Fish Farm Legislation ???

[Bassblaster]

"And yes, profit is not a bad word."
Profit at any cost to the Enviroment or to the Public certainly is!
Any industry that puts profit before anything else needs to be regulated to death!!!!!!!!

Not a proponent of fish farms by any means, but realistically Labman2 you would have to take humanity back to before there was fire to actually get to a point where how we live wouldn't have an effect on the environment. Unless you are ready to start wearing fallen leaves (you can't pick them without effecting the environment) and living in natural caves again (Can't make a cave or a shelter without effecting the environment), profit or no profit no longer comes into the equation. Just being human in todays world is enough to damage the planet. Our job is to minimize the damage we do and hope the planet can repair itself faster than we are wrecking it.

 

[Labman2]

Now your comparing existing instead of your previous post about it all being about making a profit.
So is it about the Enviroment or is it the PROFIT?
You seem to contradict yourself on this issue.

 

[sockeyefry2]

No Lab, he is simply suggesting that in all activities there is some environmental effect. The key is being able to lessen that risk while still allowing the activity.

The idea of putting the farms on shore which seems to be a logical solution may actually create a much larger environmental effect.

Some Anti farm factions have figured out that by forcing the farms on shore, a position easily sold to the general public, that they can realise their ultimate goal which is the demise of the industry.

I would suggest that this is the wrong approach, and that a more middle of the road solution can be found. Simply put, use the on shore farms to reduce the length of time the salmon spend in netpen farms. This way the wild salmon can be protected, and the industry gets to survive. I think it is called a win win?

 

[tincan]

I agree that profit is not a bad word. I also agree that there is a lot of money in sustainable industries that are currently under-funded by gov't b/c of political reasons. Just b/c we don't have a definitive answer on every scientific and environmental issue related to the fish farms doesn't mean that we should continue to allow them to operate as is. We know enough about this industry at this point to know that at best it is detrimental to our environment to some degree and catastrophic at worst. I don't understand why we need to wait until we have a 100% consensus that it's a dire situation before we act. Need to be proactive on these issues.

 

[sockeyefry2]

Yes Tincan that is correct however, we allow a lot of industries to flourish which have far greater environmental consequences than fish farms. Problem here is that there is alot of emotion added to the debate. This tends to inflate the consequences and value of the industry, as each side tries to make the general public accept there version of the truth.

I just don't think that it has to be an all or nothing when the tech exists to mitigate the effect of the farms down to an acceptable level for all.

A FW hatchery would produce fish from egg to a smolt size of say 80g this would take about a year. Normally these smolt would then be put directly into a net pen where they would stay for 16 - 22 months to reach a market size of 5 kgs depending on the site. What I would suggest is put the 80g smolt into an on land tank farm and grow them until they are 1 - 1.5 kgs. This would take approximately 8 months. You can get a fish from 80g to 1500g in a much shorter time in a recirc than the net pen due to optimal growing environment in the tanks. However once you try to raise the salmon larger than 1.5 kgs, the costs in a land based facility really go up, mainly due to the required tank volume and the cost of pumping all that water. The 1 - 1.5 kg fish would then be put into a netpen to finish growing to harvestable size. This would take an additional 6 - 8 months.

So the good things about the plan is that the time to produce a harvestable fish can be reduced from 16 - 22 months to 14 - 16 months. In addition, the net pens would only be occupied for 6 - 8 months each year. This will allow a 4 - 6 month window during which any natural cycle such as lice or disease is broken. It will also allow sites identified to be on migratory corridors to be empty when the out migrating wild smolt go by, without hurting the production of the farm.

The down side is the increased cost of building and operating the recirc land tank farm. This cost however of a full smolt to harvest land based tank farm would be much greater.

I believe that this represents the compromise position. It allows the farms to operate albeit with increased costs that may or may not be balanced by cost savings created by shortened production times. It allows the production to be easily managed around the wild salmon migratory requirements, and it allows for fallow periods each year which will break natural cycles of disease and allow for the sites to clean.

I think it is high time that the industry recognize that the old methods are unacceptable in BC due to social and environmental reasons whether perceived or real and they should be proactive in adopting this production cycle.

 

[cuttlefish]

Thanks Sockeyefry2,
Your solution is worth considering. I'm not saying I support it because I have some questions. I hope you can answer them and I'll try to keep an open mind.
1. 80g smolt. Do you propose to keep these fish in freshwater or brackish water as they grow to 1.5kg? Whay about smoltification?
2. Are you proposing to empty all farms on migration routes (which in my opinion is virtually everywhere in BC marine waters) at the same time? If so, how would this affect year round farm product deliveries?

I agree that it is high time industry recognize that old methods are unacceptable but I don't trust they will make changes voluntarily.

I would add that it is beyond high time government also recognizes that fact. I suggest adding stronger regulations to net pen operations in conjunction with your plan.
1. Significantly reduce the lice thresholds allowed on fish in ocean net pens. This should not be a problem for farmers if they do not enter their fish until late Oct. or Nov. after the wild fish in-migrate and harvest by end of March before the wild smolts out-migrate.
2. Reduce the allowable free sulphide levels under and around net pens. This should also not be a problem for farmers if they are producing less waste during a shortened production cycle.
3. Add a hefty tax on feed used in net pens but not on feed used in closed tanks to recognize the effort made to properly contain and dispose of the waste. This would be an incentive to use less feed in the ocean, and the money collected could be applied to R&D to improve re-circ system technology with an eye to moving there 100% in the future.

Please accept these final comments on some of your earlier posts. They are meant to improve the level of dialogue.
1. It is not helpful for you or others to comment on people's intentions especially if you are just speculating. Please refrain from this speculation in the future.
2. A suggestion that a transition to closed containment should be postponed because it is uncertain whether the environmental effects might be more dire than current open net pen practices speaks to the precautionary principle. That is commendable but does not seem to be equally applied to the introduction or continued use of net pens to BC. This appears to me to be a contradiction.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to think this through and offer an alternative. I hope you can answer my questions and look forward to your comments on my suggestions for increased government involvement.

 

[sockeyefry2]

Hey Cuttle

There is no need for brackish or saltwater to rear the fish to 1.5 kgs. I say this because there are currently in Canada recirc farms which poduce broodstock fish (in excess of 10 kgs) entirely in FW from smolt of 80g. One is down near Duncan operated by MH.

Once a fish exceeds 250g smoltification before transfer to SW netpens is less of a concern. The fish will naturally "smoltify" once they are in the SW.

Regarding the migratory routes, I was thinking that a prioirity list could be developed allowing some sites in less important areas to have fish to allow for year round marketing of fresh product. By Less important I mean areas with reduced impacts.

I can't disagree with your 1,2,3 addititons. What you suggest are advantages of the reduced time the fish spend in net pens, which of course lessens the impact on the environment.

The industry should welcome increased transparency and regulation as a cost of doing business. It is time the industry thought of innovative ways instead of using the same old technology. They invest a significant amount of $$$ and time trying to modify the natural ocean conditons to suit the fish in the pens. By this I mean the use of large compressor, lighting systems etc... One problem is the "that's the way we've always done it" syndrome. Majority of people farming today in BC only know how to do the staus quo in net pens. There exists a very small group of people with sufficient experience in Recirc to operate the land based farms.

Cuttle, your comments are very well thought out. This is an example of the kind of dialogue that must happen if we are to maintain both a viable aquaculture industry and a wild salmon population.