This is yet another study that shows that lice from fish farms kill wild salmonids. In this case the researchers reanalyzed a study and found a wild salmonid kill of 34%.
This has previously shown in other research. Check the Index to this site in October of 2014 to find the links to those studies.
From the study in Scotland in the immediately preceding post on this site, the paper, is item 4.
Here is a quote: "Research published in 2013 by a group of fisheries experts from Norway, Canada
and Scotland re-analysing data from various Irish studies, showed that the impact of
sea lice on wild salmon causes a very high loss (34%) of those returning to Irish
rivers (4) ."
The reference says this: (4) M Krkosek, C W Revie, B Finstad and C D Todd (2013) Comment on Jackson et al. "Impact of Lepeophtheirus
salmonis infestations on migrating Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., smolts at eight locations in Ireland with an
analysis of lice-induced marine mortality" - Journal of Fish Diseases.
The Scotland study in the last post goes on to say that fish farms claims of no harm are not true:
"There is also clear evidence that both wild salmon and sea trout are in decline in
Scotland’s ‘aquaculture zone’, whereas, generally, populations have stabilized on the
east and north coast where there is no fish-farming.
After examining east and west coast catch trends, fisheries scientists from the Rivers
and Fisheries Trusts of Scotland (RAFTS) concluded that:
“there is a clear trend of declining salmon catches, compared with catches on the
East coast, in areas where the Scottish aquaculture industry operates.
The assertion
by SSPO [the Scottish Salmon Producers’ Organisation] that ‘the catch statistics
show salmon farming has had no effect on wild salmon catches’ does not stand up to
scrutiny. It is also apparent that the decline is greater for those areas whose juvenile
fish have to swim past larger number of salmon farms in order to reach the open
ocean”(5)
The fisheries scientists from Norway, Scotland and Ireland reviewed over 300 scientific
publications on the damaging effects of sea lice on sea trout stocks in salmon
farming areas to reach their conclusions.
So, Marine Harvest's plan to get ASC accreditation doesn't look good for their so-called 'profound' effect on their image. Fix the image, but not the problem. Sorry Jo Lunder et al, the scientists do not agree. Nor does anyone else.
Tuesday, 29 December 2015
Lice Out of Control in Scotland, Updated Dec 29, 2015
A study out in December 2015 points out that lice are beyond control of operators in most of Scotland and wild salmonids suffer, and are in need of urgent protection. They recommend public inspectors take over lice counts and that fish farms move to closed containment.
Read the PDF: http://www.salmon-trout.org/pdf/THE%20CONTROL%20OF%20SEA%20LICE%20S&TCS%20REPORT%20December%202015.pdf.
Here is part of the Executive Summary:
... little consideration is being given to the consequent negative effects on wild salmonids.
Where there is evidence of early harvest or culling out of farmed fish, this appears only to be associated with unacceptable damage being caused to the farmed fish, causing either commercial losses or animal welfare issues for the farmed fish, rather than this occurring in order to protect wild fish.
Action by Scottish Government is required urgently to address the sea lice issue as it affects wild fish. The major barrier to proper scrutiny of the fish farms - the lack of published farm-specific sea lice data - needs to be removed and further information concerning newer control methods for sea lice should be recorded and published to ensure that a complete picture is obtained of the sea lice control methods used.
The voluntary CoGP should be made a statutory code, as provided for in the 2007 Act, and an upper tier sea lice threshold should be introduced, above which an immediate cull or harvest of farmed fish is mandated. It should not be possible for fish-farmers, where sea lice numbers have effectively gone out of control on their farms, to assert that they remain in compliance with the CoGP merely because they have instigated treatment, regardless of its efficacy in reducing lice numbers. 2
The Scottish Government should amend legislation with the express purpose of protecting wild fish from potential damage caused by fish-farms, with inspectors given a legal duty to control sea lice on fish-farms expressly in order to protect wild fish populations. Those farms consistently failing to control sea lice should be identified for closure and / or relocation.
In parallel, Scottish Government should focus on alternative more sustainable production methods with the ultimate objective of moving to full closed containment of farmed salmon production in Scotland to eliminate the biological interaction between farmed and wild fish.
You will recall from a post a week or so ago on fishfarmnews that Marine Harvest is going for ASC accreditation in Scotland and Norway, resulting, it thinks, in a 'profound' change for fish farms. Sorry Jo Lunder et al, it just ain't so. See my post: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2015/12/marine-harvest-fix-image-not-problem.html.
Not to mention that the Norwegian government is so angry with fish farms, about lice and other problems, that it is giving out free licences to get them out of the water and set up on land, a saving of $9 to $12-Million for on-land. See: https://www.undercurrentnews.com/2015/12/11/norway-to-make-land-based-aquaculture-easier/?utm_source=Undercurrent+News+Alerts&utm_campaign=33b8782ce8-Salmon_roundup_Dec_11_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_feb55e2e23-33b8782ce8-92426209.
----
Here is a list of the chemicals used in Scotland to kill lice. Slice is used in BC, Cypermethrin is the illegal chemical that Cooke Aquaculture used for two years in Atlantic Canada - and paid a large fine of, as I recall, $500,000, which was far less, and no jail sentence, from the penalties that could have been handed out.
Azamethiphos is an organophosphorus pesticide, which works by interfering with the transmission of nerve impulses. It has been used in a spray form to control insects such as cockroaches and flies in buildings, warehouses and intensive farming installations10. Azamethiphos is highly toxic to birds and aquatic invertebrates and moderately toxic to fish11 .
Deltamethrin is a pyrethroid insecticide and is highly toxic to humans and other mammals and is a neurotoxin. It is relatively non-toxic to birds and earthworms although it presents a high risk to most aquatic organisms and honeybees12 .
Cypermethrin is an insecticide and is considered a serious marine pollutant. It is moderately toxic to mammals and there is some concern regarding its potential to bioaccumulate. It is highly toxic to most aquatic species and honeybees13 .
