Monday, 21 January 2019

Maggot Fish - Yum!

I hate to be the bearer of this news, but the feed we use to grow all the 'meat' type protein we eat in future may turn out to be maggots. Yes, those creepy crawlies that infest dead meat. They are now being made into fish feed - in greater quantities, because substitutes like soy have lower protein and higher environmental cost, particularly when rain forest is chopped down, Indigenous people are thrown off their land and soy is raised.

So, when maggots will get fed to farmed fish we will then be eating maggot fish - unless you don't eat farmed fish, and rely only on wild. Go take the Pledge here:

Fish farms will be the first to feed their fish maggots because the industry has fished the top ocean forage fish to collapse; 19 of 20 stocks are collapsing, badly managed or both, says The Sea Around Us document, the experts on the subject. On the other hand, a vegetarian fish like tilapia is a net gain in protein in the world, and likely won't ever need to eat maggots. Hmm.

You can find a link to the Sea Around Us report here: Norway is singled out for destroying the Jack Mackerel off Chile to the point where it can't be 'harvested' to feed protein to protein, and thus a net loss of protein on the planet.

Don't believe fish farms saying they are 'feeding humanity' and saving fish - that isn't really on when you check how much the fish costs, and how completely the industry has killed off those forage fish - I figured out that in BC, to bring in one crop of maggot fish, er farmed fish, the industry kills 5.76 billion of those ocean fish that should be fed to humans, not to produce luxury items for the First World.

Maggots. Yum.

Does cricket fish sound better? Krill fish does and butterfly fish, too. But what about crab fish or blow fly fish? In the fish farm case the fish eat the maggots, not the other way round, as in the putrification process of rendering flesh to, well, earth, and, well, other flesh, that flies away green backed in search of sex and making a whole lot more maggots.

Yes, I know that lots of farmed fish die and end up covered with as many maggots as will fill up their skin, as in a 'skinful', but let's go with the subject. The following article actually makes a case, not so appetizing a one, but, let's say: ethical case for eating maggot filled meat.


And here is a maggot farm: 'FARM maggot revolution.'

And it looks like they are using black flies, rather than the usual house fly or blow fly that makes its living off putting maggots in meat.

"Unlike house flies, black soldier flies don’t spread disease. (They live only a few days after hatching, and only their larvae feed.) They also look different, with longer bodies, and a narrow waist that gives them a wasp-like appearance."

The writer, Gloria Dickie goes on to say: "Right now, most protein produced to nourish livestock comes from soybeans and fishmeal. But the former is relatively low in protein and requires vast swaths of land to produce—which has caused massive deforestation, especially in the Amazon. Fishmeal, sourced from small, wild forage fish, like herring, Peruvian anchoveta, and menhaden, has a different problem: It’s a finite supply—and demand has already pushed stocks close to collapse."

Yes, as we have been saying.

What else is so great about black flies? They can be grown and harvested in two weeks or less. And, more importantly, they are raised on a diet of food waste. This is where the story gets interesting.

“One of the biggest challenges in rehabilitating the modern food system is figuring out how to move away from a linear farming system and create a circular structure,” explains Taylor [a maggot farmer]. “It takes a lot of effort to determine how to recycle nutrients, and black soldier flies could be the solution.”

 "Every one of his plastic bins starts with three grams of fly eggs, around 40,000 individuals, each smaller than the eye of a needle. In three to four days, those eggs will hatch into tiny, 2-millimeter larvae that, when fed on a steady diet of 75 pounds of food waste, will grow 8,000- to 10,000-fold over the next 10 days, to about three-quarters of an inch."

Well, that's pretty interesting. It means that the food waste that goes to a dump can actually be recycled into 'food' for livestock, fish and so on. When we eat the 'meat' that completes the circle and over time there is a massive reduction of 'garbage'. 100,000 maggots actually eat 3.5 tons of food a year. And of course, the farmers are making millions of maggots in that time.

For example, a 2 by 4 foot 'space' can produce 400 kilograms of maggots per year.

"The flies will lay up to 20 grams of eggs—just under a million individuals—per day in each cage, and when that brood reaches full size (up to 10,000 times larger) in their feeding bins just two weeks later, it will be the equivalent of one 440-pound live animal."

In the long run, this could be a good concept for the third world. It's cheap, and runs on waste. Once cooking the maggots to kill them, they get fed to a pond of fish, something that is common in the third world, where it is moist. Note that in the First World, the maggot feed is pre-consumption, as in from farms, factories, rather than kitchen scraps.

