B.C. Salmon Farmers will spend $1.5 millin on study.

You guys are hilarious ... Birdsnest has never hidden what he does; he has always been upfront with his beliefs and his thoughts. I respect that.

First of all if my memory serves me right Birdnest's identify was found out by others on the forum, not willingly provided by BN.

Second you are missing the point of my post. BN keeps calling Agent Aqua out to identify himself as if AA needs to justify what he is saying by telling us who he is. This is not needed on this type of forum. BN is just trying to deflect and distract by trying to get personal info on AA to somehow discredit AA. That is precisely why forums like these are anonymous. My point is BN needs to whining about who AA is and stick to how this forum operates and if he so choses defend his salmon feedlot industry.
 
Why the heavy guarding of Agent's identety? This some what proves my point. I respect that he can keep his identity a secret but I do not think it means I can't ask or point it out, especially in this day and age where it is highly posable that such a poster's activities here could be those of one who is paid to do so. I think agent has posted enough to be suspicious of this type of activity.

I asked, he refused to say who he/she is, and thats that.

If I was called out here wouldn't that be breaking the forum rules about anonymity? And you seem gloat about that over on your side yet over on agents side your crying foul. Wow! Blatant double standards or what. Thanks for that presentation of character.lol

The only ethical means for me on this forum, to see who agent is would be to ask and I did so. I did not realize there was a big witch hunt for who I was. lol

nuf said.
 
kinda sums it up:
 

Attachments

  • RM8CyHj.jpg
    RM8CyHj.jpg
    98.5 KB · Views: 54
Why the heavy guarding of Agent's identety? This some what proves my point. I respect that he can keep his identity a secret but I do not think it means I can't ask or point it out, especially in this day and age where it is highly posable that such a poster's activities here could be those of one who is paid to do so. I think agent has posted enough to be suspicious of this type of activity.

I asked, he refused to say who he/she is, and thats that.

If I was called out here wouldn't that be breaking the forum rules about anonymity? And you seem gloat about that over on your side yet over on agents side your crying foul. Wow! Blatant double standards or what. Thanks for that presentation of character.lol

The only ethical means for me on this forum, to see who agent is would be to ask and I did so. I did not realize there was a big witch hunt for who I was. lol

nuf said.

No blatant double standards, what happened to you unfortunately should not have taken place. Just because it happened to you doesn't mean it has to happen to others. NO ONE regardless of their position on issues needs to reveal their identify on this type of forum - period! If people are rank and file citizen's or world class, highly paid activists - it doesn't matter. They do not need to identify themselves on this type of forum.

There is no heavy guarding any more of AA's identify then anyone else's identify, AA is just following the structure of this forum. However, it is people repeatedly asking that AA reveal his/her identify as to someone justify or disqualify what AA says, or better allow AA to be open to personal attacks is what is wrong here. My advice is follow the format of this forum and let AA's identify go and move on to avoid being seen as petty, obsessive, whining and infantile.
 
I will add that another reason I think anonymity on a forum works well (if it hasn't already been mentioned) is that people with in-depth, insider information on a particular issue are more willing to share this important info knowing their anonymity is protected. It's why they have 'whistle-blower' laws. I know there are forum members here that work within gov't, salmon farming industry, commercial fishing, rec fishing, scientific bodies, etc who have access to incredible information that we ALL benefit from reading here on this forum. If everyone was forced to say who they work for I'm sure much of this information source would dry up quickly and make for a less fruitful discussion / debate.
 
As I have said numerous times, over numerous years, and numerous threads:

What we need are scientifically-defensible siting criteria; an open, transparent and public environmental assessment process; and open, public fish health reporting.

That way we can perform risk-adverse strategies, gauge cost/benefit scenarios, and mitigate potential and realized impacts. We are not so stuck with he said - she said that way. We have some actual tools at our disposal.

I really don't think anyone - in either so-called pro- nor anti- camps can realistically argue against these requirements.

While we are having this discussion and refining these consultation processes - we need to protect the most vulnerable stages (e.g. juvies) of adjacent wild salmon stocks.