Emamectin benzoate [that is, SLICE] is a pesticide which works by interfering with nerve impulses in the body. It is used in agricultural settings to control insects amongst vegetable crops such as cabbage and broccoli and on cotton plants. Emamectin benzoate is toxic to birds, mammals, fish and other aquatic organisms (particularly those living on the sea bed)14 .
Teflubenzuron is used to control a wide range of insect pests and mites in fruit, vegetable, cereal and seed crops. It works by interfering with the synthesis of insect chitin, which is essential to their growth and development. Teflubenzuron is classed as having low toxicity for mammals, fish and birds. Other aquatic organisms (particularly crustaceans and those living in sediments) may however suffer adverse effects if exposed15 .
"These are administered either as a bath or in feed treatment. Bath treatments are applied using full enclosure, in a tarpaulin, at a marine cage site, or in a well-boat adjacent to the marine cages. Bath treatments include azamethiphos (Salmosan), deltamethrin (Alphamax), cypermethrin (Excis). Emamectin benzoate (Slice) or teflubenzuron (Calicide) can be administered as in-feed treatments. Hydrogen peroxide is also used to control sea lice as well as other diseases of farmed salmon, such as Amoebic Gill Disease."
Read the PDF: http://www.salmon-trout.org/pdf/THE%20CONTROL%20OF%20SEA%20LICE%20S&TCS%20REPORT%20December%202015.pdf.
Here is part of the Executive Summary:
... little consideration is being given to the consequent negative effects on wild salmonids.
Where there is evidence of early harvest or culling out of farmed fish, this appears only to be associated with unacceptable damage being caused to the farmed fish, causing either commercial losses or animal welfare issues for the farmed fish, rather than this occurring in order to protect wild fish.
Action by Scottish Government is required urgently to address the sea lice issue as it affects wild fish. The major barrier to proper scrutiny of the fish farms - the lack of published farm-specific sea lice data - needs to be removed and further information concerning newer control methods for sea lice should be recorded and published to ensure that a complete picture is obtained of the sea lice control methods used.
The voluntary CoGP should be made a statutory code, as provided for in the 2007 Act, and an upper tier sea lice threshold should be introduced, above which an immediate cull or harvest of farmed fish is mandated. It should not be possible for fish-farmers, where sea lice numbers have effectively gone out of control on their farms, to assert that they remain in compliance with the CoGP merely because they have instigated treatment, regardless of its efficacy in reducing lice numbers. 2
The Scottish Government should amend legislation with the express purpose of protecting wild fish from potential damage caused by fish-farms, with inspectors given a legal duty to control sea lice on fish-farms expressly in order to protect wild fish populations. Those farms consistently failing to control sea lice should be identified for closure and / or relocation.
In parallel, Scottish Government should focus on alternative more sustainable production methods with the ultimate objective of moving to full closed containment of farmed salmon production in Scotland to eliminate the biological interaction between farmed and wild fish.
You will recall from a post a week or so ago on fishfarmnews that Marine Harvest is going for ASC accreditation in Scotland and Norway, resulting, it thinks, in a 'profound' change for fish farms. Sorry Jo Lunder et al, it just ain't so. See my post: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2015/12/marine-harvest-fix-image-not-problem.html.
Not to mention that the Norwegian government is so angry with fish farms, about lice and other problems, that it is giving out free licences to get them out of the water and set up on land, a saving of $9 to $12-Million for on-land. See: https://www.undercurrentnews.com/2015/12/11/norway-to-make-land-based-aquaculture-easier/?utm_source=Undercurrent+News+Alerts&utm_campaign=33b8782ce8-Salmon_roundup_Dec_11_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_feb55e2e23-33b8782ce8-92426209.
----
Here is a list of the chemicals used in Scotland to kill lice. Slice is used in BC, Cypermethrin is the illegal chemical that Cooke Aquaculture used for two years in Atlantic Canada - and paid a large fine of, as I recall, $500,000, which was far less, and no jail sentence, from the penalties that could have been handed out.
Azamethiphos is an organophosphorus pesticide, which works by interfering with the transmission of nerve impulses. It has been used in a spray form to control insects such as cockroaches and flies in buildings, warehouses and intensive farming installations10. Azamethiphos is highly toxic to birds and aquatic invertebrates and moderately toxic to fish11 .
Deltamethrin is a pyrethroid insecticide and is highly toxic to humans and other mammals and is a neurotoxin. It is relatively non-toxic to birds and earthworms although it presents a high risk to most aquatic organisms and honeybees12 .
Cypermethrin is an insecticide and is considered a serious marine pollutant. It is moderately toxic to mammals and there is some concern regarding its potential to bioaccumulate. It is highly toxic to most aquatic species and honeybees13 .
Emamectin benzoate [that is, SLICE] is a pesticide which works by interfering with nerve impulses in the body. It is used in agricultural settings to control insects amongst vegetable crops such as cabbage and broccoli and on cotton plants. Emamectin benzoate is toxic to birds, mammals, fish and other aquatic organisms (particularly those living on the sea bed)14 .
Teflubenzuron is used to control a wide range of insect pests and mites in fruit, vegetable, cereal and seed crops. It works by interfering with the synthesis of insect chitin, which is essential to their growth and development. Teflubenzuron is classed as having low toxicity for mammals, fish and birds. Other aquatic organisms (particularly crustaceans and those living in sediments) may however suffer adverse effects if exposed15 .
"These are administered either as a bath or in feed treatment. Bath treatments are applied using full enclosure, in a tarpaulin, at a marine cage site, or in a well-boat adjacent to the marine cages. Bath treatments include azamethiphos (Salmosan), deltamethrin (Alphamax), cypermethrin (Excis). Emamectin benzoate (Slice) or teflubenzuron (Calicide) can be administered as in-feed treatments. Hydrogen peroxide is also used to control sea lice as well as other diseases of farmed salmon, such as Amoebic Gill Disease."
