Marine Harvest has ISA - Worst Fish Farm Disease, Updated June 28, 2015

Marine Harvest in Chile has tested positive for ISA in Junw, 2015

See: http://www.seafoodnews.com/Story/980384/76754/Chile-Detects-and-Quickly-Contains-ISA-Positive-Salmon-Pond-Belonging-to-Marine-Harvest.

"On Sunday the virus was detected in Marine Harvest's 9B pond on the Meulin Island in the Lakes Region during a scans of the area. The initial positive test alerted fish inspectors to confirm which cage had tested positive and that the disease was in fact ISA. The fish from the infected pond will also be immediately harvested as mandated under Chilean law..."

A year ago, Marine Harvest had ISA in Norway.

See: http://www.undercurrentnews.com/2014/03/05/isa-confirmed-at-marine-harvest-farm/

Marine Harvest has and had ISA in both the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. I will let you know where it has disease next. Note that in BC, Canada, Marine Harvest has been hit repeatedly with Kudoa, myoliquifaction, that makes meat soft and consumers won't buy it. BC has much of this parasite.

If you would like to follow the diseases that Marine Harvest gets in its fish, just Google: Marine Harvest fish farm diseases in 2015. You will have pages and pages of Marine Harvest fish farm diseases to read. As always, there is only one issue with fish farming: it needs to be on dry land, recirculating and deal wit hits sewage.

Peru, Too Can't Harvest Enough Fish Meal for Third World Human Consumption

I have mentioned that fish farms, by using small fish from the ocean, take food out of the mouths of third world humans. Third world food is fed to farmed salmon (they should not be using carnivorous fish anyway) that can only be sold to first world mouths because third world mouths can't afford the cost of farmed fish.

Here is an example that I have been watching for the last two years: in Peru the anchovy harvest has been closed more than it had been opened in the past year. And most goes to feed prawns in Asia, with one Norwegian boat still operating.

See: http://www.undercurrentnews.com/2015/06/23/mini-bans-force-five-peruvian-anchovy-plants-to-close/?utm_source=Undercurrent+News+Alerts&utm_campaign=aafe10018b-Americas_briefing_Jun_23_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_feb55e2e23-aafe10018b-92426209

The boats moved to Peruvian waters because jack mackerel, anchovy and so on were decimated by the Norwegian industry in Chile to use as fish meal.in an industry that collapsed in 2008 because the Norwegians - Aquagen to be precise - transferred Norwegian ISA to Chile and more than 13,000 third world people lost their jobs.

These are the plants processing for human consumption in the third world that have had to close down: "Pez de Exportacion (Pezex), Andesa, Cardomar, Congelados Pacifico and Pesquera Morrosama plants have stopped operations, affected by the lack of access to the resource.".

And: "Anchovy volumes processed for direct human consumption have decreased drastically. In 2011, food fish plants processed 125,000 metric tons of anchovy, whereas in 2014 a third of this was processed."

That is how bad aquaculture, particularly fish farming, is for human consumption of food. Fish farms do not feed a hungry world, because the hungry can't afford farmed fish. It is sold for first world mounts. And, in many cases, the Norwegians and others are complicit in running down the world's stocks of small fish that should be used for human food.

Grieg Seafood Loses Salmon To Low Oxygen in BC

Grieg Seafood has lost 1000 metric tonnes of product at its west coast operations: Muchalet North and Willianson sites.

At Muchalet it was 146,000 salmon while at Williamson it was 532,000.

This kind of loss is completely preventable with on-land recirculating sites, but Marine Harvest, Cermaq and Grieg Seafood refuse to come out of the water and save their fish and save the jobs of employees.

Considering that we subsidize them to the tune of $1.65 Million per site by not charging a market level licence fee of the same value the same companies face in Norway, taxpayers are subsidizing these losses and having them use our ocean as a free, open sewer. My estimate of the sewage cost we shoulder in BC is $10.4 Billion. We don't want to pay.

See: http://www.undercurrentnews.com/2015/06/23/grieg-loses-around-1000t-salmon-to-low-water-oxygen-in-canada/?utm_source=Undercurrent+News+Alerts&utm_campaign=aafe10018b-Americas_briefing_Jun_23_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_feb55e2e23-aafe10018b-92426209

.

