Our discussion was that I don't believe fish farms have caused the decline in our fish stocks. My skepticism was because there was no evedince that healthy fish even got out of our rivers (which I know there wasn't). You were going to help me see the light. It had nothing to do with industry proving anything. Just me knowing there has been death and doom in stream productivity for twenty years and you believing farms are the culprit. None in the myriad of reports you post do I find concrete evidence there has been healthy fry leaving our streams.
Please help me find this crucial evidence.
some numbers from our local waters 78-82% of summer steelhead smolts do not make it from second narrows to first narrows in Burrard inlet. they are now deep water released at light house park and numbers are now up 25%.
coho is similar with there numbers, i believe it is 80%. no deep water releasing in there future.
this has been peer reviewed and GLG i will send you a copy to read as you asked awhile ago.
I was really just high lighting some feed use comparisons. I notice you seem eager to discuss other topics on a sea lice thread when it suits your views so why the complaint when I am doing so?
I might add that farmed salmon convert 2.5:1 where as wild salmon convert 10:1. These are wet feed to salmon ratio's.
Should we all stop eating salmon and only eat forage fish instead?
Agent in the above post you say you are not anti farming but anti open net cage farming. Why are you debating feed use if you support closed containment?
Consider also Federal and Provincial fish hatcheries use the same food, but no complaining about that. Wonder how much is used by the Columbia River hatcheries and Alaskan ranch operations?
Carefull. Cant use the dry feed ratio here. Has to be wet to wet sure things are clear. But you are correct in that feed conversion has really improved over the years.
some numbers from our local waters 78-82% of summer steelhead smolts do not make it from second narrows to first narrows in Burrard inlet. they are now deep water released at light house park and numbers are now up 25%.
coho is similar with there numbers, i believe it is 80%. no deep water releasing in there future.
this has been peer reviewed and GLG i will send you a copy to read as you asked awhile ago.
I wonder what is going on with Burrard Inlet? From the pdf...
"Survival of smolts released into the ocean near West Vancouver had three times higher survival to the northern Strait of Georgia than smolts released in the lower Seymour River, indicating that Burrard Inlet is a mortality hotspot."
Could have something to do with the almost 150 years of heavy industry accumulating toxins in the inlet. Perhaps there is not enough tidal exchange to flush all those nasty chemicals out and dilute them. Perhaps there is also poor oxygen content because of lack of tidal exchange and light winds. HIgh wave action also helps introduce oxygen into the surface water, and the upper Burrard Inlet is generally calm. Perhaps there is low oxygen and lingering toxins at greater depths. Not a great combination for sensitive smolts to be released in. Algae blooms up the Arm also result in low oxygen content in the water.
Agent in the above post you say you are not anti farming but anti open net cage farming. Why are you debating feed use if you support closed containment?
Bones had questions - I responded - you can follow the train. That's how these threads go. Interesting that pro-industry pundits would have an issue with debating topics about other effects of the open net-cage Atlantic salmon industry.
I haven't knowingly eaten farmed salmon in over 20 years or better. I eat forage fishes - have all my life. We know what the better choice is - you can make up your own mind as to your own choices.
70's and 80's it was 3:1. new numbers from ewos is 2:1 i believe, with the FOOD TRIMMINGS being used with fish meal. sorry Birdsnest my bad its 1:1 now. in other words we produce more fish than we take out.
That's impossible w/o a Harry Potter wand. Thanks BN for pointing out what should be obvious wrt wet-to-wet verses wet-to-dry ratios. The industry's claims of 1:1 are therefore very misleading. It's a dry-to-wet conversion ratio. Apples and oranges.
Could have something to do with the almost 150 years of heavy industry accumulating toxins in the inlet. Perhaps there is not enough tidal exchange to flush all those nasty chemicals out and dilute them. Perhaps there is also poor oxygen content because of lack of tidal exchange and light winds. HIgh wave action also helps introduce oxygen into the surface water, and the upper Burrard Inlet is generally calm. Perhaps there is low oxygen and lingering toxins at greater depths. Not a great combination for sensitive smolts to be released in. Algae blooms up the Arm also result in low oxygen content in the water.
Besides the typically expected effects of lowered O2 on physiology - lowered O2 usually makes it easy for things like jellyfish to take over - and in the near anoxic conditions at the bottom substrate interface - for toxic metals to be leached out of the sediments.
Bones had questions - I responded - you can follow the train. That's how these threads go.
I haven't knowingly eaten farmed salmon in over 20 years or better. I eat forage fishes - have all my life. We know what the better choice is - you can make up your own mind as to your own choices.
That's impossible w/o a Harry Potter wand. Thanks BN for pointing out what should be obvious wrt wet-to-wet verses wet-to-dry ratios. The industry's claims of 1:1 are therefore very misleading. It's a dry-to-wet conversion ratio. Apples and oranges.
