Global Salmon Initiative....

http://www.theguardian.com/sustaina...tion-certification-fishing-ecological-impacts

http://www.globalsalmoninitiative.o...is-vitae-tortor-donec-posuere-vulputate-arcu/

This seems like some green washing to me but what's the deal?

Clayoquot Kid, you must have the scoop on this. Marine Harvest is on the list and you are the sustainability officer.

What exactly does this mean?


I work for Mainstream (Cermaq), not Marine Harvest.

Being "committed to fully realizing a shared goal of providing a highly sustainable source of healthy food to feed a growing global population, whilst minimizing our environmental footprint, and continuing to improve our social contribution", is not "green washing" - it is actually working towards doing things better.

I'm sure there will be plenty of haters jumping in here and barking about this and that, but whether you like it or not, this is something that many people are working very hard towards.

Actually, for the last 3 years my company has been rated number 1 in Sustainability Reporting.

"For the third year in a row Cermaq has been ranked by Seafood Intelligence to have the most comprehensive, relevant and frequent sustainability report within the aquaculture sector."

http://www.thefishsite.com/fishnews/21022/cermaqs-sustainability-report-number-one-for-third-year
 
I work for Mainstream (Cermaq), not Marine Harvest.

Being "committed to fully realizing a shared goal of providing a highly sustainable source of healthy food to feed a growing global population, whilst minimizing our environmental footprint, and continuing to improve our social contribution", is not "green washing" - it is actually working towards doing things better.

I'm sure there will be plenty of haters jumping in here and barking about this and that, but whether you like it or not, this is something that many people are working very hard towards.

Actually, for the last 3 years my company has been rated number 1 in Sustainability Reporting.

"For the third year in a row Cermaq has been ranked by Seafood Intelligence to have the most comprehensive, relevant and frequent sustainability report within the aquaculture sector."

http://www.thefishsite.com/fishnews/21022/cermaqs-sustainability-report-number-one-for-third-year

Sorry CK, my bad for mixing up the companies. So, Cermaq is on the list too....so what exactly does this mean as far as change goes? I realize that for the survival/prosper of the industry that you guys are most certainly putting a lot of time and resources into improving things. So, what exactly does this mean? What are the full criteria for the certification? Is this possible across all areas?

What are some examples of improvements? I assume that this includes transparency around disease and eliminating desease and lice infestations without the use of heavy chemicals. I AM interested in how the industry will pull this off. You may assume that I am being cynical here, but I am an open minded person and would certainly like to know how this industry is planning to change the environmental issues that I see as an industry killer if not changed.
 
Sorry CK, my bad for mixing up the companies. So, Cermaq is on the list too....so what exactly does this mean as far as change goes? I realize that for the survival/prosper of the industry that you guys are most certainly putting a lot of time and resources into improving things. So, what exactly does this mean? What are the full criteria for the certification? Is this possible across all areas?

What are some examples of improvements? I assume that this includes transparency around disease and eliminating desease and lice infestations without the use of heavy chemicals. I AM interested in how the industry will pull this off. You may assume that I am being cynical here, but I am an open minded person and would certainly like to know how this industry is planning to change the environmental issues that I see as an industry killer if not changed.

Transparency is what we are doing with all of our reporting - for the last 3 years we have been the most transparent and provided the highest level of info to gauge our sustainability.

Our sustainability is gauged on how well we use the resources needed to operate, how small - or continually reduced - our environmental imapact is, and how much benefit we are able to provide socially.

Basically if we are able to use less of everything (feed, fuel, antibiotics etc.) we will be better able to reduce our impacts environmentally and provide the highest level of benefit to people.

Chemicals cost money, sick fish lose money and inefficient practices raise overhead - therefore we try to reduce all of those things in order to provide the most benefit to people, which also means there is less of everything introduced into the environment and wild fish don't encounter sick farmed ones.

Sustainability in a nutshell.
 
I'm all for "improved" operations for any industry.