In Canada, the CBC news recently pointed out that 58% of food is wasted right now. If it were converted to maggots, we could sit around at night, tossing back a nutty hand of maggots and swilling it down with beer. Hmm. And cheer ourselves up noting that maggots are 50% protein.

Not surprisingly, maggots are picky eaters, preferring cookies and cupcakes and lots of frosting on them, just like us (first made yeasty and pre-fermented by lactobacillus). Maggots take much longer with eating fish and what they scrape off bones. But give them the residue of bakeries and they chow down so loud you can actually hear them hum in the 'farm.'

And you can actually feed them dead farmed fish that die in their millions. Remember that Scotland, Norway and Chile, actually lost more than 100 million fish to disease and, in the latter, an algal bloom in 2017.

Once we get past the yuckiness of eating maggots, the real issue now is cost. Soy is $400/ton while maggots are $2,500/ton but have a much higher protein content. At present, a ton of fish feed is $2,000 to $2,400 per ton (and rising), so maggots are much closer to being in farmed salmon than you might want, er, think.

And, you can be what you eat eats: in BC, that will mean BC maggots and maggot fish, so we will be maggot people. Well, maybe not, but Enterra's plant in BC is crazy for maggots. So, if you want, you could just order some maggots for snacks, or eat farmed maggot fish.

Fortunately in BC, there are lots of wild salmon that don't eat maggots. So if you don't want to eat maggot fish, just take the Pledge above to chow down only on wild salmon. And keep plugged into the news if the idea of eating maggots and maggot fish and maggot cow, and maggot chickens doesn't appeal to you. You can take the pledge to avoid them, too.


Insect farming in Scotland:

Thursday, 10 January 2019

Fish Farm Feed Spin - Maggot Fish

Article title: "Don't make fishmeal the fall-guy for algae"

What this article is really about is, in public, figuring out how to respin fish farm feed information from the fish farm industry: they don't think algae or maggot feed should be seen as more sustainable than the forage fish they have trashed for decades: Think of farmed salmon as maggot fish.

Let me run you through this article and the spin they are respinning

(One thing first: the reference to maggot fish is that companies are now using black fly maggots, and other fly maggots, as feed for farmed fish. Yum).

Quote: "The global annual supply of fish oil, at c.1 million tonnes or a little under, is not enough to meet the demand of the growing aquaculture industry"

A: the reason the supply cannot meet demand is that the fish farm industry has been trashing ocean forage fish for fish feed so long they are collapsing. According to the Sea Around Us of the top 20 forage fish species in the ocean, 19 are either collapsing, badly managed or both.  These are reduction fisheries, meaning they are used to feed fish farm fish, hogs and so on, rather than human beings.

Norway is singled out for destroying jack mackerel off Chile. See:

Quote: "IFFO acknowledges the importance of alternative ingredients for both fishmeal and fish oil in support of aquaculture, but within its “As Well As, Not Instead Of” approach to the presence of those other ingredients in the marketplace. The important thing to recognise is the need for a basket of ingredients for fish and animal feed in the future, and the requirement for those industries to work together and be supportive in achieving the goal of improved protein supply."

A: Sigh. The international body for feed is setting the agenda here, for example, the words: 'as well as, not instead of', all capitalized, so that the spin should be used by all in the sector, rather than individual components trumpeting their good points. Then the next eyebrow raising text is 'a basket of ingredients', this supports what has already been said in a homey expression where all businesses and consumers get along like Father Knows Best, that ancient tv show.

This is followed by the longstanding 'goal of improved protein supply.' No, fish farms don't improve protein supply for humans. instead they kill billions of fish to feed carnivores for the mouths of first world consumers, who are the only people who can afford them. The poor of the world can't afford farmed fish, and they can't eat the billions of fish fed to farmed fish, because fish farms have already killed them and diverted them from human consumption.

There is also the issue that the world has a net protein loss because protein is killed to feed to protein.

Quote: "Progress will be hindered where one sector attempts to advance its own product at the expense of another – and particularly where the information provided on that sector is inaccurate."

A: Progress? This is about making money, not about progress, say, for mankind. In business, the issue is: figuring out how to make a sale, and thus making as much money as you can. The consequences to other businesses are not your concern.

Quote: "Although inclusion rates have declined over time, as a response to global supply and natural fluctuations in raw material availability, fishmeal and fish oil remain essential nutrients in aquafeeds to meet the requirements of many farmed aquatic species."

A: As above, the industry has trashed the ocean fish and has no choice but to move on to other ingredients. Now, Asian nations are fishing down what ocean stocks remain for their own aquaculture operations, mainly shrimp.