Nancy Greene Raine Silence On Fish Farms Speaks Volumes on Support for Wild BC Salmon

Go back and look at this article on Nancy Greene Raine supporting fish farms in 2014.

See: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2014/05/nancy-greene-raine-and-federal-senators.html.

It gives you a good summary on fish farm problems in BC Canada and around the world.

Since I posted it, I have not seen Nancy Greene Raine - a BC senator - say anything about supporting fish farms. She no doubt now realizes, as I pointed out, that to stand with Norwegian style fish farms is standing against BC wild salmon.

She must know that this is a non-starter in this province as her name would go down as the person who destroyed wild BC and all Pacific Ocean salmonids - five species, perhaps a billion wild salmon..

Note that DFO and senators in the rest of Canada do not know that BC has 99.8% of all the wild salmon in Canada. The rest of Canada, six provinces, have only 177,000 Atlantic salmon, or 0.2% of all the salmon in Canada. This is why DFO and the Senate and the federal government do not understand the meaning of wild salmon to the Pacific ocean and BC.

This is such a big issue here that the citizens of BC will be turned against the rest of Canada if DFO, Gail Shea, and the Conservative Government do not take fish farms out of the BC ocean waters. In BC, there are a number of environmental issues that have turned citizens against the Harper Government, including the Enbridge pipeline, Kinder Morgan pipeline, US coal shipments, Site C dam, LNG, Mt. Polly tailings pond breach, even though some of these are provincial issues.

Go back and find the many posts that give you the link to the 110,000 British Columbians who have signed a petition to have DFO and BC, Christy Clark, not allow expansion of fish farms in BC and to get fish farms out of the BC ocean.

Problems with GMO, AquaBounty Atlantic Salmon

An issue that has been simmering along beside the push to get old-tech, dinosaur fish farms out of the ocean and set up on land, is GMO Atlantic salmon that grow to harvestable size sooner than non-modified fish.

AquaBounty has been growing such fish with pout, chinook and other genes inserted in the fish genome, and working them through the FDA system in the USA. The Canadian connection is that they have been producing these fish in the province of PEI, and rearing them in Panama.

Joyce Nelson has done a well-researched article on the issue. There are several problems with the GMO fish. The FDA seems not to have done thorough work, while the Canadian science shows several problems. The fish grow at greatly inconsistent rates, they are more susceptible to diseases, particularly ISA and contain a chemical leading to increased cancer risk.

The FDA received two million complaints - hard to believe but apparently true - and looks to be doing some real work before reconsidering the issue of bringing these fish to consumer plates - or letting them be put in the ocean.

The Nelson article may be found here: http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/06/12/frankenfish-flops-risk-assessment/#.VXrmRn-j7fU.email.

Another thing to consider is that on-land fish farms can raise fish faster than in the ocean by holding the water temperature the same rather than it fluctuating, and photoperiod can be controlled, which also improves growth rate. The point being, if fish farms move to land, GMO fish would not be necessary, because unmodified fish will grow much quicker, and without the problems in the AquaBounty fish.

Fish Farms are Floating Pig Farms - Daniel Pauly, UBC

"The conditions of traditional salmon farms can only be compared to a floating pig farm," says the University of British Columbia's Daniel Pauly, a renowned marine biologist. "Some people argue that every farmed salmon has a wild counterpart that's dead." June, 2015.

(Here is a reference for the pig farm comment: http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/fish-the-new-factory-farmed-animals/. )

This is why I have said that fish farms exist in the ocean so they can use it as a free, open sewer. This seems harsh language, but it’s not, compared with what Daniel Pauly says.

But there is more.  We subsidize fish farms $1.64 million to use our ocean as a free open sewer.  In Norway, they pay $1.69 Million just for a licence. In BC they pay $5000. So we subsidize fish farms to the tune of $1.65 Million just to set up shop in our ocean  and pollute it. Not smart.

And how much does that sewage damage cost? My preliminary estimate, using the conservative conversion rate of 10 fish for the sewage of 1 human being, comes out at the very large subsidy of: $10.4 Billion. We BC taxpayers pay this much for the industry as it is today. And they want to expand? (See the Oct 2014, Index, on this site, for the link to the calculation).