Friday, 11 December 2015
KEY Document: Tipping Point - Goodbye In-ocean Fish Farms, Hello On-Land Fish Farms, Updated Jan 24, 2016
It is hard to believe that this day would ever come, having watched the multi-billion dollar Marine Harvest, Cermaq and Grieg Seafood, simply push their way into all the pristine oceans on earth and soil them for so long, to finally say, and they will no doubt not agree, but that the world is on the tipping point, even though it will take these companies a decade of death throws to die or change, that the beginning of the end for in-ocean fish farms has finally come.
They have soiled Norway, the Shetlands, Faroes, Ireland, Scotland, England, Chile, Canada East and Canada West (Canada is so big it is more than two countries). And more oceans are soiled with Norwegian-style industry: NZ, Tasmania, Australia, the Balkans, Russia, the rest of Europe. And then there are the African and Asian countries, too warm for salmon like Vietnam, Thailand, then China, Korea... and the rest that are polluting their own oceans with salmon or other fish and crustaceans.
The saddest place of them all is that the industry is currently pushing into pristine Patagonia, a touchwood place for all of North America, because the rest of Chile is so soiled with fish farm disease, lice, escapes and sewage, they need new areas to despoil. These are euphemistically referred to as sanitary problems.
As everyone who reads this site knows, I have found 127 different fish farms systems on land, comprising more than 10,000 actual on-land fish farms around the world on land. But Norway and its Norwegian style fish farms have steadily refused to come out of the water. See: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2012/01/key-document-34-mostly-on-land-closed.html.
But finally the world is moving on from Norway and its people who have given the rest of the world a method of farming that ruins the very water it enters. And those of us who fight the fight do so on behalf of our own countries, our own pristine water, our own wild Pacific salmon, our aboriginals and their 10,000 year way of living with the ocean and salmon.
I estimate some 73 million wild salmon - before fisheries in saltwater - put at risk in BC alone, compared with only 170,000 at-ocean Atlantic salmon in the rest of the country.
BC has 99.8% of all the wild salmon in Canada, six eastern provinces, only a very small .2%. And those of us who give our time to this cause will just keep on fighting it. I make no money doing this, it is all for standing up for wild Pacific salmon.
Enough of that, let's move on to why we are at a tipping point. On the above link are a half dozen papers on how on-land farms cost less and make more money than in-ocean whose chief benefit is to release their sewage into everyone else's water, and don't want to have to stop that free externality. And on-land farms are cheaper, the Kuterra on-land fish farm on Vancouver Island, cost a small $7.6 Million. Compare this with the in-ocean, auctioned licence cost in Norway of $9 - $12 million - that's before even purchasing paper clips for the office, or even having an office in Norway.
Two pieces of the puzzle fell into place from the four global fish farm newsletters that I scan every day for clues.
The first one is that Norway is so mad at the lice problems, the disease, fraudulent activities and the soiling of its own waters that it finally, after several decades of the companies just making things worse, has told them it will grant free licences to set up on land. (a 60- to 80-million Kroner cost in saltwater)
See: https://www.undercurrentnews.com/2015/12/11/norway-to-make-land-based-aquaculture-easier/?utm_source=Undercurrent+News+Alerts&utm_campaign=33b8782ce8-Salmon_roundup_Dec_11_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_feb55e2e23-33b8782ce8-92426209.
Even the Norwegian government wants Marine Harvest, Cermaq, Grief Seafood and the rest to come out of the water. Their own water is spoiled - more fish farm sewage flows into the ocean than the entire human population of Norway - and there is far less damage to put farms on land and deal with the sewage and eliminate all the other problems: the lice, disease, antibiotics, peroxide, killing of seals with a bullet in the head, and all the rest.
The Norwegian government realizes that the rest of the world is just moving right on by, putting in on-land structures. More and more these structures are being built in the major market areas, and this eliminates transportation issues, exchange rate issues, tariffs, and the other costs. Norwegian companies have to come out of the water or lose their markets.
Consumers, more and more, are against in-ocean farmed fish, and will no longer buy it. This is around the world. This will become zero sales for Marine Harvest, Cermaq and Grieg Seafood when the on-land farms set up in Los Angeles, Buenos Ares and the rest.
Norway got out of a 26% tariff in the USA last year (but there are other tariffs out there, and Russia, a real big market, has refused Norwegian salmon), but they can't send fresh product daily into New York, or Taiwan, or Beijing and all the rest. Companies setting up in the markets on land will simply render the old-tech dinosaurs, the Norwegian companies, as obsolete relics to the dump.
The second reason I think we are at the tipping point, is comments from the Deloitte Powerpoint document put out by Anders Milde Gjendemsjo, in Norway, in the past few months. It is a costing document for in-ocean, partly on land, and all on land, that you will find a direct link to in the 127 on-land link above. (I got a copy from Anders and read it a few months ago).
But today in global fish farm news, Gjendemsjo, had much to say. Here is a partial quote:
"Through detailed calculations, Deloitte disagree with these arguments [that on-land is too costly]. We have looked at the production and investment cost for both traditional open pen farming and land based farming in RAS. The calculations shows an estimated production cost per kilo at 26,50 NOK for the traditional production regime with smolts transferred to sea at 100 grams. The interesting result is that the estimated production cost on land is nearly the same, at 26,75 NOK per kilo."
There are more figures for you to look at, so do read this piece. Here is a further quote:
"With regards to investments, a production of 5000 metric tons of salmon in open pen cages at sea, the cost is in the range of 325-400 million Norwegian Kroner. This includes four licenses with a market price of 60-80 million Norwegian Kroner. Looking at land based farming – where we assume that the licenses will be free – the investment cost of a correspon-ding production volume is estimated to be in the range of 300-450 million Norwegian Kroner.