Quote. This one is just recapitulated mush: "Although inclusion rates have declined over time, as a response to global supply and natural fluctuations in raw material availability, fishmeal and fish oil remain essential nutrients in aquafeeds to meet the requirements of many farmed aquatic species. The other aquafeed ingredients currently incorporated or planned for incorporation in the future, should be complementary to the marine ingredients that are the foundation for modern fed aquaculture systems."

A: see the answers immediately above.

Quote: "Overall, such a complementary approach supports the need for additional protein supply for humanity, provided by aquatic systems with all the environmental benefits that come from fish production when compared with terrestrial farming systems, such as improved feed conversion ratios and protein utilisation efficiencies."

A: So, the fallacious claim of  feeding humanity is still on the plate 50 years after it was dreamed up. And a swipe at on land farming is made, including an apples and oranges comparison of, say, hay, for billions of dead fish. Not the same thing.

They are still claiming improved feed conversion ratios (amount of protein to make protein) even though the declining percentage of forage fish is because fish farms have fished them into drastic decline, not because they have seen the light. So, claiming efficiencies is simply false because they have destroyed ocean forage fish to the point they have no alternative, but to start using alternate sources for fish feed.

Quote: "Papers such as that produced by Sprague et al, 2016[1] highlight that fish oil, and the provision of omega-3 fatty acids in particular, may be the ingredient at the forefront of a restriction to the supply of aquafeed ingredient requirements. It is therefore no surprise that companies focus on alternatives to produce these much-needed compounds in an attempt to augment the annual supply that is already produced by the fishmeal industry."

A: Okay, we are getting to the meat, er, algae of the matter. Again the 'restriction to the supply' is polite words for saying fish farms have trashed the global forage fish stocks to the point where they need Omega-3s from other sources.

Go read the Sea Around Us document noted above to the research on who destroyed what. And the most recent research is pointing out that Omega 3s may not be as good as the fish farms industry toots them to be.

See item 45 in my current BAD NEWS BITES post: Omega-3s, No Effect? - Norway:

 Quote: "the world requires more protein, that in itself is not a bad thing (these are essential nutrients for salmonids, for example), but the messages that have been provided in the presentation at the Bergen Press Event in an attempt to position this alternative as a more sustainable option than fish oil are misplaced."

A: As in, this algae Omega 3s, that points out it is from a better source, that doesn't kill vast quantities of ocean fish, should not be saying this as it is not playing nice, for capitalists. Tsk. Tsk.

The reality is that there is no question that producing Omega 3s from algae is a far better source than killing trillions of fish, even though, golly, the IFFO doesn't like it.

This is very close to the all time spin of: if you are saying anything against fish farms you are spreading misinformation and you need to be educated. We will educate you. Am I the only one seeing the connection to Orwell's 1984?

Quote: "An example of the negative messaging is the statement that the algal oil will be produced “to keep up with the increasing demand for EPA and DHA omega-3 fatty acids without endangering fish stocks, while contributing to healthy animal nutrition as well as to the ecological balance and biodiversity of the oceans”."

A: I'd say that this is exactly what the new source of O3s is doing and it is a very good thing. If Big Brother IFFO doesn't like it being said, well, too bad. Go look at that Sea Around Us document. Tim Cashion et al, have produced a number of papers on this subject and are the world experts. Even Daniel Pauly, a reasonable guy, calls fish farms 'floating pig farms'.

Quote: "Further we come across reference to: “high purity, free from fish-based ingredients and genetic modification”, “by replacing fish oil by the algal oil, the fish-in fish-out ratio could substantially be reduced”, “1kg of …algal oil can replace 60kg wild catch fish”, “our joint venture contributes to five United Nations Sustainable Development Goals” (one of which is No.14, Life Below Water)."

A:  This is an extraordinarily high conversion rate: it takes 60kg of dead fish to make 1kg of algae O3. IFFO, I'd say you are not seeing things clearly. Note also that conversion rates of dead fish to salmon kg is usually given to be in the 2 to 2.5 kg range, that being fish meal to salmon protein. Industry claims less, but the scientists are saying the range I have given you.

Quote: "The implication from the Press Event presentation is that fish oil is in some way environmentally-damaging, impure as an ingredient, and its use in aquafeeds is thus questionable. At IFFO we find this approach and implication inaccurate, and, given the context and location of the event the wording may also be described as inappropriate."

A: This is the IFFO getting indignant and putting its hands on its hips, as a form of taking action. Do note that they can't actually make anyone do anything, but that does not stop them trying. And note that it is a Norwegian institution, so there is that national valour to defend.