I don’t think so. The people of BC, understandably, want fish farms on land or they can go back to Norway.

I should add that at other conversion rates, the already astronomical sewage cost to BC taxpayers, exceeds $31 Billion. That is how bad fish farms are. Hmm. Now I see why Daniel Pauly says they are floating pig farms.

And, how big is that licence subsidy you ask? Well, at $1.65 M per farm, and 130 licences in BC, the licencing subsidy comes in at a whopping $214.5 Million in BC alone. That is in addition to the sewage figure. Fish farms don't make much money and don't result in many jobs, and still we subsidize them to the point where their revenue (from BC Stats) of $400 M comprises only 3.8 % of the environmental damage they cause just from being in our oceans. This does not make sense

Fish Farms are Not Sustainable - Feed Prices Rising - Rabobank

Fish farms like to claim they are sustainable, and that claim usually surrounds the feed they feed their fish. But feed companies and commercial fishers, sometimes fish farm operations themselves, can no longer catch enough forage fish to form fish feed.

Fish farms have fished down these stocks, for example, anchovy and Jack Mackerel off Chile, and currently, anchovy off Peru, that the cost of the fish meal has become too high. So fish farms have made wild fish unsustainable, and increased the price so much that the feed is too expensive to be put in feed. In other words, both ends of fish farming feed are unsustainable.

I should add that substituting soy, has lead to complaints over moving aboriginals off their lands, clear cutting the forest and planting soy. Soy also has GMO issues. And fish feed companies are now using chicken feathers instead of fish where they can. Would you eat chicken feathers? Fish feed sometimes uses land animal feces in their feed. I asked EWOS six times whether they use feces in their feed. No response.

Here is a good article on the sustainability of fish meal in fish feed  by Rabobank: http://www.undercurrentnews.com/2015/06/09/fishmeal-will-move-from-being-commodity-to-high-price-strategic-marine-protein/?utm_source=Undercurrent+News+Alerts&utm_campaign=ea63c2bf44-Americas_briefing_Jun_09_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_feb55e2e23-ea63c2bf44-92426209.

Rabobank says that Peruvian harvest is down, just as I have mentioned: In 2014/15, fishmeal was in short supply due to thecancelation of last year's second Peruvian fishing season, linked to an El Nino weather phenomenon." 

The same can be said for jack mackerel and sardines in Chile, and capelin and other small species off Europe itself.

Rabobank ponts out that fish farms are in direct competition with third world countries that want their humans to eat anchovy and other small pelagics: 

"The decline in supply has been driven by both lower wild catch of small pelagics and, more importantly, increasing direct human consumption of these species, which is likely to put ongoing pressure on animal and aqua feed producers -- the key competitors for fishmeal."

So, how much do fish feed producers buy? A very large amount of feed that can be sold to humans:

"The aquaculture industry is the main buyer for fish oil globally, consuming some 74% of available supply, primarily for use in salmon feed."

And those Omega 3 fatty acids?

"The salmon industry currently uses approximately 7-9% fish oil in the feed formula. This amount could probably be reduced to 5-6%, but any lower than this could negatively impact the performance of the feed," Rabobank said.

Rabobank further says that the health image of farmed salmon, at least to companies like Marine Harvest, Cermaq (Mitsubishi) and Grieg Seafood, is largely tied to that Omega-3s:

"... omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids. Without fish oil, the most known health befits of eating salmon would not be present,"

Fish farms sustainable? I don't think so.

Yet Another Corrupt Fish Farm Award, Updated June 25, 2015

I have pointed out that fish farm awards and certifications are not real, as fish farms largely put money into them, the BAPs say, and then award themselves their own awards. The WWF, ASCs are also not real because they are awarded to in-ocean fish farms, of which none are sustainable nor environmentally sound.

In-ocean fish farms are in the ocean to use it as a free, open sewer. Just Google sewage problems in the industry, in Norway, Atlantic Canada, Scotland and Chile, for instance. And for BC, Canada, my estimate of the sewage cost of in-ocean fish farms is $10.4 Billion, that we citizens, in essence, pay for. We don't want to pay.

