders close to the farmed fish market. Look at what happened to the beef industry:

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/left+lasting+mark/8405382/story.html

Why is it that instead of ensuring that the ISA-infected fish from the Shelburne site was destroyed – CFIA allowed the farm to grow the fish for another 6 months so they would be big enough to take to market DESPITE the risks to the adjacent wild stocks?

It's called political interference, collusion, corruption – take your pick.
Ya, the industry would never do anything “unethical” or “illegal” - right...
http://www.sunjournal.com/news/main...ture-pay-490000-after-illegal-pestici/1354960
http://www.dennisatchison.com/conne...tory-demonstrates-how-community-needs-to-heal

You know SF – I believe that YOU wouldn't do anything illegal (and I mean that, no sarcasm intended) – but there's dozens – if not hundreds of site managers on farms on both coasts. They are under pressure to make money. Not all of them will do things above board. Same for their bosses and company officials - example Cooke Aquaculture - see link I posted. Often, fish farms are also in the middle of "nowhere", with not many people around. Site managers are only human, after all.

This is a factor that DFO has recognized in other “fisheries”. Many fisheries have 3rd party observers – but NOT the fish farm industry.

e.g. Reporting of escapees is “voluntary”. Kinda like telling people that they need to drive to the nearest cop shop and tell the RCMP that they were speeding. On the books it would look like almost no speeding. In reality – the roads would be treacherous.

So… X2
Are you reading your posts or starting to fall into that PR hype BS the industry produces?

You are “not a Net Penner, and I could care less if another salmon ever gets grown in BC. Doesn't affect me one bit.”

Hello - yes it does:

I design, construct and operate them, and have been for over 10 years. I know what they can and can't do.

BTW… maybe you should take that 10 years of experience and rather than not reading, start reading some of the things people who have been doing it for over 20 years and what they are accomplishing?
http://www.conservationfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/FI-ASF_Final-Report_March-2013.pdf

All CC's for the production of market salmon use freshwater. Saltwater is more difficult to pump ashore because you have to design for the tidal range, and biofouling.

Sure glad you included “for the production of market salmon” in that statement, as there are many saltwater closed containment facilities that have been in operation for many YEARS! Like this one:

WOWW Exhibit
The window is almost 20 feet high by nearly 40 feet wide and holds 120,000 gallons of water. The window is made of 12.5 inch thick acrylic. Salt water is pumped in from Puget Sound and flows back to the Sound after passing through the exhibit. The water temperature in the exhibit is the same as the water outside, about 50 degrees Fahrenheit (about 10 degrees Celsius). All of the animals are native to Washington waters. Our animals are fed a diet of krill, anchovies or herring and squid; they receive a balanced diet and mix of roughage, fat, protein and carbohydrates to ensure their health.
http://www.seattleaquarium.org/document.doc?id=387

I find your post to be offensive and condescending in nature.

Another BTW… Lately, I find your posts are becoming not only offensive and condescending also belittling and attacking in nature!