Quote; "Bergen could be viewed as the capital of the salmon farming industry in Norway, an industry that was built on fishmeal and fish oil. Algal oil ...  should not seek support at the expense of an industry that has actually created a market for its own product, with misinformed and poorly researched statements."

A: Whew, what a slap on the wrist that is, from the nationalistic Norwegians. And, as noted above, they have got to the stage of saying that anything that does not agree with our position is 'misinformation'. This is standard spin, they use it all around the world. The problem is that the global fish farm/seafood industry is moving right on past them.

Quote:  "IFFO has been representing the fishmeal industry since 1959, so we have experience and knowledge about the sector developed over several decades, and have been countering any inaccurate information that has been circulating about the industry equally as long"

A: So there! Seriously, this is the: if you disagree with us you are spreading misinformation spin and we will educate you to speak the correct information.

Quote: "...the developing industry is actually enhancing the marine environment.

The developing algal industry is some way from achieving this kind of environmental performance, and will not be without its own environmental impacts (e.g. energy use) for which it could equally be criticised."
A: With sewage that can be as much as 45 feet deep under Norwegian farms and is greater than the sewage put out by all the people in Norway; with wild Atlantics being wiped out, and industry/government actually making the statement that they should let the wild fish go extinct because we need to support the mega-industry. You will find this in Being Salmon Being Human by Martin Lee Mueller; with lice, disease, antibiotics, antifoulants... the list goes on.

And if someone makes the claim that using electricity is so very, very bad, I suggest that after we finish laughing at them, that we suggest they stop flying fillets all over the world; that they stop using lights on their night time operations, stop using electric feeding equipment, diesel in their work boats; no lights in processing, where, now, the latest is a line without humans in it, as in those jobs they are always trumpeting about creating. You don't need lights if there is no one looking!

That last one is a real groaner. The IFFO should not have written this self serving piece.


Here are a few images of the other things in farmed fish, not very good for us, and not being discussed here:

You may have seen this list of heath damaging chemicals in farmed fish. From VG a Norwegian newspaper;

And all those cancer causing chemicals in farmed fish. They are almost 10 times as high as any other product.
These are Hites data from Scotland in 2004. The Jan 9, Science article that the fish farm industry 'collaborated' to destroy.

And another look at all those antibiotics in farmed salmon in BC in 2014.

The antibiotics used in Scotland. Note that we don't want them using tetracycline as we use it in humans, and don't need bacteria forming resistance.

Wednesday, 9 January 2019

Commercial Fishers R Against Fish Farms

This letter from commercial fishermen in the US pretty much says it all about fish farms. They don't want them, like all citizens around the world where there are fish farms. The only people who want fish farms are fish farm companies, and their employees.

And if I were Norwegian, I would be pretty concerned about the global view on Norwegians for their grossly environmentally damaging way to ruin the oceans of the world, with 'farms' that need to be on land. Ocean acidification is an ugly global problem, like destruction of the atmosphere and climate change.

I am currently reading Being Salmon Being Human by Martin Lee Mueller, from Chelsa Green. It points out that the reason Norwegian fish farms are against putting fish farms on land, is that they think they will lose the industry. You see, in Norway, there are so many mountains that there is little land to put them on, so they have no choice but to move to other countries, undercutting their own, Norwegian fish farms, and those 'jobs' they are always trumpeting about, in this case their own.

Too bad, Norway, the rest of the world is moving on from your environmentally damaging industry, and putting new farms on land.

Finfish aquaculture has no place in U.S. waters

We the undersigned owners/operators of American commercial fishing vessels and representatives of American fishing organizations and communities write to collectively express our opposition to industrial ocean finfish farming in the U.S. exclusive economic zone, whether through the Advancing the Quality and Understanding of American Aquaculture Act or any other legislative vehicle. This emerging industrial practice is incompatible with the sustainable commercial fishing practices embraced by our nation for generations and contravenes our vision for environmentally sound management of our oceans.

Industrial ocean fish farming — also known as open ocean, offshore, or marine finfish aquaculture — is the concentrated cultivation of captive finfish in the ocean, in net pens, pods, cages, or other devices. These operations are essentially underwater factory farms relying on natural currents to advect their waste and detritus to other parts of the ocean. The presence of finfish aquaculture in marine ecosystems poses significant challenges to the prosecution of domestic wild capture fisheries. 

