Fish Farm trouble in BC.

[trophywife]

Sounds all well and good to move fish farms to land; only problem is the cost to raise the fish is not economically viable, yet. Kuterra is a good example of a business the public is not ready for. How many people on this site, other than me, tried the product?
Thought so.
But even so, if all BC salmon farms were put on dry land tomorrow, only a naive fool would believe this would change the plight of wild salmon in BC.

so why not charge more for that crap if people want to serve and eat it?

 

[fogged in]

Thanks Birdsnest for your posts this morning
They help me to better understand where Bones is coming from

 

[agentaqua]

Thanks Birdsnest for your posts this morning They help me to better understand where Bones is coming from

AND yet again - an example of why we need a science-based defensible environmental assessment process for the open net-cage industry...and why the agency that was inappropriately tasked with promoting AND regulating the industry shouldn't be doing both at the same time...

 

[Birdsnest]

When posters are calling another poster a 5 year old it pretty telling where they are coming from particularly when you apply that scenario to my last two post. Very telling indeed.

 

[cuttlefish]

yes , my good friend is a safety officer and a messy site or one that has garbage/debris strewn about gets shut down until compliance is met.

Looks like that Jane Bay site has been inactive for quite some time. Last peak biomass benthic survey was in Jan. 2012.
http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/od-ds/...2011-2015-rpt-pac-dfo-mpo-aquaculture-eng.csv

Also, an interesting comment regarding the site itself; "Jane Bay is situated in an area that has unusual background conditions. When licensed by the Province of British Columbia, it was acknowledged that the usual compliance thresholds are not appropriate for this location. At this time, DFO has allowed the site to be stocked despite threshold exceedance due to low tonnage and low value benthic habitat."
I couldn't find any info on more recent monitoring so I assume the site was not restocked. I wonder if any of those bags have best before dates stamped on them.

 

[Dave]

so why not charge more for that crap if people want to serve and eat it?

Your'e saying land based salmon farms produce crap? Isn't this what you anti's want?

Fwiw, I tried and enjoyed Kuttera salmon, even though it was expensive compared to pen raised Atlantic's.

 

[bones]

uhhhh... bones - how long have the farms been in the water? 30ish years or so? Doesn't take 30 years to publish. Didn't take the several hundreds of peer-review teams to publish on the evidence that open net-cage FF impact wild stocks. If there was ANY single example of the open net-cage technology NOT impacting wild stocks - we'd of heard by now. The PR firms for the industry would be singing praise from far and wide.

Side note: I went outside today and it was raining. Could you tell me why it is not raining in Cuba? can your science papers explain this?

Obviously scale, timing and following the salmon from marine entrance to return is the way to understand oceanic influences.

Obviously I don't know what (unknown and unnamed) stream you are referring to (nor should I be expected to) - nor what is the migratory route of your juveniles - nor if any FFs are along that route - what it looked like when that cohort was migrating out - what other impacts affected that cohort, etc. etc. I guess that should be the responsibility of FFs to do those studies - along w an environmental assessment - to determine these factors - right?

SORRY AA, NOT GONNA HAPPEN

 

[wayne marwood]

The bottom line is are fish farms safe to all life in the sea ,we will never get the truth , and why has it took so long

 

[trophywife]

Your'e saying land based salmon farms produce crap? Isn't this what you anti's want?

Fwiw, I tried and enjoyed Kuttera salmon, even though it was expensive compared to pen raised Atlantic's.

i think any farmed fish is crap. the lesser of the evil is to get it on land and charge more to get it there, if that is what it takes.

good to know that the better crap is available to the willing consumer, at a higher cost than open net pen salmon.

 

[bigdogeh]

i think any farmed fish is crap. the lesser of the evil is to get it on land and charge more to get it there if that is what it takes.

