Closed containment salmon heading to market

... and your point is?
Let me take a shot at it WitW. Since farmed fish are the equivalent of couch potatoes on IV drip - we should ignore the fact that there are substantial extra transport costs to go out and fish the forage fishes - bring those forage fishes back - render them into pellets - maybe drip in a little extra PCBs - ship the pellets out by road, rail and boat to the net-pens where it eventually is pooped-out creating a mess on the bottom - meanwhile potentially impacting adjacent wild salmon stocks because no environmental assessments are done any more - and the siting criteria was designed by some kid in grade 8 without any understanding of smolt migration routes, nearshore holding areas, fjord dynamics, oceanography or anything based in reality.

That about cover it, BN?
 
Aquatena - you left out the part about collecting the forage fish for food over a much more limited geographical area than the wild fish do. E.g. we start out getting our forage fish near ports and populated coastlines and then, when those areas are depleted, travel farther for them.
 
Great read Agent... Good to hear a lot of the positives for closed containment, as well as a lot of negatives surrounding the current practice of open net pens. I'll take my info from real scientists, not fish farm lobbyists.....
 
[h=1]Status Update on the Surveillance of Wild Anadromous Salmonids in British Columbia[/h]The complete text of this report is available upon request.
[h=2]Executive Summary[/h]The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has completed its first year of wild anadromous salmonid sampling in British Columbia. The sampling is part of the Agency’s initial efforts to determine the health status of wild salmon in British Columbia through testing for the causal agents of three infectious diseases—infectious haematopoietic necrosis virus (IHNV), infectious pancreatic necrosis virus (IPNV), and infectious salmon anaemia virus (ISAV). Although none of the diseases pose a risk to human health, they are contagious among certain finfish species and can cause mortality. <abbr title="infectious haematopoietic necrosis virus" style="max-width: 100%;">IHNV</abbr> is known to exist in certain species and populations of wild finfish in British Columbia, whereas <abbr title="infectious pancreatic necrosis virus" style="max-width: 100%;">IPNV</abbr> and <abbr title="infectious salmon anaemia virus" style="max-width: 100%;">ISAV</abbr> have not been confirmed in the province.
A total of 4175 fish were collected and tested in 2012. All of the samples were tested for <abbr title="infectious salmon anaemia virus" style="max-width: 100%;">ISAV</abbr>, 3614 for <abbr title="infectious pancreatic necrosis virus" style="max-width: 100%;">IPNV</abbr> and 561 for <abbr title="infectious haematopoietic necrosis virus" style="max-width: 100%;">IHNV</abbr>. All samples collected and tested were negative.
Sample collection was carried out in partnership with the Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) Salmonid Enhancement Program (SEP), the <abbr title="Fisheries and Oceans" style="max-width: 100%;">DFO</abbr> Program for Aquaculture Regulator Research (PARR), the <abbr title="Fisheries and Oceans" style="max-width: 100%;">DFO</abbr> High Seas Salmon group, the <abbr title="Fisheries and Oceans" style="max-width: 100%;">DFO</abbr> Environmental Watch Program, the Freshwater Fisheries Society of <abbr title="British Columbia" style="max-width: 100%;">BC</abbr> (FFSBC), the Canadian Fishing Company (Canfisco), the Secwepemc Fisheries Commission, the Shuswap Nation Tribal Council, the Lil’wat Nation/Mount Currie Band, the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council, the Upper Fraser Fisheries Conservation Alliance (UFFCA), and the First Nations Fisheries Council (FNFC) of British Columbia.
The testing was carried out using internationally accepted testing protocols. Samples were tested at one of Canada’s three National Aquatic Animal Health Laboratories—Pacific Biological Station (Nanaimo, British Columbia), Freshwater Institute (Winnipeg, Manitoba) and Gulf Fisheries Centre (Moncton, New Brunswick). Sample collection commenced in March and ended in December 2012. Fish samples were collected directly from the wild, from processing plants, or from enhancement hatcheries. In 2012, the targeted number of samples for the juvenile and broodfish life stages was met. However, the targeted number of samples for the returning adult life stage was not met because of limited opportunities to collect at processing plants due to commercial salmon fishery closures. Numerous maps showing the geographic locations of all collections by species and life stage are provided in Appendices 7.2.2 to 7.2.22 of the report.
The three diseases in question are reportable under the Health of Animals Act, and <abbr title="Canadian Food Inspection Agency" style="max-width: 100%;">CFIA</abbr> is the organization responsible for designing and implementing official surveillance and for responding to and investigating such diseases. All sampling, testing and response activities associated with this surveillance initiative are based on internationally recognized science and are consistent with international guidelines and national aquatic animal health requirements. This includes how samples are collected, handled, transported and stored to maintain integrity and ensure that chain of custody is not compromised.
The species targeted are anadromous salmonids considered susceptible to at least one of the three diseases of concern that are commonly found in British Columbia. The term “targeted” refers to the selection of sites or animals that are likely to exhibit a higher prevalence of infection if the pathogen is present. Risk factors associated with disease expression, such as time of year, water temperature and life stage, have been taken into account whenever possible. Targeted sampling increases the likelihood of detection. A variety of salmon species were tested—including those that could carry infection without showing signs of disease—as the primary goal is to rule out not only clinical disease but also infection in these populations of interest.
Collection activities for the second year of sampling began in March 2013. The total number of animals targeted for annual sampling remains at 4900, as indicated in the original Surveillance Plan for <abbr title="infectious salmon anaemia virus" style="max-width: 100%;">ISAV</abbr>, <abbr title="infectious pancreatic necrosis virus" style="max-width: 100%;">IPNV</abbr>, and <abbr title="infectious haematopoietic necrosis virus" style="max-width: 100%;">IHNV</abbr> in Anadromous Salmonids in British Columbia, and representation across all sampling areas will be maintained. The 2013 survey design was slightly modified from the 2012 design in order to optimize efficiency in the field and address concerns raised by members of the aquaculture industry and aboriginal rights holder groups. There were four main changes – <abbr title="1" style="max-width: 100%;">i</abbr>) refinement of the delineation of sampling areas to ensure they better match the different major drainage areas of the region; <abbr title="2" style="max-width: 100%;">ii</abbr>) inclusion of sentinel hatcheries to provide better representation across abundant salmon runs within river systems; and <abbr title="3" style="max-width: 100%;">iii</abbr>) provision for more collection opportunities for returning adults, which include additional sampling from Aboriginal food fisheries and adding recreational fisheries as a potential source of returning adult samples; and <abbr title="4" style="max-width: 100%;">iv</abbr>) enhanced partnerships through the solicitation of proposals for sample collection from the wild.
The two primary measures of success of this surveillance initiative are the timely and effective collection and dissemination of science-based data on animal health and the successful integration of available resources for aquatic animal health surveillance in British Columbia. Current, robust, science-based data promote safe domestic and international trade and sound management of our aquatic animal resources. Specific requirements for wild finfish surveillance in this region will be detailed following a performance review after the second year of implementation.