As commercial fishermen, our livelihoods depend on good stewardship and science-based marine conservation to preserve sustainable fisheries for generations to come. The ocean currently provides a healthy and reliable food source and good jobs for many otherwise underserved coastal communities. We depend on a healthy marine ecosystem to supply quality, abundant wild fish stocks. Marine finfish aquaculture pollutes the natural ecosystem, degrades and threatens wild fish stocks, and challenges the economic viability of commercial fishing. American commercial fishing and marine finfish aquaculture cannot coexist.

We are concerned about the economic burdens that aquaculture, an emerging industry, poses to our long-established industry, America’s oldest. The presence of a single marine finfish farm could bar access to hundreds of acres of marine space, which would no longer be available for us to navigate or fish. Finfish aquaculture pens also act as “fish aggregating devices,” subjecting wild fish stocks to excessive fishing pressure from recreational fisheries in areas that are inaccessible to many commercial gear types. Marine finfish aquaculture facilities aim to produce large amounts of fish at the lowest cost possible, which places downward pressure on seafood prices, harming our wild capture seafood markets.

Flooding the market with cheap, low quality farmed seafood reduces the price that consumers are willing to pay for wild and sustainable seafood products, which directly impacts our well-being as sustainable seafood producers and the overall coastal economy. It also harms associated industries and workers who rely on a supply of high value product. Additionally, aquaculture is not dependent on seasonal accessibility, further driving consumers and the marketplace away from the natural seasonality of wild capture fisheries. Simply put, industrial seafood farms threaten the integrity of the wild fish populations that are key to our industry’s success, and the coastal communities we support.
Aquaculture harms the accessibility and quality of the wild fish stocks we depend on. Industrial ocean fish farming inevitably results in farmed fish escapes that can adversely impact wild fish stocks. Escaped aquaculture fish compete with wild fish and other species for food, habitat, and spawning areas. The culture of non-native fish brings attendant risks of introduction and invasion, while interbreeding of escaped aquaculture fish with wild stocks — a substantiated risk even with limiting cultivated species to “virtually” sterile or all-female native stocks — can lead to the modification and dilution of wild stocks’ genetic integrity. Escapees can also spread a number of lethal diseases and parasites, such as sea lice and piscine reovirus. Escape events can limit fishermen’s access to wild stocks and degrade the quality of wild fish available, reducing both the catch amount and the value. For these reasons, the potential for escapes by itself is reason enough to preclude open ocean aquaculture of any species, native or not.

Another important concern with large finfish aquaculture operations is the marine pollution caused by excess feed, untreated fish waste, antibiotics, and antifoulants. Such pollution alters the surrounding ecosystem and harms wild stocks. The release of excess nutrients degrades the marine ecosystem, leading to fish kills and impacting the seabed and water column. Ocean currents, no matter how strong, are not reliable methods for diluting net pen fish farm effluent. Often the ocean simply does not have the capacity to process this concentration and quantity of waste quickly enough, impacting wild fish stocks and their habitat. Fish farmers often disperse antibiotics and other chemicals within fish pens in an attempt to destroy pathogens. These toxins are harmful to the surrounding environment and marine life. Net pens also have high rates of deadly epizootic diseases, some of which can spread to wild fish stocks and cause a devastating loss to biodiversity and commercial fisheries. These impacts both degrade the environment and result in the loss of commercial catch.

Federal permitting and environmental review processes must thoroughly consider socioeconomic and environmental impacts, both in the National Environmental Policy Act process in other permitting processes. To date, such analyses have been inadequate. The NEPA process also requires consideration of alternatives including no action, closed-system fish culture approaches, and other actions that minimize adverse economic and ecological impacts posed by permitting these operations. We believe these adverse impacts are far too significant to justify permitting aquaculture activities in the EEZ.

Due to the extensive and well documented environmental harm caused by marine finfish aquaculture in the United States and elsewhere, this emerging industry should not be permitted. Neither the technology nor the knowledge is in place to sufficiently understand its environmental and socioeconomic harms and satisfy federally mandated environmental review and consultation processes. The legislation introduced by Sen. Roger Wicker and Rep. Steven Palazzo, the Advancing the Quality and Understanding of American Aquaculture Act (S. 3138/H.R. 6966), would hand regulatory authority over aquaculture to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under a radically permissive framework that ignores the severe consequences of aquaculture operations. But the AQUAA Act is not the only threat on the horizon — there is the possibility that an amendment to permit industrial ocean fish farms could be tacked onto a Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization package. Regardless of the legislative avenue, permitting this new industry would devastate ours.