Areas that have high numbers of open net-pens AND high numbers of outmigrating smolts (e.g. Discovery Islands and Broughtons) - are the worst locations for placement of open net-caghe technology wrt disease and parasite transfer to the juvies.

Risk is an assessment of likelihood TIMES consequence.

More interactions MEANS higher likelihood.

More likelihood MEANS higher risk.

Get them off of major smolt migrations like the Fraser - and we can argue about the rest.

And out of anything that's what we the BC residents want fair scientific research away from government and industry. .Hearings where we actually do something instead of listening to recommendations. I truthfully think there should be a referendum in the province on fish farming once and for all. The salmon is icon to people of BC..So many people depend it as a resource...And we also need to encourage and give incentives to the farmers to transition to land based farming.... So they can prepare...I am pretty sure the North Island project is put there for that reason...

I honestly can see the flip side here Dave/Bird nest stand to lose if the farms are shut down.

Back to post...Keep the money save it and start looking at ways to put operations on land..Work on together within the associations... Think of how much respect your company will get at end of day if you make transition without being forced to... My feeling land base farming is coming writing is on the wall....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And out of anything that's what we the BC residents want fair scientific research away from government and industry. .Hearings where we actually do something instead of listening to recommendations. I truthfully think there should be a referendum in the province on fish farming once and for all. The salmon is icon to people of BC..So many people depend it as a resource...And we also need to encourage and give incentives to the farmers to transition to land based farming.... So they can prepare...I am pretty sure the North Island project is put there for that reason...

I honestly can see the flip side here Dave/Bird nest stand to lose if the farms are shut down.

Back to post...Keep the money save it and start looking at ways to put operations on land..Work on together within the associations... Think of how much respect your company will get at end of day if you make transition without being forced to... My feeling land base farming is coming writing is on the wall....

X2 I agree with you!
 
I will add that another reason I think anonymity on a forum works well (if it hasn't already been mentioned) is that people with in-depth, insider information on a particular issue are more willing to share this important info knowing their anonymity is protected. It's why they have 'whistle-blower' laws. I know there are forum members here that work within gov't, salmon farming industry, commercial fishing, rec fishing, scientific bodies, etc who have access to incredible information that we ALL benefit from reading here on this forum. If everyone was forced to say who they work for I'm sure much of this information source would dry up quickly and make for a less fruitful discussion / debate.

x 2 Excellent point!
 
Why, I wonder, doesn't Morton attempt to get Washington State Atlantic salmon farmers involved in 'innovative aquaculture developments' ??
Why does she ignore American salmon farms but continually talk about perceived problems in BC, Norway, Ireland, Scotland, Chile, Nova Scotia, (but never Maine) etc, etc ? I have my ideas on that but would like to read your thoughts.
Certainly I would have no idea.

However - if I were to guess - I would consider:

1/ She lives in Canada (BC) and NOT Washington State,
2/ As impossible as it is to have real input into aquaculture regulation and monitoring in Canada - I would imagine it would be even less productive as a person in Canada trying to effect laws in the States,
3/ I agree that closed containment should be supported. However your question as far as "production" goes - is a fish-farming production issue - not a monitoring one.

AND

4/ As BN has admitted - there are numerous voices across this country and world-wide that are saying similar - if not identical - things wrt potential and realized impacts and monitoring. Why are you focusing on one so-called 'activist"? Why are you not instead asking this question of the producers in Washington State?
 
http://asf.ca/norwegian-rivers-inundated-with-escapee-rainbow-trout.html
Norwegian Rivers Inundated with Escapee Rainbow Trout
eCanadaNow

Staff · Feb 6th, 2015

Is Norwegian current aquaculture crisis, sneak preview for BC fish farming industry?

One month ago, on January 10, 2015, the Norwegian coast was hit by a hurricane. After the storm, the first sport fishermen in the fjords near the west coast city of Bergen got a nasty surprise. Schools of farmed steelhead (sea run rainbow trout) escaped from damaged fish farms were visible from the surface. They were so numerous, NRK national news, reported the fjords of Western Norway were boiling with farmed rainbow trout on the run.