But now, the most well-known and largest, the Marine Stewardship Council that certifies in-ocean fish farms, is on the receiving end of criticism that it is corrupt. Look at this article:  http://www.savingseafood.org/opinion/john-sackton-its-time-for-the-msc-to-reform-its-commercial-model-where-it-is-corrupt/.

John Sackton, Editor, Seafood news has much to say on the biggest certification scheme for fish farms and fisheries. For example: "The MSC’s ‘pay to play’ is not explicit bribery, but it is a complex structure of exclusivity that gives some clients the ability to hijack public resources for their own gain.  This goes directly against FAO ecolabel guidelines, and this arrangement directly helps the MSC sell certifications, and thereby derive logo revenues.

We have no news yet on how the Marine Stewardship Council is going to resolve its horrendous mis-management of Alaska Salmon certifications. Its current inaction however shows that its commercial model is now morally bankrupt, and must be reformed.

As of today, numerous Alaskan companies, both large and small, are being stonewalled by a rogue client group whose manager, Rob Zuanich, is largely seen in the industry as being driven by personal vendettas."

Sackton goes on to say: " But they are also a registered public charity in the UK, and even more importantly, they make an assertion of absolute credibility for their standard and claim it is the best mechanism for verification as to whether a wild caught fishery is sustainably harvested.  Their business is measuring the effectiveness of public governmental fishery management and giving a third party seal of approval."

As well, there is a problem with credibility: "Like any organization with a product to sell, the MSC has a sales team whose job is to go out and recruit fishery clients.  These are groups who will sponsor MSC certification for their fishery, and who will hire and pay for an assessment body to measure them against the MSC standard.

Without these clients, there would be no revenue to the MSC from the MSC ecolabel." 

And: "This promise of exclusivity to a subset of companies is a key driver of the MSC sales process. Companies have been promised help with market access, or introductions to new retail buyers if they sign on as clients. Without the promise of exclusivity, the MSC might have a harder time recruiting companies to be fisheries clients."

And, now, we move to fish farms. The Global Seafood Sustainablity Initiative (I will deal with their claims in an upcoming post. In essence, it's the same old stuff and environmentally damaging in-ocean fish farms rather than environmentally sound ones on land).

Sackton says: "To avoid multiple certifications for the same fishery, the MSC should simply enact a contractually enforceable mechanism to add eligible clients to the certificate if the client group fails to adhere to the MSC requirements for certificate sharing.  Currently the MSC claims the requirements are ‘guidance’ only, and not legally enforceable.  That is a corrupt and morally bankrupt stance if the MSC aspires to be the leader in seafood sustainability certification."

In other words, like the other awards, schemes and certifications, the senior one, the MSC, is not a real certification. The bottom line is this: if the scheme does not include the requirement that the fish farm be an on-land operating, the award or certification is not valid.

Go back to the index I put on this site in October 2014. You can read my list of 79 on-land fish farms that I have found, that comprise more than 10,000, actual, on-land fish farms around the globe. When Marine Harvest, Cermaq (Mitsubishi), Grieg Seafood, and the othes come out of the water, then let's talk again about environmental award credibility.

See the index: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2014/10/index-to-wwwfishfarmnewsblogspotcom.html. 

And here is an update on the byzantine MSC system. Does it sound like an award system to you? Sounds more like antitrust court cases and big time lawyer bills rather than a pristine environment and etc.

Fairness” Alaska Governor Walker Contacts MSC On Salmon Certification

Alaska’s Governor Walker urged “fairness” from the Marine Stewardship Council in the certification of Alaska salmon, in a letter sent to MSC executive Rupert Howes. Gov. Walker’s letter was in response to the failed mediation attempt between the 20 Alaskan salmon processors and the ASPA to work on a deal to allow the processors re-entry into the MSC through the ASPA’s existing salmon certificate. “This is an issue of fairness for fishermen and coastal communities in Alaska, even for Alaska herself,” Walker wrote. Howes responded to the letter and said binding arbitration may be the only solution to the problem at this point. “MCS’s board believes that the only workable solution is time bound, binding arbitration,” Howes wrote. The groups have mutually selected Seattle attorney Lou Peterson to oversee the arbitration.

Weblink: www.seafoodnews.com.