Wednesday, 2 January 2019

Science for Fish Farms? - Why Not ON LAND? DFO Doesn't get BC, or Atlantic Canada, Updated Feb 28, 2019

What is so hard to hear and understand when citizens from across Canada, not to mention around the world, say to their governments: we want fish farms out of our oceans and put on land? And we have been saying it for 30 years. Hmm.

Well, read the following response I got to letters to DFO Minister Jonathan Wilkinson, from Andrew Thompson, Regional Director, Fisheries Management Branch. It's a total disregard and the hubris of 'we will solve it with science' which after some 100 thousand pages of science that I have read I have come to view science wrt fish farms is: naive, hubris or a manipulation. DFO is the hubris.

His response is why residents of both coasts have lost patience with DFO for its deafness, and inability to hear. The problem is that BC has 99.8% of all the salmon in Canada, and this is a big issue, as is the Kinder Morgan Pipeline. The Liberals will not win many seats west of the Alberta border, not to mention west of Saskatchewan, in the 2019 election.

Here is what Andrew Thompson has to say for Jonathan Wilkinson. What I have to say is below Andrew's response on behalf of DFO:

"Dear Mr. Reid:

Thank you for your correspondence of December 6, 11 and 17, 2018 regarding fish farming. I have been asked to respond on behalf of the Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson, Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.

I know that many Canadians have real concerns about the impact of the aquaculture industry. Global demand for fish and seafood as a high-protein food source has increased significantly in the last decades, and it is clear the world needs aquaculture. Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) is committed to moving forward in a way that protects the environment, the oceans, and fish stocks.

Canada’s Chief Science Advisor, Dr. Mona Nemer, and an Independent Expert Panel have examined how Canada can strengthen aquaculture science and how science informs decision making. Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) is reviewing the findings and welcomes the recommendations; Canada is already moving forward with many of the recommendations.

Making our oceans cleaner, safer, and healthier is critical. Since Budget 2016, DFO has hired more than 290 science professionals across the country to better protect and manage our oceans.

The Government of Canada—in partnership with provinces and territories, industry, indigenous partners, environmental groups, and stakeholders—must work to ensure we have an economically viable and environmentally sustainable path forward.

To achieve that goal, the Government of Canada is implementing a suite of initiatives, including:
  • studying alternative technologies for aquaculture, including land- and sea-based closed containment technology; 
  • moving towards an area-based approach to aquaculture management that considers local environmental, social, and economic factors—including considerations relating to migration pathways for wild salmon;
  • developing an overarching framework for aquaculture risk management, based on the precautionary approach;
  • creating a single comprehensive set of regulations—the General Aquaculture Regulations—that will bring more clarity for industry, stakeholders, and the public about how aquaculture is managed; and
  • developing a federal Aquaculture Act that will enhance sector transparency, facilitate the adoption of best practices, and provide greater consistency and certainty for industry.

These measures will change the way aquaculture is done in Canada by establishing a more holistic approach to the management of aquaculture, creating more jobs, and protecting our environment.

The Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that Canadians can have confidence in the environmental sustainability of our aquaculture sector. Canada will continue working with partners on aquaculture management. Canada will ensure that decisions are made based on robust and rigorous science.

Regarding your interest in participating on the aquaculture technology steering committee, a committee has already been established, and is made up of representatives from First Nations, the Province of British Columbia, the Government of Canada, industry and the environmental/philanthropic community. At this time, we cannot take on additional participation on the steering committee. I encourage you to keep an eye out for the report, which will be published late spring 2019.

Thank you for writing. I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your concerns.

Yours sincerely,

Andrew Thomson
Regional Director
Fisheries Management Branch
Pacific Region"

In response:

1. Aquaculture - no one said we did not want aquaculture, all we said is fish farms should be on land. This 30 year fight will only end one way, with fish farms on land, or wiped out by global on land farms. The fight goes on.

2. Protecting fish stocks -  the reality is that DFO has been managing salmon into extinction for forty years in BC. Claiming you are doing the opposite, just makes people lose respect for DFO. Here is a post that shows the solution: Instead, DFO offers more of the same, rather than protect fish stocks, and bring them back.

3. Science informs decision making - I have done many posts on DFO deliberately 'fibbing' about science. Go back and read the Volpe articles I wrote, and how DFO who was going to be part of his science on Atlantics in BC rivers, but refused two days before he was to start. Here is one, there are half a dozen, cruise the 2017 posts: Volpe continued on without DFO's help and found 97% of rivers with multiple species of salmon that he swam had adult Atlantics and progeny. Shocking, and DFO ignores this science. Science does not inform decision making in DFO. These are the Van Isle rivers:

And in 2018, DFO refused to publish a paper about the east coast that showed farmed Atlantics get into rivers and spawn. It had to be leaked from DFO by one its own staff members to the public. That is not science, DFO.