The sports fishermen immediately realized that these non-native steelhead were a potent threat to the few wild Atlantic salmon left in Norway. They could see many were ready to spawn and were determined to eliminate them before they could do incalculable damage by digging up river gravel where fragile wild Atlantic salmon eggs were incubating.

The irony is inescapable. The situation in BC and Norway are mirror images – British Columbians focused on protecting wild Pacific salmon from infected farmed Atlantic salmon, with Norwegians engaged in protecting wild Atlantic salmon from infected steelhead – a North American fish.

BC’s wild steelhead are much loved in British Columbia. People spend thousands of dollars to come here for the chance to fish steelhead. But in Norway, they are now hated escaped farmed fish.

Initial estimates of tens of thousands of escapees, escalated to over 120,000. The fishermen went very public. There were warnings not to eat the farm fish, that they contained de-lousing drugs. This rapidly became political, since Norway had just announced a zero-escape farm salmon policy.

It was then that an extraordinary thing happened. The Askøy Hunter & Fisherman’s Association, alarmed by the horribly sick appearance of the steelhead, sent samples to Dr. Are Nylund, a leading salmon disease scientist based at the University of Bergen. “All of the fish that I have analyzed were very sick,” reported Nylund to the Norwegian newspaper BA Bergensavisen. It was Nylund and his team who tracked the ISA virus from Norway into Chile where it caused $2 billion in damages killing millions of farmed salmon.

The Norwegian government, slow to respond to the massive escape, was very quick to discourage public disease testing, asking people to only use the “official” labs. A government spokesperson noted that just because the dreaded salmon pancreas disease, spreading through Norwegian salmon farms was detected in the escaped steelhead did not mean the fish were sick. However, she failed to capture the concern.

The issue was not whether the farm fish were sick, but could they infect the fragile wild salmon populations with viruses they carry. There are only about 500,000 wild Atlantic salmon left in Norway. This is less than half the fish often found in a single farm and .01% of the entire Norwegian farmed salmon population.

The salmon aquaculture industry was invented in the mid 1970’s by Norwegians, ten years before Norwegian companies came to BC to set up farms in the early 1980’s. In Norway, salmon farms are now considered a major cause of the loss of wild salmon.

On January 29, 2015, Ola Borten Moe, leader of the Centre Party, suggested it is time for Norway to waive the high cost of salmon farm licences (over $1 million CDN) for any salmon farm established on land. He suggested this would protect Norway’s environment, stimulate innovation, solve the industry’s escalating disease and lice problems and increase job opportuities across the country. This was quickly echoed by Norwegian Green Party representative Kristin Mørch, “Aquaculture is causing massive destruction and operates large-scale animal cruelty. Change can no longer be refused, restructure is going to push forward whether you want to or not… yes, to farming, but not at the expense of the environment and animal welfare.”

Norway is the cradle of the salmon farming industry, it was born there, the head offices are there. When Norwegian politicians declare it is time to move the industry into closed tanks, perhaps it really is time. BC First Nations, scientists, environmentalists, fishermen hold the same point of view. No one wants farmed salmon to push wild salmon off our plates.

In an open letter Norwegian sportfishermen have asked their Minister of Fisheries to resign.

Alexandra Morton
Independent Biologist based in Sointula, BC

http://www.ecanadanow.com/science/2...s-sneak-preview-for-bc-fish-farming-industry/
- See more at: http://asf.ca/norwegian-rivers-inundated-with-escapee-rainbow-trout.html#sthash.X6jAwZTI.dpuf
 
Call the contacts listed and let them know what you think:

http://www.marketwired.com/press-re...ss-planning-encourage-investments-1992062.htm

February 16, 2015 15:00 ET

New Aquaculture Licensing in British Columbia to Improve Business Planning and Encourage Investments in Sustainable Practices

Multi-Year Licensing Will Allow for More Operational Certainty for B.C.'s Aquaculture Industry

OTTAWA, ONTARIO--(Marketwired - Feb. 16, 2015) - The Honourable? Gail Shea, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, announced today that the Department will be implementing multi-year licensing for aquaculture operators in British Columbia.

The changes will provide the industry with more operational certainty and longer term planning capacity while allowing them to invest in sustainable practices.

