Aquaculture; improving????

Yep - 4 sure, Rico. Give credit where credit is due. They are able to look @ loading, water flow & redux and benthic impacts & mitigate to some extent by moving to areas with higher currents. The FFs that Klemtu had in Jackson Pass were moved because of those impacts - as far as DFO is concerned.

So, the question I have is: If they can use a model for benthic impacts that incorporates water flow - and then check it in the field and assess those impacts - why can't they do the same with particle-tracking models such as Mike Foreman's IHN agent-based Broughton model - why don't they use these models for siting?
 
It really doesn’t matter what fish farms do at this point, public sentiment is largely against them. The big ENGOs that have recently spent millions in donations to fish farms are not going to change there stance at this point even if fish farms managed to changed. The commercial industry had also spent the better part of the last 20 years trying to get people to eat wild salmon only. It’s now pretty ingrained in most people in BC that wild fish are superior for your then farmed. People can debate all this but the public sentiment is what it is.

When the poll came out that 75% of Canadians were against fish farms it was a slam dunk for all the parties to add that to their platforms.

The jobs are important to some rural communities but these communities also voted for ndps, so really it’s not top of mind for people that live there and the promise that wild fish will return to some utopian levels has also convinced people in this community that fish farms are the cause.

Watershed watch also already has a form letter that’s being shared on all social media though paid advertising reminding politicians of their promises to remove the farms. All it takes is a few details and they automatically send the letter off for you.

You also have now as a result of some resent studies most scientists in the fish community agreeing that if you remove fish farms it is good for wild salmon. PSF has came out and said this. No one will quantify the harm but they all say if we can mitigate it then why not.

It really does not matter what the industry does at this point. They have had enough public incidents that people have had enough and no amount of arguing on this page is going to change that fact. Again public sentiment is what it is.
 
Well said WMY. I agree.
No sense in spending money to try and fight change when that money can be used for transition. If they choose to try it out here. There are so many CC systems coming onboard soon that this technology wont be supported by the public anyways. The industry here is really making its own grave with the resistance to change.
 
It really doesn’t matter what fish farms do at this point, public sentiment is largely against them. The big ENGOs that have recently spent millions in donations to fish farms are not going to change there stance at this point even if fish farms managed to changed. The commercial industry had also spent the better part of the last 20 years trying to get people to eat wild salmon only. It’s now pretty ingrained in most people in BC that wild fish are superior for your then farmed. People can debate all this but the public sentiment is what it is.

When the poll came out that 75% of Canadians were against fish farms it was a slam dunk for all the parties to add that to their platforms.

The jobs are important to some rural communities but these communities also voted for ndps, so really it’s not top of mind for people that live there and the promise that wild fish will return to some utopian levels has also convinced people in this community that fish farms are the cause.

Watershed watch also already has a form letter that’s being shared on all social media though paid advertising reminding politicians of their promises to remove the farms. All it takes is a few details and they automatically send the letter off for you.

You also have now as a result of some resent studies most scientists in the fish community agreeing that if you remove fish farms it is good for wild salmon. PSF has came out and said this. No one will quantify the harm but they all say if we can mitigate it then why not.

It really does not matter what the industry does at this point. They have had enough public incidents that people have had enough and no amount of arguing on this page is going to change that fact. Again public sentiment is what it is.
I believe you may see alot more fish farms are good speeches this year. As all the science has been done and is simply on the internet for anyone to look up. The focus now is to combat the bad publicity that anti farm people have created.
 
Yep - 4 sure, Rico. Give credit where credit is due. They are able to look @ loading, water flow & redux and benthic impacts & mitigate to some extent by moving to areas with higher currents. The FFs that Klemtu had in Jackson Pass were moved because of those impacts - as far as DFO is concerned.

And yet you still argue the point and will in the future. Then shift to another topic.......
 
I don't understand what you are saying Rico? Science been done to show the effects of farms?
No doubt the Farms will be pouring out the propaganda but I don't think it'll matter, even if Fabian starts putting some overtime.
 
"The big ENGOs that have recently spent millions in donations to fish farms..."? What? Could you elaborate on this point, WMY?

AA: "...why don't they use these models for siting?"

WMY: "It really does not matter what the industry does at this point..."
Sino: "No sense in spending money to try and fight change..."

Bring up a valid question - and one gets stalling - again. How unexpected.

The models (for the Broughtons) have already been developed, Sino. It just needs implementation - which I suspect is the real reason for stalling - setting a precedent.

And it was on DFO's dime - not the industry. Even if it was - it wouldn't have bankrupted the FFrs.

I am not seeing where this will be a quick transition - even if it does happen. Will take some years to implement - if it does.

MEANWHILE - all the juvie and adult salmon are interacting with the plumes of disease and parasite vectors. Even if we could give the juvies a break on the road to transition to CC - it'd help.

But NO! says the industry pundits - no sense in that!

Like I keep saying - we need to ignore the industry pundits wrt their assertions on impacts on wild stocks - not their job - they have made that abundantly clear.
 
The big ENGOs that have recently spent millions in donations to fish farms..."? What? Could you elaborate on this point, WMY?