Here is one post, but there are more:

Here is another post on failing to do a good scientific process:,

Here is another post on DFO's poor science record. It has a summary of the Volpe story in it: And here is a good review of the escape issue science with lots of links to follow up:

And here is a scientist, Brian Riddell, criticizing DFO's fake science approach the Rapid Science Response:

I could go on to give you Dr. Kristi Miller, from DFO itself, showing that PRV is existent in BC, causes HSMI and gives jaundice/anemia to wild chinook, but you can Google this one. The point is that I can marshal a dozen science papers that show DFO does not do science. It professes to, then wriggles out of it, a polite word for 'fibbing', which is polite for 'lying'.

Here is what MPs Elizabeth May and Fin Donnelly have to say:

4. 290 Scientists - show me the list of FTE's. Show me how many in BC, show me how many are Conservation and Protection, that enforce laws.

5. Sorry, I have run out of patience with rebutting the above notes. But, as stated, citizens have been telling DFO to take fish farms out of the ocean for 30 years. When will they do it?

You can find posts on the Aquaculture Act. Here is one:

Here are the letters that I sent into Jonathan Wilkinson, Minister. They speak for themselves:

 Minister / Ministre (DFO/MPO)
Sent: December-06-18 4:24 PM

To: Lana Popham, Minister; Minister / Ministre (DFO/MPO); Justin Trudeau; John Horgan;
Andrew Weaver
Cc: Olsen.MLA, Adam; 'Furstenau.MLA, Sonia';;;; Watershed Watch Salmon Society;
Christianne Wilhelmson; Living Oceans; 'Alex Morton'

Subject: Canadians Says No to Proposed Aquaculture Act - See Popham and Wilkinson Stand
against British Columbians 


I want you to know that you have completely alienated the public on both the Pacific and Atlantic coasts of Canada by expressing support for a new Aquaculture Act, that leaves the environmentally‐damaging fish farm industry in the ocean. We have been telling you for years we want fish farms on land. You are out of date by a decade.

In‐ocean is an old tech dinosaur, being rapidly put out of business by the move to land around the world. In the USA, Atlantic Sapphire, Whole Oceans, Nordic Aquafarms and Aquabanc are aiming for 218,000MT of salmon on land, almost 250% the size of BC’s old tech sector. Around the world the PE Fund is aiming at even more: 260,000mt of on‐land salmon. Globally the push is even larger: there are 255 on‐land RAS systems, comprising some 20,000 actual farms. Ask CEO Andreasson from Atlantic Sapphire, and the Marine Harvest execs who have jumped to on land, to update you.

Atlantic Canada And Pacific Canada will not forget this egregious stand by your parties in the next elections.

DC Reid


Minister / Ministre (DFO/MPO)
Sent: December-11-18 1:26 PM

To: Minister / Ministre (DFO/MPO); Lubczuk, Jocelyn;

Subject: BC Fish Farms

Hi Jonathan

Seafood News, Dec 11, 2018: ““The Government of Canada is committed to making aquaculture more effective, efficient and environmentally sustainable,” the Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson, Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, said in a press release.””

I am astonished that you don’t just do what British Columbians want and take fish farms out of the water and put them on land. We have been telling the government since the 1980s to take fish farms out of the water. Instead, you trot out the gaping open door of science that fish farms use to manipulate the situation and stay in the water. They have been using science since the 70s: the science says we didn’t do that, we need more science. When the science comes in they say, the science doesn’t say we are the problem… we need more science…

You can expect the Liberals to lose those 18 seats in BC if you do this.

Why not get ahead of the curve and realize that in‐ocean is going to be put out of business in North America by the on-land movement in the States. Atlantic Sapphire, Whole Oceans, Nordic Aquafarms and Aquabanc, at 218mt at grow out will be almost 250% bigger than in BC and will take its major market because consumers don’t want in‐ocean fish farm fish. Then there is the PE Fund in Asia, aiming at 260,000mt on land, will take a big bite of the rest of BC’s markets. And globally, I have found 259 on‐land fish farms:‐different‐on‐land‐fishfarm‐systems.html.

In‐ocean is a decade out of date. Wake up, and start giving out on‐land licences for free. This is what Norway is doing because it is fed up with in‐ocean environmental damage, a $9‐ to $12‐million subsidy based on the in‐ocean auction price of a licence in 2014.