With these figures in mind, prepare for an increase in the worlds salmon production, not at sea but on land."
So, Anders concludes that on-land is the future for fish farms. See: http://www.akvagroup.com/news/future-growth-in-salmon-farming.
Marine Harvest, Cermaq, Grieg Seafood and the rest can change or die. Just so you know these same companies are ramping up to make big time growth in BC, right now, and instead of coming out of the water, they want to put more 'farms' in our pristine ocean. So, the fight just goes on. In their own country, Norway, in-ocean is toast, but Norwegians are still trying to further foul other people's oceans. Sad but true. I sure hope I don't have to do this for another 10 years.
As we know, in Canada, 'Canada is back', in Trudeau's phrase. We can only hope that the conflicted department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada will be changed, and we end this industry soon. I will be getting in touch with him and Minister Hunter Tootoo, too. Please send a note yourself.
You can reach the office of Justin Trudeau at justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca. All federal MPs have the same root to their email at Parliament in Ottawa.
If Norwegian fish farms are going to be on land in their own country, Norway, why the heck are Marine Harvest, Cermaq and Grieg Seafood still in Canadian water in BC, and Atlantic Canada?
Here is another list on the environmental damage caused, and illegal actions, resulting in jail sentences by fish farms, mostly in Norway: http://alexandramorton.typepad.com/alexandra_morton/2015/11/international-salmon-farming-news-fraud-cheating-fines-prison.html.
And, finally, go look at this list of News Bites on fish farm/seafood issues around the world, including that Fredrikson, CEO, Jo Lunder - the company that owns Marine Harvest - was sentenced to six months in jail for corruption. It is item 129 on this list. I think you will be shocked: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2015/07/key-document-fish-farm-news-bites.html. I have found more than 260 problems in the global press in the last six months. Hard to believe.
Out of the water, or out of business.
They have soiled Norway, the Shetlands, Faroes, Ireland, Scotland, England, Chile, Canada East and Canada West (Canada is so big it is more than two countries). And more oceans are soiled with Norwegian-style industry: NZ, Tasmania, Australia, the Balkans, Russia, the rest of Europe. And then there are the African and Asian countries, too warm for salmon like Vietnam, Thailand, then China, Korea... and the rest that are polluting their own oceans with salmon or other fish and crustaceans.
The saddest place of them all is that the industry is currently pushing into pristine Patagonia, a touchwood place for all of North America, because the rest of Chile is so soiled with fish farm disease, lice, escapes and sewage, they need new areas to despoil. These are euphemistically referred to as sanitary problems.
As everyone who reads this site knows, I have found 127 different fish farms systems on land, comprising more than 10,000 actual on-land fish farms around the world on land. But Norway and its Norwegian style fish farms have steadily refused to come out of the water. See: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2012/01/key-document-34-mostly-on-land-closed.html.
But finally the world is moving on from Norway and its people who have given the rest of the world a method of farming that ruins the very water it enters. And those of us who fight the fight do so on behalf of our own countries, our own pristine water, our own wild Pacific salmon, our aboriginals and their 10,000 year way of living with the ocean and salmon.
I estimate some 73 million wild salmon - before fisheries in saltwater - put at risk in BC alone, compared with only 170,000 at-ocean Atlantic salmon in the rest of the country.
BC has 99.8% of all the wild salmon in Canada, six eastern provinces, only a very small .2%. And those of us who give our time to this cause will just keep on fighting it. I make no money doing this, it is all for standing up for wild Pacific salmon.
Enough of that, let's move on to why we are at a tipping point. On the above link are a half dozen papers on how on-land farms cost less and make more money than in-ocean whose chief benefit is to release their sewage into everyone else's water, and don't want to have to stop that free externality. And on-land farms are cheaper, the Kuterra on-land fish farm on Vancouver Island, cost a small $7.6 Million. Compare this with the in-ocean, auctioned licence cost in Norway of $9 - $12 million - that's before even purchasing paper clips for the office, or even having an office in Norway.
Two pieces of the puzzle fell into place from the four global fish farm newsletters that I scan every day for clues.
The first one is that Norway is so mad at the lice problems, the disease, fraudulent activities and the soiling of its own waters that it finally, after several decades of the companies just making things worse, has told them it will grant free licences to set up on land. (a 60- to 80-million Kroner cost in saltwater)
See: https://www.undercurrentnews.com/2015/12/11/norway-to-make-land-based-aquaculture-easier/?utm_source=Undercurrent+News+Alerts&utm_campaign=33b8782ce8-Salmon_roundup_Dec_11_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_feb55e2e23-33b8782ce8-92426209.
Even the Norwegian government wants Marine Harvest, Cermaq, Grief Seafood and the rest to come out of the water. Their own water is spoiled - more fish farm sewage flows into the ocean than the entire human population of Norway - and there is far less damage to put farms on land and deal with the sewage and eliminate all the other problems: the lice, disease, antibiotics, peroxide, killing of seals with a bullet in the head, and all the rest.
The Norwegian government realizes that the rest of the world is just moving right on by, putting in on-land structures. More and more these structures are being built in the major market areas, and this eliminates transportation issues, exchange rate issues, tariffs, and the other costs. Norwegian companies have to come out of the water or lose their markets.
Consumers, more and more, are against in-ocean farmed fish, and will no longer buy it. This is around the world. This will become zero sales for Marine Harvest, Cermaq and Grieg Seafood when the on-land farms set up in Los Angeles, Buenos Ares and the rest.
Norway got out of a 26% tariff in the USA last year (but there are other tariffs out there, and Russia, a real big market, has refused Norwegian salmon), but they can't send fresh product daily into New York, or Taiwan, or Beijing and all the rest. Companies setting up in the markets on land will simply render the old-tech dinosaurs, the Norwegian companies, as obsolete relics to the dump.