Your welcome agent. I agree that it is misleading but the industry buys feed in a dried pellet form the same as every hatchery and closed containment does so when having the discussion about conversion facts it should be in wet to wet format for accurate conversion in terms of biomass. Just the same as it is important to compare farm salmon conversion to wild salmon conversion wether they are ranched, wild or hatchery. On the subject of WHR(wild hatcher ranched) salmon conversion and concern for forage fish quantities I find that it is short sighted to only look at how farm salmon convert directly without looking at the reality in the wild. Don't forget that the feed conversion of farmed salmon 2.5:1(wet to wet) is a direct conversion that includes byproduct, trimming, and other feed sources which when discussion feed conversion (wild forage fish in : farm salmon out) makes the farmed salmon convert even better than the 2.5. So the number will be even less.
Now compare that farm salmon conversion with WHR salmon conversion of 10:1. Again some interesting tabes on the right in this article. http://www.certifiedorganic.bc.ca/rcbtoa/services/NAsept-oct-pgs14-15c.pdf One more time, I see it very short sighted when discussing the concern of forage fish use without looking at the whole picture which is what agent insists on doing on this topic.
I think fishmyster makes a very interesting point about the condition of the out going fry and smolts is relation to fresh water exit survival studies. His question to you was if you had any solid proof that smolt and fry were healthy exiting the river. Seems like a legit question to me that exposes a major flaw in pretty much every study on the effects of sealice on salmon. Thankfuly the PSA is looking into this now. I suspect they are looking into this because the answer to fishmysters question to agent is NO.
Thanks again for your posts, BN - I appreciate your honesty. I see the typical industry's responses similarly as deflection - likewise.
I do agree with you wrt the PSF research. I suspect the answers they will find wrt cultured/wild interactions will be much more nuanced and different than "no" - esp. when dealing with things like disease transfer. We will see. That work is long overdue - and I am pleased that Kristi Miller had the fortitude to withstand the political pressure from up the ladder to look the other way.
Thanks agent. I think you will find that the work being done by PSF that we are referring to will have results released in a manor that will not be easy to manipulated by either side. There will be little to no incomplete releases of information that would be free to the interpretations of environmentalists or industry. I might add that I would believe that Mrs Dr Miller has learned the results of releasing incomplete info and she will not be doing so far less than she previously has. Of course there is the exception where she speculates on classic HSMI symptoms which isn't really here field of experience seeing that she is a genome expert and not a vet but thats just a thing she does and I mean no disrespect.
If you haven't noticed the PSF is very silent on the topic of salmon farms and their relationship with WHR salmon and you wont get blood from that stone until the results are in. This is fantastic for salmon aquaculture opponents for they get the opportunity to continue there claims of corruption, conspiracy, pr firms ect which ironically the PCF has been able to completely avoid so far. I suspect its coming to them tho. Wait for it once the greens see they aren't having their way with them. Mark my words.
Carefull. Cant use the dry feed ratio here. Has to be wet to wet sure things are clear. But you are correct in that feed conversion has really improved over the years.
I think fishmyster makes a very interesting point about the condition of the out going fry and smolts is relation to fresh water exit survival studies. His question to you was if you had any solid proof that smolt and fry were healthy exiting the river. Seems like a legit question to me that exposes a major flaw in pretty much every study on the effects of sealice on salmon. Thankfuly the PSA is looking into this now. I suspect they are looking into this because the answer to fishmysters question to agent is NO.
As someone that has done weights and measures on smolts for the last 15 years I can say the smolts have been leaving the river in very good shape. I can tell by the ratio of length vers weight. That ratio equals body fat and is a sign of health. Some years, like last year there were signs of stress on the wild smolts as some of them had blisters on their skin. I was told that this was a sign that the river temps were higher that normal when they were growing. All in all I have noticed that the average wild smolt seems to be getting bigger but that maybe because our volunteers have been doing a lot of work doing habitat restoration.
As someone that has done weights and measures on smolts for the last 15 years I can say the smolts have been leaving the river in very good shape. I can tell by the ratio of length vers weight. That ratio equals body fat and is a sign of health. Some years, like last year there were signs of stress on the wild smolts as some of them had blisters on their skin. I was told that this was a sign that the river temps were higher that normal when they were growing. All in all I have noticed that the average wild smolt seems to be getting bigger but that maybe because our volunteers have been doing a lot of work doing habitat restoration.
I have no idea which rivers you are sampling but I hope that the increase in size is due to the increase in nutrients in those systems form returning pink and chum salmon.
The question I have for those rivers you speak of is if salmon farms are spreading disease how do spawning salmon return after going by salmon farms twice in their life and produce healthy offspring.
It is safe to mention that disease, bacteria and virus activity are quite different in fresh and salt water.
Again I don't know what rivers you work on so thats not much to work with.
Absolutely, BN. Lots of caveats to that assumption, as well - but correct. larger runs sizes do not necessarily translate into more goodies for their young in the freshwater - which is the point I was attempting to make esp. wrt pinks and chums.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