The only reason that the Norwegian companies came to Canada was that we have less stringent laws than Norway. See: From the fibbing article: “8. And why did Norwegian companies, Marine Harvest, Cermaq and Grieg Seafood come to Canada in the first place? They came to Canada/Chile/Etc. because of weaker laws: "The report Fishy Business: The Economics of Salmon Farming In BC notes that in the late 1980s, Norwegian companies were faced with strict environmental regulations and farm size restrictions in their own country, so they decided to expand in countries where regulations were less strict (i.e. Canada, Chile)."”

Wake up Liberal party.

DC Reid


Minister / Ministre (DFO/MPO)
Sent: December-17-18 1:51 PM
To: Minister / Ministre (DFO/MPO);

Subject: Include me in Your Technology Review

Hi Jonathan Wilkinson

The third section on fish farm technology: State of Salmon Aquaculture Technology Study, states that: “A key focus will be potential ways these technologies can reduce interactions between aquaculture and the environment, including any potential impacts on wild salmon. Potential areas of study include technologies around land-based and ocean-based closed-containment, as well as open-ocean or offshore aquaculture.”

I am stepping forward to ask you to put me on this committee/steering committee. I doubt there are many people in the world who know this field better than I do. For example, I have the longest global list of onland/closed/RAS systems around the globe, some 260 different systems:

I am familiar with the entire globe, including offshore, the new USA push, the PE Fund drive as well as the Norwegian experience with innovative forms of fish farms.

My background includes a BSc in biochemistry, so I understand the science, and a Masters in Public
Administration with Treasury Board Staff experience that gives me the skills to number-crunch with the best.


DC (Dennis) Reid


Perhaps I should have expected  the response that DFO's Andrew Thompson gave me, and not hoped for better. After all, I wrote more than 5,000 minister's letters when I worked for Finance in BC.

Tuesday, 1 January 2019


These were the most popular posts on this site in December 2018:

1. Fake science by DFO - Riddell Response: Just one of many posts on this site that shows that DFO, in Ottawa, uses fake processes/science to keep fish farms in the water, when everyone else wants them on land. My response is that if DFO wants fish farms in the water, then they should put one in the Rideau Canal in the centre of Ottawa and see how long it is before everyone in Ottawa hates them.

2. 260 On-land Fish Farm Systems. This is a perennial favourite on this site: It has papers, studies, economic analysis for the first half of the post, and about half way down, the on-land farms list starts.

3. 4000 Problems in 3 Years - No Problems in BC???  The fish farm trade ass in Atlantic Canada, less than a week after Cermaq and Marine Harvest sort of agreed to take some fish farms out of the Broughton Archipelago in BC, says there are no problems in BC and none in Atlantic Canada. I point out that my BAD NEWS BITES posts, now ten of them, have piled up 4,000 problems in the global fish farm/seafood industry press in the past three years. In other words, the trade ass is fibbing.

4. John Horgan Closes 10 Fish Farms!!!: is a blow by blow account of the hour long Global TV video of the Broughton announcement of taking some fish farms out of the water. This sounds good, but I'll believe it when it happens.

5. Ministers against Environment - Popham, Wilkinson, Horgan, Trudeau:               Here is one where the Agriculture Ministers stand up and agree on an Aquaculture Act at the federal level. This is the kind of post that makes me doubtful that anything will happen in BC with fish farms being put on land. The point is, why make an Aqua Act, if you are serious about putting fish farms on land?

6. Good News Post - Links to On-land, Closed Containment, Papers, Studies, the on land news in the global press: There is now so much news in the global press on a daily basis that I decided to start a post.

7. Southern Resident Killer Whales - Sport Fishers and ENGOs:

8. Toxic Sea Lice Chemicals - Norway is a Disaster Zone, Add Scotland This one has had thousands and thousands of pageviews, particularly from Norway.


If you are looking for a good book on the fish farm industry and our relation with salmon, pick up Martin Lee Mueller's book: Being Salmon Being Human, from Chelsea Press, VT, USA:

This book should become a touchstone book much in the same way that Rachel Carson's A Silent Spring was in the 1960s, that started the environmental movement and lead to banning pesticides with chlorine and phorsphorus in them like DDT, PCBs, Dioxins, Furans and so on. Currently fish farms are using new chemicals (and a few old ones, most with chlorine/phosphorous) and claiming they are no problem. Read Mueller's book for a learned take on this issue, along with poetic passages on being salmon, being human - and why it matters that we retain our connection. Then read post 8 above on the Toxic Disaster in Norway.