I agree with you trophywife.
There's a saying that you are what you eat... and if farmed fish are showing up to 10 times the pcb's that wild fish are (some studies show more), they are getting it in their feed.
Pretty hard to beat a nice healthy wild salmon which unfortunately it's understandable the fish farms would like to see eliminated from a profit(greed) and market share point of view.

https://www.preventivecare.com/shared/pdf/GlobalAssessmentSalmon-Hites.pdf

https://www.ewg.org/research/pcbs-farmed-salmon#.WhdbmXmQypo

https://www.health.harvard.edu/stay...-vs-avoiding-those-pcbsthe-family-healthguide




The last few paragraphs of the first link...

"The combined concentrations of PCBs, tox-
aphene, and dieldrin trigger stringent consump-
tion advice for farmed salmon purchased from
wholesalers and for store-bought farmed fillets.
This advice is much more restrictive than con-
sumption advice triggered by contaminants in
the tissues of wild salmon (Fig. 4, A and B).
The most restrictive advice (less than one-half
meal of salmon per month), which reflects the
highest health risks, was generated for farmed
salmon fillets purchased from stores in Frank-
furt, Germany, and for farmed salmon from
Scotland and the Faroe Islands. The concentra-
tions of PCBs, toxaphene, and dieldrin trigger
EPA consumption advice of no more than 1
meal per month for all samples of farmed salm-
on and for all but two samples of store-bought
salmon, for which the advice is no more than 2
meals per month.
The methods used to develop this con-
sumption advice for PCBs, toxaphene, and
dieldrin are based on estimates of potential
cancer risks and on an assumption of risk
additivity. However, this study suggests that consump-
tion of farmed salmon may result in exposure to
a variety of persistent bioaccumulative contam-
inants with the potential for an elevation in
attendant health risks. Although the risk/benefit
computation is complicated, consumption of
farmed Atlantic salmon may pose risks that
detract from the beneficial effects of fish con-
sumption. This study also demonstrates the im-
portance of labeling salmon as farmed and
identifying the country of origin. Further stud-
ies of contaminant sources, particularly in feeds
used for farmed carnivorous species such as
salmon, are needed"

 

[bones]

uhhhh... bones - how long have the farms been in the water? 30ish years or so? Doesn't take 30 years to publish. Didn't take the several hundreds of peer-review teams to publish on the evidence that open net-cage FF impact wild stocks. If there was ANY single example of the open net-cage technology NOT impacting wild stocks - we'd of heard by now. The PR firms for the industry would be singing praise from far and wide.

Side note: I went outside today and it was raining. Could you tell me why it is not raining in Cuba? can your science papers explain this?

Obviously scale, timing and following the salmon from marine entrance to return is the way to understand oceanic influences.

Obviously I don't know what (unknown and unnamed) stream you are referring to (nor should I be expected to) - nor what is the migratory route of your juveniles - nor if any FFs are along that route - what it looked like when that cohort was migrating out - what other impacts affected that cohort, etc. etc. I guess that should be the responsibility of FFs to do those studies - along w an environmental assessment - to determine these factors - right?

i said smolts favor a migration route and you are looking for proof. this is some of the previous studies done.

there more i could dig up if you want, or we could wait for some of the 2017 studies.....

more?

https://vimeo.com/20251187

https://vimeo.com/20251128

https://vimeo.com/20250781

 

[bones]

this one is on the Seymour river, where smolts are not even leaving the estuary

 

[bones]

cultus lake

 

[bones]

studies to old for you? ok..... how is it fish farms are killing these smolts? they are dead in the estuary.....



http://kintama.com/animator/dep/Chilko2016_chinook/

 

[Birdsnest]

I agree with you trophywife.
There's a saying that you are what you eat... and if farmed fish are showing up to 10 times the pcb's that wild fish are (some studies show more), they are getting it in their feed.
Pretty hard to beat a nice healthy wild salmon which unfortunately it's understandable the fish farms would like to see eliminated from a profit(greed) and market share point of view.

https://www.preventivecare.com/shared/pdf/GlobalAssessmentSalmon-Hites.pdf

https://www.ewg.org/research/pcbs-farmed-salmon#.WhdbmXmQypo

https://www.health.harvard.edu/stay...-vs-avoiding-those-pcbsthe-family-healthguide




The last few paragraphs of the first link...