However, I don't see where this WWF-led ASC certification has improved our knowledge of: fish health, disease transfer, open and public reporting procedures on a site-by-site basis, modelling plume effects, identifying and protecting adult and smolt migratory patterns and nearshore holding and rearing areas, understanding epidemology of newly emerging diseases that are transmiited to/from wild stocks, or facilitating closed containment transition.

Maybe it's too soon to judge, but so far - it appears to be a marketing exercise - designed to increase market access and increase farmgate price.
 
CK, I know all about sustainability and a triple bottom line philosophy and use this for both my own business and personal life.

Aquaculture interests me because I feel that it actually can be done in a sustainable way. When I say this, I am including commercial and recreational/food fishing along with hatchery production, habitat protection and enhancement, which I personally(take it for what you will) think is the only way for sustainable aquaculture to exist on a large scale, long term.

The way I see it, is that there is a spectrum ranging from one end having completely natural systems being harvested with no enhancement(herring roe fishery would be an example) to the opposite end where you have completely artificial and closed systems such as open net pens(and closed containment for that matter). I see neither of these extreme ends of the spectrum being sustainable in the long term with the ever increasing demand for quality protein. It's pretty obvious why an industry that kills the unborn future generations to be sold as a delicacy across the world is unsustainable. I also feel that an unnatural system like the net pen salmon aquaculture is unsustainable because of the incredible amount of resources that it requires and are subsidized by nature in so many ways(waste removal, free rent, and most of all the amount of food that it takes to produce them(the other 70% of the herring from the roe fishery once the eggs are removed). The disease and health issues caused by having so many fish in such tight quarters just seems like the biggest barriers though. I can't even imagine how much you guys spend on dealing with the health issues. And without the currents that are free from the ocean....the problems would be incredible. Closed containment doesn't solve that problem and as you have pointed out is cost prohibitive.

I feel the only long term sustainable way for aquaculture to exist in the long term, is by finding the right balance in the middle. The natural systems are incredible and can support so much if only they were enhanced instead of abused. And enhancing one species isn't going to do it. It is all connected through the entire food web and all of the habitat that is required to support such a web. Salmon are only one piece of the whole puzzle, but certainly a key(stone) part.

The open pen aquaculture seems to love to bash the Alaskan salmon ranching method so much, but to me this is a MUCH more sustainable end of the spectrum to be than the way that you guys do it. Ranching may not be the perfect solution but it does fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum and I see as being far more sustainable than the way that your industry does it or DFO's approach of commercial harvest while trying to cut costs by shutting down hatcheries. CK, I would love to hear your explanation of how you could see your industry as being more sustainable that the ranching method.

IMO, the most sustainable balance for long term aquaculture lies a bit further towards the natural state, but with a great amount of habitat enhancement(including artificial breeding grounds(hatcheries)). This must be applied to all areas though; enhancing the entire food web or it all crumbles(as we are clearly seeing around the world).

So, I can clearly see that your industry is trying to be MORE sustainable for it’s pure survival as a ‘species at risk’ so to speak, but that does not mean that it IS sustainable. I simply don’t see how it is possible. Please enlighten or deflect, take your choice.

How will you solve the issues of:

1. Disease within your population along with transfer both to and from fish outside the net? How are you going to reduce antibiotics?
2. Lice infestations?
3. Raping the worlds oceans to feed them?
4. The high toxicity found in your product as a result of bioaccumulation from the highly concentrated fish oil that goes into the fish?
5. Waste(land) below farms?

That’s amazing to hear that there is open transparency. Where can most information be found by a guy like me?

There is one question that you have avoided a few times when I have asked….and that is: is the recent raising and releasing of the fish that were raised at the Omega Pacific Hatchery that your company is clearly involved with any indication of what we can expect from your industry in the future? Is this a foreshadowing of things to come? I am not asking this because I think it is a bad direction, and from all I have said above, I would obviously think this is an industry step in the right direction.

I will close this rant with a little video, which I feel is far closer to a sustainable form of aquaculture that the current open net pen system that your industry currently uses.

I look forward to hearing how your are going to make your industry sustainable rather than just MORE sustainable.