The second reason I think we are at the tipping point, is comments from the Deloitte Powerpoint document put out by Anders Milde Gjendemsjo, in Norway, in the past few months. It is a costing document for in-ocean, partly on land, and all on land, that you will find a direct link to in the 127 on-land link above. (I got a copy from Anders and read it a few months ago).
But today in global fish farm news, Gjendemsjo, had much to say. Here is a partial quote:
"Through detailed calculations, Deloitte disagree with these arguments [that on-land is too costly]. We have looked at the production and investment cost for both traditional open pen farming and land based farming in RAS. The calculations shows an estimated production cost per kilo at 26,50 NOK for the traditional production regime with smolts transferred to sea at 100 grams. The interesting result is that the estimated production cost on land is nearly the same, at 26,75 NOK per kilo."
There are more figures for you to look at, so do read this piece. Here is a further quote:
"With regards to investments, a production of 5000 metric tons of salmon in open pen cages at sea, the cost is in the range of 325-400 million Norwegian Kroner. This includes four licenses with a market price of 60-80 million Norwegian Kroner. Looking at land based farming – where we assume that the licenses will be free – the investment cost of a correspon-ding production volume is estimated to be in the range of 300-450 million Norwegian Kroner.
With these figures in mind, prepare for an increase in the worlds salmon production, not at sea but on land."
So, Anders concludes that on-land is the future for fish farms. See: http://www.akvagroup.com/news/future-growth-in-salmon-farming.
Marine Harvest, Cermaq, Grieg Seafood and the rest can change or die. Just so you know these same companies are ramping up to make big time growth in BC, right now, and instead of coming out of the water, they want to put more 'farms' in our pristine ocean. So, the fight just goes on. In their own country, Norway, in-ocean is toast, but Norwegians are still trying to further foul other people's oceans. Sad but true. I sure hope I don't have to do this for another 10 years.
As we know, in Canada, 'Canada is back', in Trudeau's phrase. We can only hope that the conflicted department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada will be changed, and we end this industry soon. I will be getting in touch with him and Minister Hunter Tootoo, too. Please send a note yourself.
You can reach the office of Justin Trudeau at justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca. All federal MPs have the same root to their email at Parliament in Ottawa.
If Norwegian fish farms are going to be on land in their own country, Norway, why the heck are Marine Harvest, Cermaq and Grieg Seafood still in Canadian water in BC, and Atlantic Canada?
Here is another list on the environmental damage caused, and illegal actions, resulting in jail sentences by fish farms, mostly in Norway: http://alexandramorton.typepad.com/alexandra_morton/2015/11/international-salmon-farming-news-fraud-cheating-fines-prison.html.
And, finally, go look at this list of News Bites on fish farm/seafood issues around the world, including that Fredrikson, CEO, Jo Lunder - the company that owns Marine Harvest - was sentenced to six months in jail for corruption. It is item 129 on this list. I think you will be shocked: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2015/07/key-document-fish-farm-news-bites.html. I have found more than 260 problems in the global press in the last six months. Hard to believe.
Out of the water, or out of business.
Tuesday, 8 December 2015
Marine Harvest - Fixes the Image, Not the Problem, Updated Dec 18, 2015
Marine Harvest et al, are having a deuce of a time with lice in Norway, and have just been excoriated in the press over the well-boat dumping of peroxide into the ocean - a chemical to kill lice - for the past 30 years. You can have Google translate this Norwegian press for you: https://www.dn.no/nyheter/naringsliv/2015/12/06/2052/Havbruk/dumper-kjemikalier-uten-tillatelse.
It is pretty raking text regarding the industry and the government. A Norwegian lawyer thinks fishermen can sue for loss of shrimp and fisheries - an issue, here in BC (the new Grieg Seafood licences for instance, for which they offered shrimp fishermen money in compensation).
And the CEO of Fredriksen, the company that owns Marine Harvest, has just been jailed for corruption, item 129 on this list of more thant 200 article links: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2015/07/key-document-fish-farm-news-bites.html.
The rest of the list details the problems with fish farms and seafood industry, including, fraudulent reporting of lice and jail sentences for that, boom bust industry, job losses, carnivorous takeovers, diseases, lice, killing of seals, and so on. The problem is fish farms being in the ocean in open nets. The solution is to put fish farms on land, and, voila, no lice, no disease, no dead fish, no sewage, no peroxide, no antibiotics and no dead, shot-in-the-head seals.
Ignoring all the evidence, Marine Harvest chooses to fix the image, not the problem. You see, MH is seeking ASC accreditation for its Norway operations.
Here is their spin: "Marine Harvest will initially roll out certification against the ASC standard of their salmon farms in Norway and Scotland in cooperation with WWF. The company said it is an important step for the farmed salmon market and will have a profound effect on the industry by introducing and standardising best practices for responsible farming practices on a global scale."
See: http://www.seafoodnews.com/Story/1000935/81870/Marine-Harvest-is-Largest-Salmon-Producer-to-Commit-to-Certifying-its-Global-Operations-Against-ASC.
Profound effect? I doubt that. In fact it will have no effect, or a negative one. People who have to live with fish farms overwhelmingly reject them. The global news gets out to consumers who have been turning their backs on farmed fish all around the world. The on-land, near market farms will likely kill in-ocean open-net farms in the next decade because of lower transport costs, and avoidance of tariffs will give them enough margin to make more money. And supply a fresh product.
Back to the ASCs. As the ASCs allow in-ocean fish farms, they are not a valid accreditation. Such orgs as Greenpeace, David Suzuki Foundation, Sea Watch and Monterrey Bay Aquarium don't credit in-ocean farms. So Marine Harvest's fix is just not going to fix the problem - so it will persist. They are just trying to fix their image. More and more, consumers just don't buy it.