<dl role="contentinfo" class="auxiliary float right" style="margin-bottom: 0.25em; max-width: 100%; font: -apple-system-short-subheadline; clear: both; font-size: 0.75em; line-height: 1.4em; float: right; margin-left: 20px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); width: 180.28125px;"><dt style="max-width: 100%; -webkit-margin-start: 0px; margin: 0px;">Date modified:</dt><dd style="max-width: 100%; -webkit-margin-start: 0px; margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><time style="max-width: 100%; margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">2013-06-11</time></dd></dl>
 
Let me take a shot at it WitW. Since farmed fish are the equivalent of couch potatoes on IV drip - we should ignore the fact that there are substantial extra transport costs to go out and fish the forage fishes - bring those forage fishes back - render them into pellets - maybe drip in a little extra PCBs - ship the pellets out by road, rail and boat to the net-pens where it eventually is pooped-out creating a mess on the bottom - meanwhile potentially impacting adjacent wild salmon stocks because no environmental assessments are done any more - and the siting criteria was designed by some kid in grade 8 without any understanding of smolt migration routes, nearshore holding areas, fjord dynamics, oceanography or anything based in reality.

That about cover it, BN?
Covered Perfectly AA,

Fish farm justification reminds of the Monty Python skit about the Norwegian Parrot........

Pet Shop owner: "Beautiful plumage".........