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_barber_how_i_fell_in_love_with_a_fish.html

Respectfully,

Ap
 
Interesting to hear what The B.C. salmon Farmers have to say recently. Scroll to the second to last paragraph in this article; http://www.thefishsite.com/fishnews...e-to-address-challenges-create-sustainability.

The British Columbia Salmon Farmers Association also welcomed the announcement. “Our members are committed to being industry leaders and meeting the highest international standards,” said Executive Director Mary Ellen Walling. “This initiative recognises that there is no limit to how sustainable you can be. You don’t reach the highest level and stop; there is always room for improvement, always more you can learn. This collaboration will benefit the industry in BC and around the world.”

A bit of a different tune than what their umbrella organization was singing just over a year ago; http://www.aquaculture.ca/files/response-2012-03-28.php

As a matter of fact, didn't the BCSFA sit on the Salmon Aquaculture Dialogue Steering Committee and didn't they vote against the final standards?

Well, I guess this is progress...
 
Thought it was interesting that Walling responded with: they are "reviewing visitor, boat and plane traffic", while apparently they are NOT "reviewing" virus transfer and contamination to local wild stocks of salmon, herring and other species - the real transfer risk. I guess IF they ever did that and admitted it - they would then need to "review" how sustainable (or NOT) the open net-cage technology, and how impossible it is using this technology to keep wild and cultured stocks separated - WHICH IS THE REAL ISSUE!!!
 
You are entirely correct, High Five. It's NOT sustainable. Industry pundits will get on here and detail to you that the feed conversion ration is only 1.2:1 or better, and how that is better than warm-blooded cattle. Then you call them on their conversion rate, where dry feed is compared to wet gain and so gives an unrealistic conversion; and they tell you that you are wrong. You tell them on how much extra fish went into fishmeal and fish oil that goes into making fish feed, and they will tell you that petfood takes more. No matter what excuses they use - it takes ~4.5 lbs of forage fish to make 1lb of fish feed pellets. That means that it takes AT LEAST 4.5 lbs of wild forage fish to produce 1 lb of aquacultured salmon, and that for all intensive purposes - you loose 3&1/2 lbs of wild fish in that transformation. They will then come back and say nobody eats those forage fishes. They will also try to tell you that they are "taking the pressure off" of wild stocks by doing this.

At the end of the day - I can live with whatever arguments that the fish farmers wish to make - AS LONG AS we are NOT impacting wild stocks.

THAT is the problem with the open net-cage aquaculture.

You really don't understand what those impacts might be until it is too late.

Next argument used by the FF boosters is to try and shift the balance of proof onto the concerned public, rather than accepting that it is ALWAYS the responsibility of industry to prove that they aren't having any impacts.

This is where our conflicted and corrupt government comes-in - by "promoting", and regulating aquaculture - they have forgotten who they work for.

Welcome to the battle. Hope you have the patience of Jove, and the perseverance of Noah.
 
I think besides all that the bigger issue is why do it? You are taking out food for the wild species to feed on to feed another artificially.. Am I wrong are farmed fish raised on pellets ground up from wild bait fish? Are these not the same feed wild salmon and other mammals eat in the Eco-sytem? I might not understand the process please correct me if I am wrong... If that is the case how is this food sustainable?

To follow on from Agent's comments your point is exactly the problem with all finfish aquaculture where the fish being raised are carnivores. It does not matter if the fish are in closed containment or not, salmon feed lots are nothing but ecologically destructive conveyer belts for moving fish protein from the poor South and other parts of the world to feed the rich North.

These two papers are just a sample that documents the devastation caused by strip mining the oceans for forage fish.

The salmon we produce is eaten by the mouths of people in the USA and Europe, but the asshole is here in Latin America,’ Jean Carlos Cardenas of Ecoceanos told The Ecologist. ‘The true cost of the cheap salmon you eat is being paid with the blood of our people and the health of our oceans.’”
http://www.theecologist.org/trial_i..._devastating_coastal_communities_in_peru.html


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v405/n6790/abs/4051017a0.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top