The Skuna Bay fish farm in Nootka Sound BC did the 'we are organic' routine, though, as an in-ocean fish farm, it was leaching out chemicals, lice, disease, sewage and was also done for killing the unheard of number of 65 seals in its net, netting a fine of $100,000. What are they doing with this in-ocean problem? They, too, are image fixing, sending employees across North America selling to chefs as organic. My article on the US Open Tennis tournament being gullible enough to accept at face value what they were sold is one of the high traffic articles on this site. The link is in September: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2015/09/skuna-bay-sells-farmed-salmon-to.html.
Just go look at the list of problems with fish farms I have found in the past five months. I think you will be shocked. See: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2015/07/key-document-fish-farm-news-bites.html.
And just look at this Dec 11 news: even the Norwegian government is going to give out free on-land fish farm licences because of lice, environmental damage, and getting fish farms out of the ocean they use as a free, open sewer: https://www.undercurrentnews.com/2015/12/11/norway-to-make-land-based-aquaculture-easier/?utm_source=Undercurrent+News+Alerts&utm_campaign=33b8782ce8-Salmon_roundup_Dec_11_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_feb55e2e23-33b8782ce8-92426209.
So why is Marine Harvest fixing its image when it can fix the problem and get out of the ocean for free? The government also notes that other countries are getting ahead in the on-land bandwagon, leaving Marine Harvest, Cermaq and Grieg Seafood in the dust.
It is pretty raking text regarding the industry and the government. A Norwegian lawyer thinks fishermen can sue for loss of shrimp and fisheries - an issue, here in BC (the new Grieg Seafood licences for instance, for which they offered shrimp fishermen money in compensation).
And the CEO of Fredriksen, the company that owns Marine Harvest, has just been jailed for corruption, item 129 on this list of more thant 200 article links: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2015/07/key-document-fish-farm-news-bites.html.
The rest of the list details the problems with fish farms and seafood industry, including, fraudulent reporting of lice and jail sentences for that, boom bust industry, job losses, carnivorous takeovers, diseases, lice, killing of seals, and so on. The problem is fish farms being in the ocean in open nets. The solution is to put fish farms on land, and, voila, no lice, no disease, no dead fish, no sewage, no peroxide, no antibiotics and no dead, shot-in-the-head seals.
Ignoring all the evidence, Marine Harvest chooses to fix the image, not the problem. You see, MH is seeking ASC accreditation for its Norway operations.
Here is their spin: "Marine Harvest will initially roll out certification against the ASC standard of their salmon farms in Norway and Scotland in cooperation with WWF. The company said it is an important step for the farmed salmon market and will have a profound effect on the industry by introducing and standardising best practices for responsible farming practices on a global scale."
See: http://www.seafoodnews.com/Story/1000935/81870/Marine-Harvest-is-Largest-Salmon-Producer-to-Commit-to-Certifying-its-Global-Operations-Against-ASC.
Profound effect? I doubt that. In fact it will have no effect, or a negative one. People who have to live with fish farms overwhelmingly reject them. The global news gets out to consumers who have been turning their backs on farmed fish all around the world. The on-land, near market farms will likely kill in-ocean open-net farms in the next decade because of lower transport costs, and avoidance of tariffs will give them enough margin to make more money. And supply a fresh product.
Back to the ASCs. As the ASCs allow in-ocean fish farms, they are not a valid accreditation. Such orgs as Greenpeace, David Suzuki Foundation, Sea Watch and Monterrey Bay Aquarium don't credit in-ocean farms. So Marine Harvest's fix is just not going to fix the problem - so it will persist. They are just trying to fix their image. More and more, consumers just don't buy it.
The Skuna Bay fish farm in Nootka Sound BC did the 'we are organic' routine, though, as an in-ocean fish farm, it was leaching out chemicals, lice, disease, sewage and was also done for killing the unheard of number of 65 seals in its net, netting a fine of $100,000. What are they doing with this in-ocean problem? They, too, are image fixing, sending employees across North America selling to chefs as organic. My article on the US Open Tennis tournament being gullible enough to accept at face value what they were sold is one of the high traffic articles on this site. The link is in September: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2015/09/skuna-bay-sells-farmed-salmon-to.html.
Just go look at the list of problems with fish farms I have found in the past five months. I think you will be shocked. See: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2015/07/key-document-fish-farm-news-bites.html.
And just look at this Dec 11 news: even the Norwegian government is going to give out free on-land fish farm licences because of lice, environmental damage, and getting fish farms out of the ocean they use as a free, open sewer: https://www.undercurrentnews.com/2015/12/11/norway-to-make-land-based-aquaculture-easier/?utm_source=Undercurrent+News+Alerts&utm_campaign=33b8782ce8-Salmon_roundup_Dec_11_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_feb55e2e23-33b8782ce8-92426209.
So why is Marine Harvest fixing its image when it can fix the problem and get out of the ocean for free? The government also notes that other countries are getting ahead in the on-land bandwagon, leaving Marine Harvest, Cermaq and Grieg Seafood in the dust.
Sunday, 6 December 2015
Monsanto, Marine Harvest, Cermaq, Grieg Seafood, Big Tobacco, is There any Difference?, Updated, Dec8, 2015
Of great surprise, a coalition of ENGOs, scientists, lawyers and individuals just initiated action to take Monsanto to the world court in the Hague in 2016 for crimes against humanity.
Just announced at the time of the Paris climate change initiative, Dec 2015, the substance of the case is that Monsanto's business practices, media and government manipulation, its products, for example, Round Up, Agent Orange (yes, from Vietnam), PCBs and its GMO seeds for single-crop farming, have caused great damage to the environment, the world, the soil and to humans themselves that is criminal in nature.
This is one news document on the subject: http://sustainablepulse.com/2015/12/03/monsanto-put-on-trial-for-crimes-against-humanity-in-the-hague/#.VmSyX7iDGkr. Read it and come back here.