Aquaculture owners and operators will still have to meet their licence conditions throughout the period for which their multi-year licence is issued. Should they contravene these conditions, Fisheries and Oceans Canada has the authority to suspend or revoke the licence.

The Government of Canada continues to engage with First Nations, industry, provincial authorities, and environmental organizations on the duration of multi-year licensing for implementation in Spring 2015.

Quick Facts
•As the result of a British Columbia Supreme Court decision, Fisheries and Oceans Canada became responsible for the regulatory control of aquaculture in British Columbia in December 2010.

•As the regulator, and building on its targeted regulatory reform agenda for aquaculture, Fisheries and Oceans Canada is aligning its approach to licensing with multi-year licensing practices already in place in most provincial jurisdictions.

•Under the Fisheries Act, multi-year licences may be issued for up to 9 years.

•The Department is maintaining its moratorium on aquaculture development in the Discovery Islands and therefore multi-year licences will not be available for this area.

Quote

"Implementing multi-year licences with annual fees by instalment will increase operational certainty and stability for aquaculture operators in British Columbia by improving their investment and insurance opportunities. Our Government is proud to take further steps to enable the aquaculture industry to thrive and create much needed jobs in rural, coastal and Aboriginal communities, while being sustainable and environmentally responsible."

The Honourable Gail Shea, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

Associated Links

- Management and Regulations for Aquaculture

Internet: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Follow us on Twitter! www.Twitter.com/DFO_MPO

Contact Information

Frank Stanek
Media Relations
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
613-990-7537

Sophie Doucet
Director of Communications
Office of the Minister
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
613-992-3474
 
http://www.undercurrentnews.com/201...onfirm-sea-lice-as-key-driver-in-2015-supply/

Norway salmon farmers’ Q4s confirm sea lice as key driver in 2015 supply
salmonfarmwinterASC

March 2, 2015, 9:34 am
Neil Ramsden
Salmon supply – and so prices, margins and capital expenditure capabilities – boil down to the biological management of Norway's farmers in 2015.

This time last year, at the North Atlantic Seafood Forum in Bergen, Norway, CEOs pointed to sea lice as the single biggest issue facing the salmon farming industry, and that has been borne out through 2014.

A year on, speaking at Marel's salmon ShowHow in Copenhagen, February 2015, Rabobank analyst Gorjan Nikolik suggested sea lice management will continue to define the global salmon picture this year.

It will dictate supply growth, which in turn will dictate prices; presently a supply growth of 3.7% is expected for 2015, just behind demand, he said.

After a year of strong growth in Chilean salmon supplies – an estimated 24%, three or four times greater than analysts predicted – it is Norway that is back in control when it comes to supply growth in 2015, with Chile once more constrained by its own biological situation.

Still, in Norway, capacity growth is hard to come by. Maximizing existing MAB (maximum allowed biomass) levels will involve managing all sanitary conditions, including pancreas disease (PD) and amoebic gill disease (AGD), which affect feeding and so lower harvest weights.

Currently the main factor in possibly growing salmon volumes in Norway is the awarding of 'green licenses' – which, by definition, will depend on the farms' ability to control sanitary conditions.

A second option on the table is the chance to buy a 5% expansion to any existing license but, like the green license, this comes with strict biological criteria: at a cost of NOK 1.5 million for the expansion, the farmer must also keep sea lice levels at under 0.1 lice per fish.

Early in 2015 Marius Gaard, author of Mysalmon.no, analyzed sea lice levels over 2014 in Norway. Data show average sea lice levels in 2014, measured by adult female sea lice per salmon, was just over 0.2.sea lice norway historical

In 2013 a low level of 0.15 was achieved, while 2010 and 2011 were tough years, at over 0.3. This shows that maintaining a level of below 0.1 sea lice per fish is likely to be tricky, especially in the south of Norway where sea temperatures tend to be warmer.

His recent article for Undercurrent News shows the sea lice number breakdown in greater detail, by region.

$40m on combating sea lice

The fourth quarter results of Norway's salmon farmers have shown that sea lice and sanitary conditions were, and are, a chief concern when it comes to supply.

