Lets see the salmon farmers spin this one.........

[Cuba Libre]

Closed containment fish farming viable - DFO
Courier-Islander
Published: Friday, November 26, 2010
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) has released a new report that affirms the economic viability of closed containment technology for salmon aquaculture.

The department also recommends building a pilot scale or demonstration system as a next step. The Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform (CAAR) says it is delighted that the federal government is finally recognizing the potential of closed containment technology as a serious alternative to harmful net-cage operations.

The Feasibility Study of Closed-Containment Options for the British Columbia Aquaculture Industry recognizes that land-based recirculation aquaculture systems (RAS) are likely to show positive returns and that once the technology becomes more widely adopted within the sector, capital and operating costs may continue to go down.


This new study shows that closed containment salmon farming is economically viable, something we have said for years," says David Lane of T. Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation and CAAR. "In fact, numerous companies are moving ahead with plans for closed containment in B.C., creating a potential multi-million dollar sustainable salmon farming industry, with new jobs and an economic boost for coastal communities."

DFO's report goes on to recommend the construction of a pilot project at commercial-scale to demonstrate the system's technical and financial feasibility in real world conditions. CAAR has long called for government investment to spur development of the technology and is urging the federal government to allocate funds for this purpose in the 2011 federal budget.

"Our federal government must step up to the plate now to ensure that this green technology moves forward quickly so that Canada can capitalize on this enormous opportunity in sustainable aquaculture," says Catherine Stewart of Living Oceans Society and CAAR.

CAAR is also working with Marine Harvest Canada (MHC) on their proposal for a commercial-scale pilot project.

MHC is currently undergoing a site selection process on Vancouver Island, with a preference for the North Island.




© Courier-Islander (Campbell River) 2010

 

[Little Hawk]

BRAVO!

Long overdue.

 

[IronNoggin]

Here's The Spin: http://www.farmfreshsalmon.org/blog/closed-containment-press-release-seen-joke

Closed containment press release seen as a joke.

Submitted by editor on November 27, 2010 - 15:04

A report on closed containment fish farming was released this past week by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). The report looked at the financial viability of several ways to grow salmon, which included land based tanks, ocean net pens and ocean solid walled systems. Land tanks shows a marginal return on investment after 3 years (4%) and ocean net pens returned 52%. All other options failed to return a profit. The government then, and rightly so, recommends a land based system (Recirculating Aquaculture System, RAS) pilot project to see if the estimated financial returns are accurate or can be improved.


The Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform (CAAR), came quickly out of the gate with a press release entitled "DFO study confirms viability of closed containment technology for salmon aquaculture". (note-the CAAR release does not link to the DFO report). We're not sure if they actually read the study? Cause that ain't what it said at all. It said 4% return. Maybe that's why none of these wingnuts have made it in the real world of business.


CAAR was hoping journalists would just take their word for it and not actually read the study. Thankfully, respected journalists are becoming all too aware of the games played by CAAR and their U.S. Foundation friends.


Scott Simpson at the Vancouver Sun did pick up the story and wrote this reasonable article: "Fisheries department recommends salmon aquaculture pilot project."
Yep, that's accurate.
But then Scott must have read a little further and the next day reported, "Open salmon pens more profitable".
Yep, even more accurate.


For comparison sake, the BC Salmon Farmers Association (BCSFA) released a statement about the DFO study as well: "Some answers, more questions for closed containment". And note-it did link to the DFO study.

 

[Little Hawk]

Aye' Nog!

The margin difference can be more simply explained.

You have a very large dog.

1) With a 'closed-containment' system you must train the dog to go '****' in a particular place that contains it, then process that '****' so no one steps in it or gets sick from bugs that might be in it. This involves great capital expenditures on plant & machinery.

2) With the current 'open net-pen' system, you simply train Fido to go '****' in your neighbours yard.

 

[IronNoggin]

The reason (at this point) there is such a wide difference in profit margins is simple:

- The industry, in the case of closed containment systems, would be spending much more in BC on jobs, construction, energy, etc. to build and run the farms. Higher labor, infrastructure and operational costs are a few of the reasons closed containment systems show a lower profit margin. Over time, with experience and as the systems become progressively developed, some (but not all) of those could eventually be reduced.

Methinks we want an aquaculture industry that has a reasonable profit margin to ensure viability, but also one that generates a lot of economic activity and jobs in BC.

What we have now on the other hand is an industry that reaps massive profits (> 50%) which are immediately exported to foreign aquaculture investors. This is in effect an industry that is a profit cash cow for foreign multi-nationals. And an industry that reaps such profits at the direct cost to our environment and wild fish stocks, while providing the bare minimum in terms of employment and related economic activity here.

Of course "They" will fight this tooth and nail, as witnessed by the "Joke" reference in their counter release. That is to be expected. ANY potential threat to such massive cash influxes will be viewed as extremely problematic. Once the money tap has been turned on, they certainly do not want to slow the flow. Regardless of the impacts. After all, they already screwed their (and others') backyards pretty well to death. No real consequences for them doing it here. Some might go so far as to suggest that end result might even prove of benefit - once the wild stocks are gone, who else to provide the necessary protein to the ever hungry, ever growing masses

And that ain't so damn cheery...
Nog

 

[cuttlefish]

Nog said "Here's the spin."

Reads more like spew than spin to me and in the process creates SUCH a positive awareness of the aquaculture industry.

The ROI would be better for the forest industry if they could just go back to bulldozing gravel from creeks and streams to build roads rather than having to haul from approved gravel pits. (Oh, think of the carbon footprint!)
The ROI would be better for the mining industry if they could just dump their tailings anywhere they pleased instead of having to contain them in tailings ponds. (What? We can't make Fish Lake into a tailings pond?)
The ROI for the pulp and paper industry would be better if they could just dump their dioxins into the ocean.... need I continue?