I was struck by the similarity between what is suggested of Monsanto and what was suggested against the global fish farm industry, the multi-national, multi-billion dollar companies, typified by Marine Harvest, Cermaq and Grieg Seafood, after it neutralized a January 9, 2004 article in Science that determined farmed salmon have high levels of cancer-causing chemicals (largely because of fish meal in fish feed).
When I finished reading the document, I realized I would never again believe anything said by a fish farm company again, unless I ground-proofed it first.
This is that document: https://www.academia.edu/2939514/Spinning_farmed_salmon. Like Big Tobacco, that didn't know cigarettes caused cancer a good score of years after everyone else on the planet did, the fish farms went after the Hites et al group, Albany, New York, and did what it took to discredit the research. The David Miller article reads like a Hollywood thriller, very hard to believe an actual company doing such things in the real world, not on screen.
This is the Science article that was neutralized: http://www.albany.edu/ihe/salmonstudy/salmon_study.pdf.
The Hites group have gone on to publish a decade worth of articles on the high level of persistent organic pollutants (including, like Monsanto, PCBs), cancer causing and other chemicals in farmed fish. Last year, Norwegian doctors and researchers were warning Norwegians not to eat farmed fish because of the chemicals. See my index for www.fishfarmnews.blogspot.com to find documents: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2014/10/index-to-wwwfishfarmnewsblogspotcom.html.
In both the Monsanto and fish farm case, the documents suggest a high level of collusion and willingness to win for big dollars at any cost; the part of this story that hadn't fallen into place for me, is whether fish farms currently have problems with their public image, like in 2004.
I started listing articles that came my way into a post. I receive four fish farm international newsletters every day, some with 50 stories to scan, as well as two summaries weekly, and two other ENGO summaries weekly, too. In other words, I am up on the global news - every day.
You go look at this post and see if you are not shocked by the illegal, fraudulent, boom/bust industry activities that the fish farm and seafood industry has around the world. My list is only five months of 2015, but go look and scan a list of almost 200 articles I give you links to.
To give you an example, the CEO of Fredriksen, the company that owns Marine Harvest, was sentenced to six months in jail recently for fraud/corruption. This is item 129, the CEO is: Jo Lunder.
I am not making this up. Just go look at the list, and reach your own conclusions about fish farms. I think you will be shocked and start thinking that the Monsanto connection and its 'crimes against humanity' isn't such a stretch. See: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2015/07/key-document-fish-farm-news-bites.html.
Just in, an article that claims there is much in error in the case against Monsanto. You may want to read it too: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2015/12/07/no-monsanto-is-not-going-on-trial-for-crimes-against-humanity/.
Also just in, an article on using peroxide to kill lice in Norway, is far more damaging to the environment than keeping fish on land and that the government has known about this for 30 years. You can have Google translate it for you: https://www.dn.no/nyheter/naringsliv/2015/12/06/2052/Havbruk/dumper-kjemikalier-uten-tillatelse. A Norwegian lawyer thinks fishermen can sue for loss of shrimp and fisheries.
Just announced at the time of the Paris climate change initiative, Dec 2015, the substance of the case is that Monsanto's business practices, media and government manipulation, its products, for example, Round Up, Agent Orange (yes, from Vietnam), PCBs and its GMO seeds for single-crop farming, have caused great damage to the environment, the world, the soil and to humans themselves that is criminal in nature.
This is one news document on the subject: http://sustainablepulse.com/2015/12/03/monsanto-put-on-trial-for-crimes-against-humanity-in-the-hague/#.VmSyX7iDGkr. Read it and come back here.
I was struck by the similarity between what is suggested of Monsanto and what was suggested against the global fish farm industry, the multi-national, multi-billion dollar companies, typified by Marine Harvest, Cermaq and Grieg Seafood, after it neutralized a January 9, 2004 article in Science that determined farmed salmon have high levels of cancer-causing chemicals (largely because of fish meal in fish feed).
When I finished reading the document, I realized I would never again believe anything said by a fish farm company again, unless I ground-proofed it first.
This is that document: https://www.academia.edu/2939514/Spinning_farmed_salmon. Like Big Tobacco, that didn't know cigarettes caused cancer a good score of years after everyone else on the planet did, the fish farms went after the Hites et al group, Albany, New York, and did what it took to discredit the research. The David Miller article reads like a Hollywood thriller, very hard to believe an actual company doing such things in the real world, not on screen.
This is the Science article that was neutralized: http://www.albany.edu/ihe/salmonstudy/salmon_study.pdf.
The Hites group have gone on to publish a decade worth of articles on the high level of persistent organic pollutants (including, like Monsanto, PCBs), cancer causing and other chemicals in farmed fish. Last year, Norwegian doctors and researchers were warning Norwegians not to eat farmed fish because of the chemicals. See my index for www.fishfarmnews.blogspot.com to find documents: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2014/10/index-to-wwwfishfarmnewsblogspotcom.html.
In both the Monsanto and fish farm case, the documents suggest a high level of collusion and willingness to win for big dollars at any cost; the part of this story that hadn't fallen into place for me, is whether fish farms currently have problems with their public image, like in 2004.
I started listing articles that came my way into a post. I receive four fish farm international newsletters every day, some with 50 stories to scan, as well as two summaries weekly, and two other ENGO summaries weekly, too. In other words, I am up on the global news - every day.
You go look at this post and see if you are not shocked by the illegal, fraudulent, boom/bust industry activities that the fish farm and seafood industry has around the world. My list is only five months of 2015, but go look and scan a list of almost 200 articles I give you links to.
To give you an example, the CEO of Fredriksen, the company that owns Marine Harvest, was sentenced to six months in jail recently for fraud/corruption. This is item 129, the CEO is: Jo Lunder.
I am not making this up. Just go look at the list, and reach your own conclusions about fish farms. I think you will be shocked and start thinking that the Monsanto connection and its 'crimes against humanity' isn't such a stretch. See: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2015/07/key-document-fish-farm-news-bites.html.