At the NASF a year ago, Marine Harvest CEO Alf Helge Aarskog joked, “whoever solves sea lice, come and see me, because we need help”. In its Q4 report it noted higher sea levels in western Norway, Scotland and Chile than a year previously.

It also detailed what it spent on sea lice mitigation, as a group, in 2014. This was NOK 53m in Q1, NOK 80m in Q2, NOK 74m in Q3 and NOK 96m in Q4, for a year total of NOK 303m, or $40m.

“The future biological development in Norway is to a large extent in the hands of the politicians,” the company said in its Q4 report. “A modest and sustainable increase in capacity going forward is a prerequisite for improving control of issues such as sea lice, pancreas disease and amoebic gill disease.”

"The cost of medication per kg harvested was 70% higher in the fourth quarter of 2014 than in the corresponding period in 2013"
Extensive stocking of cleaner fish (wrasse) has been carried out in Norway by the farmer, and it continues to test non-medicinal tools and approaches in collaboration between its Global R&D and Technical and the operating units in Chile, Norway and Scotland.

Overall Marine Harvest saw an operational ebit margin (earnings before interest and taxes) of NOK 9.2 per kg. It noted NOK 199m total in exceptional items relating to sea lice mitigation and extraordinary mortality.

“As in previous periods, sea lice mitigation costs have been high for the harvested generation. The higher sea temperatures have resulted in a challenging sea lice situation (more treatments and significant treatment losses),” the firm said of its Norwegian operations.

“The cost of medication per kg harvested was 70% higher in the fourth quarter of 2014 than in the corresponding period in 2013, while the estimated exceptional cost related to sea lice mitigation amounted to NOK 117m (versus NOK 62m ). Quarterly and year to date exceptional sea lice mitigation costs were NOK 1.67 and NOK 1.38 per kg harvested respectively (NOK 0.90 and NOK 0.70 respectively).”

All in the same pest-ridden boat

Most of Norway's largest salmon farmers reported similar stories in their Q4s.

Salmar reported “a challenging situation with respect to salmon lice and PD” in its central Norway region, though did add it had the situation under control in the fourth quarter.

“More frequent delousing of fish held at sea accumulates the salmon lice cost per kg, and this is expected to affect the overall cost picture in 2015,” it further added.

With an overall ebit per kg of NOK 12.21, its Rauma segment’s biological situation was especially difficult, with costs of delousing rising. PD too contributed to an ebit per kg of NOK 8.74 in this region.

Salmar is planning an open-ocean fish farming facility, which it hopes will be “highly escape-proof, and its design – along with its positioning in more exposed offshore locations – will lead to reduced levels of disease and salmon lice”.

Norway Royal Salmon noted its production cost for fish harvested in Q4 was NOK 4.86 per kg lower than in the third quarter. Despite this, it said, the production cost was still high as a result of costs associated with AGD and PD.

“Region South experienced good growth in the quarter. The fish health situation in the region is still demanding.” Its overall ebit per kg in Q4 was NOK 11.4.

NRS recently heard its subsidiary Nord Senja Laks had been indicted by the Norwegian government, over misreporting of sea lice numbers. As a result the government has reserved the right to take away the 'green licenses' awarded it in 2014.

The company is forecasting an increase in harvest of 43% for 2015, to 32,000t, driven by the awards of new green licenses. However, analysts with Nordea believe the firm holds the potential of becoming a 55,000t salmon farmer following the final nomination of the nine green licenses, combined with a 5% growth scenario in Finnmark.

Grieg's Q4 costs were up as a result of lice treatment, and mortality due to gill disease in Shetland, as well as fish that had been affected by PD in Norway's Rogaland region. Its ebit per kg came to NOK 8.8.

Compare all of these ebit per kg numbers to Faroe Islands-based Bakkafrost, which did not mention sea lice in its Q4 except to say its new wellboat (coming June 2015) would enable it to use freshwater treatment to fight the pests.

It achieved ebit per kg in Q4 of DKK 14.34 (NOK 16.4) – down from the previous quarter. The Faroes have tended not to suffer from sea lice as badly as Norway, either through a less intense stocking density or less propensity to have lice in the first place, with colder sea temperatures.
 

