Fish farms carbon footprint among lowest affirms study

Birdsnest

Birdsnest

Well-Known Member
This article does not apply to closed containment.

“Ocean-based salmon farms are powered largely by clean, limitless ocean currents rather than electricity and oil, which positions the industry to meet the world’s growing demand for healthy, nutrient-rich protein while reducing environmental stress to our planet,” wrote Fraser.

https://seawestnews.com/fish-farms-carbon-footprint-among-lowest-affirms-study/
 
Birdsnest said:
This article does not apply to closed containment.

“Ocean-based salmon farms are powered largely by clean, limitless ocean currents rather than electricity and oil, which positions the industry to meet the world’s growing demand for healthy, nutrient-rich protein while reducing environmental stress to our planet,” wrote Fraser.
https://seawestnews.com/fish-farms-carbon-footprint-among-lowest-affirms-study/
Click to expand...

"The detailed scientific study has established that in 2017 the total carbon dioxide (Co2) release was equivalent to 31,000 tonnes, broadly the same as that from conventional fishing operations"
Do you consider this a big plus for Fish Farms?
If the Wild Salmon were available they could have been harvested for about the same C02 release as what Fish Farms according to this report.
No mention of Sea Lice and Disease released directly into the mainstream rearing grounds of Wild Salmon.
 
Your possessed by the idea that if there wasn't salmon farms the ocean would be virus/disease free. I cant help you there. Maybe post some photos to better demonstrate what you're trying to say. I really put much attention to what you post here. You're constantly repeating your talking points which have been discussed extensively. Its like a game of whack-a-mole. see lice-whack!, disease-whack!, the bottom- whack!, the feed-whack!.... over and over and over and over.
Your comment above is like, if we get rid of horses then unicorns will absolutely flourish! I know it true because Im so angry.
 
He’s comparing fish farms to land based farming (think chicken, pork, beef).

I am not a supporter of ocean based fish farms where they can come into contact with wild fish populations but I think it’s a stretch to think if we had no fish farms that we could replace those farmed fish on a 1:1 ratio with wild fish.

That said it would be worth a shot
 
Like Alaska, I agree GLG. I think there is no other way.
 
wild fish simply swim home. We should get carbon credits for those...
 
haha, are you kidding me? Fabian Dawson makes a good living writing Fish Farm Propaganda. Seawest news is total BS and not worth the paper he writes on.
the guy is a total knob, sorry to say that about your bud.
 
Sino said:
haha, are you kidding me? Fabian Dawson makes a good living writing Fish Farm Propaganda. Seawest news is total BS and not worth the paper he writes on.
the guy is a total knob, sorry to say that about your bud.
Click to expand...
x2, Sino. I think a more accurate & honest statement might go something like: "“Open net-cage salmon farms take advantage of the ocean to deposit their waste for free - including numerous & sometimes novel and virulent disease and parasite vectors that are transmitted to the wild stocks in increased amounts and at a time when susceptible wild juvenile salmon are outmigrating and we hid our disease outbreaks citing "privacy concerns" - so you can't find out the real cost. But since nobody has forced us into closed containment - we are going to keep on doing business as usual because ultimately - wild salmon are a competitor to our product - and our shareholders are what really matters"
 
lol, well written AA. In the end, they only care about the shareholder, who cares about anything else. Even Marine Harvest has acknowledged the unknown damage they are doing, but they don't care.
 
I am of the opinion the posting of this bull ****;
"Fish farms carbon footprint among lowest affirms study"
is a fine example of how the Fish Farm industry views DFO, the General Public and our Government....
Stupid!!
The message is of no value whatsoever! Written by a Fish Farm hack and meant ONLY to try and influence the uninformed public.
 
Wild salmon swim to the doorstep - and feed themselves along the way. Best carbon footprint going...

Wonder how Fabian missed that point?
 
Last edited:
agentaqua said:
Wild salmon swim to the doorstep - and feed themselves along the way. Best carbon footprint going...
Click to expand...

Naw we close the rivers and only allow people that can afford expensive carbon producing boats to harvest them

or we fly sockeye from alaska to seattle because in Alaska salmon is so abundant and cheap it still makes sense to do that then put fish farms on land.
 
Last edited:
Unlike the boats that chase the forage fish to get converted into farmed salmon - that's ok - ol' Fabian got the feed conversion wrong too...
 
agentaqua said:
Unlike the boats that chase the forage fish to get converted into farmed salmon - that's ok - ol' Fabian got the feed conversion wrong too...
Click to expand...

Commercial quota is quota weather it goes to fish farms or dog food that wild bait is still going to get harvested.
 
Well the reason stating the FCR (Feed Conversion Ratio) as is - is wrong - is simple. The moisture content of commercial salmonid diet is generally <10% (Optimum, Corey Aquafeeds; Orient LP, Skretting). In the case of live fish, they typically contain 70– 80% moisture (Exler 1987; Wedemeyer 2001).

So....

Saying you use 1.1kg of (dry) feed to produce 1 kg of (wet) farmed Atlantic salmon - w/o admitting that you are talking dry to wet output - is misleading - which is what I believe it is intended to do. A wet-to-wet ratio would be 7-8 times larger wrt taking moisture content in consideration. They would then have to admit it actually takes 7.7 to 8.8 kg wet forage fish (and yes they have reduced this amount of fish-based protein over the past few years by adding in some plant-based proteins) to convert to 1kg of farmed salmon - a net loss of 6.7 to 7.7 kg of fish (minus plant protein additives) that could have instead fed the hungry humans directly. But farmed salmon is a premium product and forage fishes are not. So, lets not claim that farmed fish is feeding the hungry poor - because it is not - nor will it ever.

And as far as carbon footprints go - fishing boats (fuel) go out of South American Countries (mostly) to catch forage fish that then gets transported back to the dock in SA - transported (fuel) into rendering plants (energy) - converted into fish feed - and then transported back North (8000+ km) to a Canadian farm 1st by road (fuel) and then by a boat/barge (fuel) to get fed to farmed fish which are then subsequently transported back to the dock in Canada by boat (fuel) to a plant and then South back into the USA restaurant markets by road (fuel).

All the part up to where the farmed fish are harvested @ the site - is omitted as the wild salmon swim back to their natal streams.
 
Last edited:
agentaqua said:
And as far as carbon footprints go - fishing boats (fuel) go out of South American Countries (mostly) to catch forage fish that then gets transported back to the dock in SA - transported (fuel) into rendering plants (energy) - converted into fish feed - and then transported back North to a Canadian farm
Click to expand...

Just saving that quote for future use as most people on here probably assume the feed for fish farms come from Canadian waters.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Whole in the Water
'Shocking' study could have implications for fish-farming industry
Replies
0
Views
461
Whole in the Water
Whole in the Water
Whole in the Water
Environment Commissioner Gives DFO Failing Grades on Fish Farms
Replies
0
Views
430
Whole in the Water
Whole in the Water
Back
Top