"The combined concentrations of PCBs, tox-
aphene, and dieldrin trigger stringent consump-
tion advice for farmed salmon purchased from
wholesalers and for store-bought farmed fillets.
This advice is much more restrictive than con-
sumption advice triggered by contaminants in
the tissues of wild salmon (Fig. 4, A and B).
The most restrictive advice (less than one-half
meal of salmon per month), which reflects the
highest health risks, was generated for farmed
salmon fillets purchased from stores in Frank-
furt, Germany, and for farmed salmon from
Scotland and the Faroe Islands. The concentra-
tions of PCBs, toxaphene, and dieldrin trigger
EPA consumption advice of no more than 1
meal per month for all samples of farmed salm-
on and for all but two samples of store-bought
salmon, for which the advice is no more than 2
meals per month.
The methods used to develop this con-
sumption advice for PCBs, toxaphene, and
dieldrin are based on estimates of potential
cancer risks and on an assumption of risk
additivity. However, this study suggests that consump-
tion of farmed salmon may result in exposure to
a variety of persistent bioaccumulative contam-
inants with the potential for an elevation in
attendant health risks. Although the risk/benefit
computation is complicated, consumption of
farmed Atlantic salmon may pose risks that
detract from the beneficial effects of fish con-
sumption. This study also demonstrates the im-
portance of labeling salmon as farmed and
identifying the country of origin. Further stud-
ies of contaminant sources, particularly in feeds
used for farmed carnivorous species such as
salmon, are needed"

Oh the hites study. It has been debunked so many times on this forum. One more time although this won't change any minds here and those here who won't have their minds changed will attack the source and not one bit of the content in the article will be challenged.

http://fairquestions.typepad.com/files/vivian-pcbs-16feb2010-9.pdf

 

[bigdogeh]

Oh the hates study. It has been debunked so many times on this forum. One more time although this won't change any minds here and those here who won't have their minds changed will attacking the source and not one bit of the content in the article will be challenged.

http://fairquestions.typepad.com/files/vivian-pcbs-16feb2010-9.pdf

basically looks to me like a paid proponent of the fish farm industry calling the science "fake science..." and your right. after reading it, (vivian krauses report) I don't think I'll change my mind...

 

[Birdsnest]

Th

basically looks to me like a paid proponent of the fish farm industry calling the science "fake science..." and your right. after reading it, (vivian krauses report) I don't think I'll change my mind...

Thanks for your responcce.

 

[bigdogeh]

your welcome

 

[agentaqua]

w5 investigative report on fish farm troubles in BC. Saturday at 7 mountain on CTV.

Can’t wait!!

http://www.ctvnews.ca/w5/update-hea...d-with-government-and-industry-vets-1.3690863

 

[fogged in]

Tell me Birdsnest

What would it take to change YOUR mind?
This debate is not going anywhere until new science is released.
Round and round it goes….
You don’t dispute that Fish Farm Sea Lice DO KILL SMOLTS as even the Fish Farm themselves recognise this fact. Just because it is impossible to accurately count the number of deaths does not mean it is not happening as Bones suggests…. does it?
How would you suggest we count the deaths of wild salmon from virus’s Fish Farm originated or not?
Do you support the independent widespread testing for PRV and HSMI virus?
There have been NO END of studies, reports and evidence posted on this forum that our Wild Salmon and Fish Farms do not mix safely together.
You and other Fish Farm supporters post no end of reports and evidence that disputes this.
Do you really think you are convincing anyone on this form that you are right?
I do not consider myself an expert on the subject, but
It appears to me we have a case of big money talks and to hell with the risks.
It’s a good thing there are well informed members of this Forum to counter your and others predictable posts…but this is one of your posts that I would agree with.
Why Facts don’t convince people