Dissatisfied customer: "but he's dead"

Pet Shop owner:"he's not dead...... He's just resting...........he's pining for the Fjords"

Dissatisfied customer: "Pining for the Fjords???? Look Mate, this bird wouldn't pine if you put 50,000 volts through him"

Pet Shop owner: "beautiful plumage.......":rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://asf.ca/is-a-land-based-explosion-in-the-cards.html

Is a land-based Explosion in the Cards

Fish Farming International

Is a land-based ‘explosion’ on the cards?

ResearchSep 9, 2015 0 574

New research reveals how land-based salmon production measures up against traditional methods.

By Rachel Mutter

Land-based aquaculture should not be seen as a threat to traditional cage culture but a way to expand capacity where growth is restricted, Anders Milde Gjendemsjo, director of consulting at Deloitte and author of a new study on the costs of land-based salmon production told Fish Farming International. “There is room in the salmon industry for different farming systems,” he said.

High demand and prices along with flattening global production, biological challenges and increasing production costs since 2005 have all led to a huge interest in post-smolt land-based farming and to land-based tech producer Akva commissioning an independent report into costs from Deloitte.

As his research Gjendemsjo took three possible farm set-ups and costed them based on production of 5,000 tons of fish (an as yet unachieved volume in land-based production) being grown to 5 kilograms. It was assumed that the operations would be set up in Norway. The first system, traditional open net pen production at sea where smolt production takes place on land but fish are transferred to net pens at 100g; the second, land-based production up to 1 kilogram before transfer to sea and the third, full-land based production from egg to market. A total investment cost was estimated within a range for each system, along with a production cost.

“There is room in the salmon industry for different farming systems.” Anders Milde Gjendemsjo, Deloitte

At NOK300-450 million, upfront investment costs were deemed to be lowest for total land-based production, compared to NOK405-505 million at the highest end for the second set-up and NOK325-NOK470 for the first. It is important to note that investment costs in the first and second systems include farming licences priced at NOK60-80 million, said Gjendemsjo.

Production costs were calculated to be highest for the land-based production at around NOK26.75 per kilo but they were only 5 percent higher than the cheapest system of set-up two, and 1 percent higher than the NOK 26.5 per kilo calculated for set-up one. Freight costs are obviously also key to the land-based argument, which allows fish to be farmed anywhere, irrelevant of geography or environment. These were estimated to be NOK4 for European markets, NOK 10 to the United States and NOK 12 to Singapore as examples of additional price flexibility that can be added to any costings for land-based systems.

The calculations were based on Norwegian prices — where labor and feed costs are relatively expensive, but electricity costs are low. Places like Poland, North America and Asia are particularly suited to full land-based production, said Gjendemsjo. Poland because of proximity to large processing facilities; North America because of the strong NGO/environmentalist backlash against cage culture; and Asia because of proximity to growing markets and demand for safe food.

And this demand is a key factor in the growth of land-based production said Gjendemsjo, who calculates that if production costs can be achieved at his predicted figure, then the capital investment is really no big challenge for the industry of the future. Even in Norway and Chile there is opportunity, said Gjendemsjo. “In Norway it is impossible to buy licences now… and in Chile there are biological challenges,” he said.”The investment is not so much the key – there are so many possibilities for EU grants and so much investment interest — the key is that people want to produce healthy food and there are so many arguments to do it so if the technology allows.”

And herein lies the crux, as land-based farming at scale is as yet, unproven.”There’s no problem with these investment costs if you can achieve these operations costs,” Gjendemsjo told Fish Farming International. He pointed out that operations in Denmark are starting to get somewhere in driving down production costs and said that once they do, land-based farming “will explode”.

“I think in terms of volume we will see significant growth in 5-10 years time. Then in maybe 10-20 years time I can see it actually influencing world production,” he said. “Many people are considering it today.

“Aside from opportunities for producers, people forget the fantastic opportunities for service industries that can grow alongside a land-based industry,” said Gjendemsjo. “Of course you shouldn’t take fish out of the water. It’s about adding capacity, not replacing current production. Offshore and land-based can work together, but of course none of this is proven yet. My hope is that both will turn out to be proven.”

Want to read more about land-based production? Check out some of our other articles below:

Video: Vero Blue land-based farm

The future of European shrimp: land-based, sustainable and German

What if land-based salmon works?

- See more at: http://asf.ca/is-a-land-based-explosion-in-the-cards.html#sthash.avdrdyj6.dpuf
 
Back
Top