Attachments

  • marius3.jpg
    marius3.jpg
    28 KB · Views: 62
http://www.southcoasttoday.ca/content/opinion-super-chilled-salmon-no-surprise
Opinion: Super chilled salmon no surprise
March 4, 2015 - 17:14 — Timothy Gillespie

None of this is even remotely rocket science
When you put fish in an ocean pen , you really roll the dice with them ….
Quelle surprise!
Fish farms on the south shore of Nova Scotia are reporting super chill conditions. Massive salmon and trout mortality is the result inevitably. Now there’s a surprise and a shocker.
I thought that while the rest of us have been suffering mightily from these frigid conditions, those ‘ farm raised ’ fish desperately compacted in the pens were somewhat safe in a manner of speaking.
Sadly mistaken
I guess I was sadly mistaken. After the weather of the last 39 days, we are seeing ice and freeze up in coastal communities that have not seen it for years. The water temperature in our lobster facility is the lowest it has been in over a decade. Perhaps even the feedlot crowd will finally have to face up to a rather sobering reality...
…. The world is changing before our very eyes , business models must change with it …..
And one more little tidbit...
… Mother Nature and Climate Change – they are a heck of a powerful combination when they set their minds to it …
Calamities prdictable
Sad to say, none of this was necessary. The current calamities in coastal feedlots were perfectly predictable. The open net pen operational model is desperate and primitive: put as many fish as tightly compacted in an ocean pen as you possibly can, feed the daylights out of them for 16 months or more, and hope it all turns out happily in the end.
More often than not, from this moment forward, it will turn out badly for the captive fish, and not particularly well for their owners either …..
Threats blatanly apparent
Beyond the pollution of coastal waters and the damage to the environment, the threats to wild fisheries, and the unknown impacts of pesticide use, it is blatantly apparent that the model known as open net pen does not work well in the coastal waters of Atlantic Canada for reasons that just plain obvious. The primary risks are four fold :
1) 8-10 storms per year now which are nothing short of spectacular in a bad way, and threaten pens and all other coastal installments. “ Half a hurricane ” is the way a friend describes them;
2) unpredictable water temperatures – ranging from a low of -5C to as high of + 25C, substantial stressors on the live fish inventory much of the time;
3) ammonia build up in the cages (excrement primarily) which impacts live fish and other species in a range of negative ways, and
4) lack of oxygen in the pens, either from massive freeze up conditions in the winter, or warm , warm water in late August and September. All live species need ample oxygen, remember…
One simple reality
The risks taken together result in one simple reality: you cannot control a coastal environment in a fashion that is beneficial to salmon and trout when those fish are simply placed in a pen in the water. Someone or something may be in charge of the situation, but it surely is NOT the salmon farmers despite what they might like to claim publicly.
Massive and impressive lobster infrastructure
I always figured we in the lobster sector were slow learners. But as an industry we moved our inventory on land nearly forty years ago. We have an infrastructure throughout Atlantic Canada today that is both massive and impressive: lobster storage facilities in which we can carefully control water temperature, ammonia content, oxygen levels, and salinity. We practise on land closed containment that the feedlot farmers won’t even consider generally...
We are far from perfect as a sector, but we have largely removed the risk which inevitably flows from keeping our inventory in the ocean without basic environmental protections. We understand that our inventory can only be as healthy as our storage situation allows it to be. We recognize we can carefully monitor and control an on land facility for the betterment of our live lobster and ultimately the benefit of our customers and shareholders.
Not rocket science
None of this - dare I say it – is even remotely rocket science. And none of this - dare I admit it - is extraordinarily expensive. It simply is, everyone would agree pretty much: just basic good business .
Could we finally arrange an on land water treatment tutorial for fish farmers so they can share in this long-established wisdom? They have, somewhat ironically given their normal inclination, more to gain from change than anyone...
Stewart Lamont
Managing Director
Tangier Lobster Company .
 
This is why we need disease info:
<iframe width="854" height="510" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lGPoBkw4umE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Back
Top