Elmo has a post on her blog about it go look it up I’m not gonna bother. After the blood pipe incident they all jumped on bord and they pulled all of Elmo’s donors. She has a rant about this on her Facebook page.

It may not of been millions but it was a good sum of money. Enough to send Elmo off.
 
WMY: "It really does not matter what the industry does at this point..."
Sino: "No sense in spending money to try and fight change..."

Bring up a valid question - and one gets stalling - again. How unexpected.

Why would a executive board allocate cap ex, to an area that has an looming election promise to remove them.

If I was a shareholder I certainly would not approve of it.
 
Ketura March 2018 financials clearly state a
net loss of $345,476 just to be clear.
Its no wonder no one on this board is investing in it and ketura cant find investors. They have been looking for a couple of years i think. This is very telling.

There is more then just ketura. There is one in Abbotsford having a go at it raising coho. Coho has the advantage of having that nice red meat that everyone on the west coast expects.

It makes more sense to have it in the lower main land then off in the middle of no where as well.

https://www.westcreekbc.ca/
 
I think - paraphrasing - that your point is WMY - that the companies won't invest in an area pegged to go CC and shut down the open net-pens? Do I have that correct?

Maybe not spend $ to expand - but I believe they will continue making as much $ as long as they can w/o being forced to change.

And political will ebbs and flows like the sewer discharges up and down the coast. We also had numerous inquiries about the industry in the past 20yrs or so that accomplished little, if anything. If you want something to die a slow and quiet death - send it to a committee.

That's what I suspect the federal liberals will do - especially being a minority government - convene a committee to study CC - and hang-on and do nothing neither substantial nor contentious until the next election.

So, I'm not holding my breath on this CC one...
 
Last edited:
I think - paraphrasing - that your point is WMY - that the companies won't invest in an area pegged to go CC and shut down the open net-pens? Do I have that correct?

Yes I’m talking about the BC coast.

On the east coast I’d think they would be more inclined to spending money on their open pens.
 
Yes I’m talking about the BC coast.

On the east coast I’d think they would be more inclined to spending money on their open pens.
Ya especially to Fabian Manning (former senate net pen review Chair) now MOWI contractor...
 
I think - paraphrasing - that your point is WMY - that the companies won't invest in an area pegged to go CC and shut down the open net-pens? Do I have that correct?

Maybe not spend $ to expand - but I believe they will continue making as much $ as long as they can w/o being forced to change.

And political will ebbs and flows like the sewer discharges up and down the coast. We also had numerous inquiries about the industry in the past 20yrs or so that accomplished little, if anything. If you want something to die a slow and quiet death - send it to a committee.

That's what I suspect the federal liberals will do - especially being a minority government - convene a committee to study CC - and hang-on and do nothing neither substantial nor contentious until the next election.

So, I'm not holding my breath on this CC one...
Sounds similar to what the minority NDP did in forming a study committee. Still waiting for some results.
 
To spread salmon hatches-there is no doubt that the number of lice on wild fish has increased in accordance with the increase in the number of farmed fish, says researcher. Irene Mårdalen freelance journalist published on Sunday 24. November 2019-04:30
tmp_abvtu_html_bd54689f5c44e208.png

Figure 2. areas with a relatively high density of copepodites on a scale from 0-1 (Quantity per square meter).