Just in, an article that claims there is much in error in the case against Monsanto. You may want to read it too: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2015/12/07/no-monsanto-is-not-going-on-trial-for-crimes-against-humanity/.
Also just in, an article on using peroxide to kill lice in Norway, is far more damaging to the environment than keeping fish on land and that the government has known about this for 30 years. You can have Google translate it for you: https://www.dn.no/nyheter/naringsliv/2015/12/06/2052/Havbruk/dumper-kjemikalier-uten-tillatelse. A Norwegian lawyer thinks fishermen can sue for loss of shrimp and fisheries.
Wednesday, 2 December 2015
Nordlaks - Fish Farm Ship Mega-Sewage Problem - Norway, Updated Dec 5, 2015
There is something odd about Norwegians. They can divest from oil, but they can't seem to understand that polluting the ocean with fish farm sewage is not on for the rest of the world.
The rest of the world is in Paris trying to come to some agreement on solving climate change for the entire planet because our lives depend upon it. But Norway just keeps on pumping out more and more sewage into the world's oceans, reducing our ocean's ability to deal with methane, carbon, greater eutrophication, nitrogen and phosphorous, among other pollutants.
Nordlaks is bringing on stream a ship to ride the open sea, releasing 330% more pollution than the typical in-ocean farm of 600,000 fish - Nordlaks ship will hold 2 Million fish - and it thinks this is sustainability. Their plan should be on the negotiation table in Paris, and eliminated before they get finished building the ships.
Instead of closed containment on land, they propose more than tripling the sewage load from fish farms. Hard to understand. Here is a link: https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1880129387856188740#editor/target=post;postID=4171086541691897566;onPublishedMenu=allposts;onClosedMenu=allposts;postNum=0;src=postname.
And here is a quote from the article:
"One Havfarm will be able to contain 10,000 tons of salmon – over 2 million fish. For comparison, the Nordlaks salmon slaughterhouse at Børøya produces 70,000 tons a year. The facilities will be able to withstand a significant wave height of ten metres, and can be raised by four metres during inclement weather. The ocean farm itself will extend ten metres below sea level. The farm will be constructed as a steel frame for six “cages” measuring 50 by 50 metres on the surface, with aquaculture nets going to a depth of 60 metres."
And:
We need Norwegians on the side of getting rid of climate change, not making it worse.
As despised as big oil, says it all. Norway needs to wake up and get the climate change fish farms out of the water.
The rest of the world is in Paris trying to come to some agreement on solving climate change for the entire planet because our lives depend upon it. But Norway just keeps on pumping out more and more sewage into the world's oceans, reducing our ocean's ability to deal with methane, carbon, greater eutrophication, nitrogen and phosphorous, among other pollutants.
Nordlaks is bringing on stream a ship to ride the open sea, releasing 330% more pollution than the typical in-ocean farm of 600,000 fish - Nordlaks ship will hold 2 Million fish - and it thinks this is sustainability. Their plan should be on the negotiation table in Paris, and eliminated before they get finished building the ships.
Instead of closed containment on land, they propose more than tripling the sewage load from fish farms. Hard to understand. Here is a link: https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1880129387856188740#editor/target=post;postID=4171086541691897566;onPublishedMenu=allposts;onClosedMenu=allposts;postNum=0;src=postname.
And here is a quote from the article:
"One Havfarm will be able to contain 10,000 tons of salmon – over 2 million fish. For comparison, the Nordlaks salmon slaughterhouse at Børøya produces 70,000 tons a year. The facilities will be able to withstand a significant wave height of ten metres, and can be raised by four metres during inclement weather. The ocean farm itself will extend ten metres below sea level. The farm will be constructed as a steel frame for six “cages” measuring 50 by 50 metres on the surface, with aquaculture nets going to a depth of 60 metres."
And:
"Because steel louse skirts at a depth of ten metres will make sea lice history. When the Havfarm lays at anchor, the spreading area for waste products will be 27 times larger than it would be for ordinary pens, a massive 472,000 square metres. To the extent lice may appear on the salmon, the farm can facilitate the manual removal of sea lice. This also provides a totally chemical-free production. The use of chemicals to remove lice has been a much-debated environmental issue, and has been a major expense for the industry as well. This will change the direction of the aquaculture industry, which has been struggling due to such issues."
For those who want to look at what the rest of the world is doing, this link has 122 on-land fish farm systems on it, comprising more than 10,000 actual farms on land around the world: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2012/01/key-document-34-mostly-on-land-closed.html.
Norway is now the old-tech dinosaur, and sadly for the rest of the planet, is watching the rest of the world move on while it ramps up its climate change fish farms. This should not happen.
Finally, each ship will cost 600 - 700 Million NOK, at Dec 4 exchange rate of .16 K/$, is $96- to $112-million Canadian. When you consider that the Kuterra, BC on-land plant cost $7.6 Million, that means each ship that could be avoided, would result in 12.6 to 14.7 on-land fish farms in BC, Canada, or for the three almost half of the entire operating in-ocean fish farms in BC, i.e., 37.8 to 44.1, but on-land where the world wants sewage dealt with, not adding to climate change.
We need Norwegians on the side of getting rid of climate change, not making it worse.
This just in from Huffington Post: 'While marches in the rest of the world largely targeted the fossil fuel industry, in B.C., salmon farming is viewed as our own version of the tar sands, as despised as big oil.'
As despised as big oil, says it all. Norway needs to wake up and get the climate change fish farms out of the water.
This just in: Monasanto is being taken to court for crimes against humanity for its role in climate change. I wonder whether fish farms will be charged during the Paris climate change negotiations for their role in polluting the ocean?. See: http://sustainablepulse.com/2015/12/03/monsanto-put-on-trial-for-crimes-against-humanity-in-the-hague/#.VmP_friDGkr.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)