"Sea trout in Nordhordland had more than 50 lice on average per fish. In the Sognefjord, the numbers were more than 30 lice per sea trout. The wild salmon in the Sognefjord had over 20 lice each for three out of four weeks where the fish were monitored.
Results are from the Institute of Marine Research and the Norwegian Institute of Natural Research (NINA), after they monitored sea trout and wild salmon for a period of four weeks earlier this year.
The monitoring shows, among other things, that all the fish in Bjordal had lice, and that on average they had over 30 lice each. In Balestrand, 95 per cent of the fish had lice, and they also had over 30 lice each.
On the other hand, there is little lice in southern Norway, with the exception of the sea trout in the Flekkefjord.
LITTLE LICE IN THE NORTH
In the Boknafjord, little lice were found on trawled salmon, but more lice on sea trout caught in ruse. Sea lice were found in Hardanger and Rogaland, and smaller than in 2018.
The figures show that there is generally little lice on wild fish in Northern Norway. Data from the catch of sea trout early in the season showed that there were few lice on the fish from Nordland and Troms. The same applies from Nord-Troms to Finnmark. The exception is the Altafjord, where there was little lice early in the season, but more during the summer.
FACTS ABOUT THE MONITORING OF SALMON LICE
· There are up to 400 million farmed salmon in Norway and an estimated 2.5 million wild salmon fish
· In 1992, the Norwegian Institute of Natural Research (NINA) and the Marine Research Institute started monitoring wild fish in Norwegian waters. The background was that wild fish with large amounts of lice were discovered
· Today trawlers, snags and nets are used to catch salmon and sea trout to monitor the amount of lice. In some places, a cage with farmed salmon is also used to measure the infection pressure at a particular location.
· In addition, the Marine Research Institute's salmon lice distribution model is used to estimate the amount where no physical monitoring is carried out.
· Monitoring is carried out on behalf of the Norwegian Food Safety Authority and the aim is to investigate the extent of salmon lice on wild fish as a result of the aquaculture industry
· Monitoring is carried out along the entire coast where farming is conducted.
(Sources: NINA and the Marine Research Institute)
- There is no doubt that the number of lice on wild fish has increased in accordance with the increase in the number of farmed fish. And even though the industry is very good at treating farmed fish, there are still a large number of lice larvae that spread from farms to Norwegian fjords, says senior researcher Bengt Finstad at NINA.
The aquaculture industry is increasing the number of lice on wild fish
Senior scientist Ørjan Karlsen at the Institute of Marine Research is also sure that the increase in lice on wild fish is mainly due to the aquaculture industry. This despite the fact that the aquaculture industry spends billions of dollars on reducing the number of lice in the farms.
- The growing production of the aquaculture industry has meant that we have a much larger number of farmed fish. This means that the lice have more hosts. A louse larva hatched in a plant can spread several miles into the sea and settle on a wild fish. A wild fish therefore does not need to be near a fish farm to be infected by lice, says Finstad.
Lice despite; Neither Finstad nor Karlsen believes we should reduce the number of farms, as long as this is sustainable production.
- Sustainable operations constitute an important industry and it is quite possible to have an active and good industry as the wild fish are protected, says Finstad.
Hard to get rid of lice
The aquaculture industry in Norway takes many measures against lice. Northern salmon - which produces as many as 40,000 metric tonnes of salmon and rainbow trout a year - aims to keep control of the lice.
- We take a number of preventative measures. The basic thing is production planning, where we strive for zone and coordinated set-aside of the plants, says Lars Fredrik Martinussen, communications manager at Nordlaks.
This means, among other things, that they collaborate with the neighbor breeder to clear the entire Tysfjord for fish at the same time between each release. Without salmon, the lice also disappear. In addition, they put protective skirts against salmon lice around the cages.
Other aquaculture companies also use lump fish to reduce the amount of lice. In addition, the industry is working to increase the size of the fish to reduce the time the salmon spend on reaching the slaughter weight in the sea.
The industry works with breeding to produce fish that are more resistant to salmon lice. In addition, efforts are being made to produce fish feed that will help prevent the lice from feeding on the fish.
There are also mechanical methods and medications that can remove the salmon lice from the farmed fish.
Not just lice that threaten the wild fish
Professional manager Ketil Rykhus at Sjømat Norge agrees that salmon lice in the aquaculture industry should be combated. At the same time, he is concerned that the research communities do not forget other factors that contribute to better living conditions for wild salmon.
- If the aquaculture industry is to grow, the number of lice must be reduced. At the same time, we know that - by reducing the number of salmon lice - we might just save an extra wild salmon for every 100 smolt (small salmon) that swim from the river into the sea, says Rykhus.
At the same time, he believes that the aquaculture industry should be concerned with having as little lice as possible for the sake of fish welfare.
Reference:
Rune Nilsen and others: Salmon lice infestation on wild salmon fish along the Norwegian coast in 2019 , final report to the Norwegian Food Safety Authority, September 2019
FACTS ABOUT SALMON LICE
· Parasite that settles on salmonids (salmon, sea trout and sea trout)
· The parasite eats off the fish's mucus, skin and blood
· Only live in salt water
· Fish with a lot of lice can weaken and die from damage
· A salmon lice can live for at least 15 months
· Fish with salmon lice do not taste any different than fish without lice. If the fish has lice damage, it can be downgraded
· It is not dangerous for humans to eat salmon that have had lice
https://forskning.no/fisk-fiskehelse-fiskesykdommer/slik-sprer-lakselusa-seg/1596768?fbclid=IwAR1KdDTFKoElhLdDdL4OiL0VL1MdOJOTW3lMgg8p2au7YMc8UBmbBYomm9w
https://www.hi.no/hi/nettrapporter/rapport-fra-havforskningen-2019-35
 
Last edited:
https://www.fishfarmingexpert.com/article/comparing-regulations-in-bc-and-norway/

Seems to still be improving. Seems to handling benthic issues quite well.
Thanks for the link, Rico. Regs have changed a bit at least in Norway since then wrt sea lice anyways. Probably is an improvement over there. See the link in my post #630. Same source as yours.
I also read the article link to in your post #757. One thing struck me at the end where the journalist reported; “B.C.’s aquaculture industry produces about 93,000 tonnes of salmon a year.” I then looked on DFO’s website here; http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/reporting-rapports/therapeut/index-eng.html#slice (thanks to BN for the link to there) and see that the average production in the last five years was actually 84,000 tonnes/year. Before that the average would have been even lower. Maybe just a typo.
And while I have your ear, just wanted to let you all know that Kuterra is still operating and their fish are being sold by Overwaitea. They turned a small profit in 2017. https://www.fishfarmingexpert.com/a...oping-to-buy-kuterra-despite-referendum-blow/. True, 2018 was a net loss but that could have been due to any number or reasons just like net pen outfits some years show losses.
 
Back
Top