Fish Farms Kill Billions of Forage Fish - Post 2

I have done a lot more technical reading: the Nofima report (it's math is as dense as it gets) and the Sea Around Us report, as well as communicated with the latter.

The links for those reports are in my last post on this subject:  http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2016/09/fish-farms-kill-billions-of-fish.html. In NOFIMA, work your way through the feed conversion section, pa 27 - 34, and see if it makes you dizzy.

While the fish conversion rate of fishmeal/oil into feed has not changed from 5 to 1, because the stocks of forage fish have been fished down so drastically for fish feed and other uses, 19 out of 20 stocks have problems (other than Antarctic krill - which is not even a fish), the number of forage fish made into feed has dramatically dropped.

The forage fish has been largely replaced with proteins and ingredients from plants, also fish guts and waste, along with chicken feathers and other things. In a personal communication from the Sea Around Us, I am told a feed conversion rate of 2, is a more current value.

So, let's run through the figures again:
 

1.Size of forage fish and number/kg                       88.2 gms, 11.3fish/kg

2.Kg of bait fish per kg farmed salmon                  2kg

3.No of kg before salmon harvest                          5kg

4.Number of fish per farm                                       600,000

5.Number of Farms in BC                                       85

The equation is: 11.3 X 2 X 5 X 600,000 X 85 = 5.76 billion dead fish.

Cutting to the chase, the results are:

Fish farms kill 113 fish to feed a single farmed salmon.
Fish farms kill 67.8 million fish to feed a single farm.
Fish farms kill 5.76 Billion fish to bring one harvest of fish to market.

When fish farms claim 1.125 to 1.25 conversion rate, that is deceptive, as it means fish meal in feed, but neglects the wet weight of the original fish. It is also based on Norwegian analysis, which it must always be noted that the government and business act in lock step fashion in Norway, and the aim is to make the most money possible. The government has benefited many times, starting and retaining Cermaq for instance until its sale in 2014 to Mitsubishi.

And you should know that those plant substitutes also have problems and due criticism. Soy can be the result of rain forest stripped and aboriginals thrown off their land, as well as GMO problems. Some sources of oil include palm oil, one that has long been criticized.

In addition, the amount of phosphorous lost is 73% because it passes out with sewage, but because it is a limited mineral, closed containment should be used so it can be retained from sewage - the world is going to run out of phosphorous if it is not retained.

Also, fish release the more toxic ammonium rather than urea as in land animals. Because sewage is released in BC waters, it negatively affects the environment. It needs to be collected in closed systems and recycled. Nitrogen is very important in protein synthesis, for instance.

And all those fish that are killed to feed farmed fish? 68% of their protein is lost as waste from the fish. And those omega 3s and 6s? 48% are lost from the farmed fish. In fact, because the 'trimmings' are cut off during processing, it means the constituent retained in the edible portion of the salmon is less than half of what was in the fish before being slaughtered.

And, of course, feeding farmed fish with farm salmon factory waste, is the same process that started mad cow disease.

See how much is lost. From this NOFIMA table:

	Retained in whole body of salmon	Retention in edible part of salmon	Retention in trimmings 1	Not retained – loss 2
Energy	37	21	16	63
Protein	34	26	8	66
Lipid - 3	52	23	28	48
EPA + DHA - 3	58	26	32	42
Phosphorous	27	12	15	73

1 Retention in whole body (%) – retention in edible part (%)

2 100% retention in whole body (%)

3 Includes lipids produced from non-lipid precursors

                                                      *************

One last thing: fish farms still use the 90% figure for forage fish in fish meal. That would mean my original figures of 14.4 billion dead forage fish as well as the 282 dead fish to feed one farmed fish, would still be the correct current figures.

See:  http://www.aquaculture.ca/files/faqs.php.

"Where does fish feed come from? 

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, about 90 percent of global fishmeal production is from oily fish species such as anchovies, mackerel, pilchard, capelin and menhaden. These small, bony fish are generally unsuitable for human consumption. As an alternative to fishmeals, the aquaculture industry is increasingly using vegetable proteins and oils."

Worker Job Numbers Worldwide - Marine Harvest Handbook 2016, Updated Aug 15, 2017

Let me give you an example of how the industry vastly over estimates its number of jobs. This allows it to claim to governments that it is about 'jobs and revenue' for the country, which it is not. On the contrary, companies work solely for their shareholders. The following handbook says that salary costs are low because most production is automated.

First: From Marine Harvest's Handbook 2016, industry estimates: http://www.marineharvest.com/globalassets/investors/handbook/2016-salmon-industry-handbook-final.pdf, its figures:

Norway: According to Nofima there were over 9,600 full time employees in the aquaculture industry in Norway in 2013. The employment effect of derived activities of aquaculture purchases are nearly 15,000 employees. In total there

are over 24,000 full time employees either directly or indirectly as a result of the aquaculture industry in Norway.

Scotland: According to Scotland Salmon Producers Organisation (SSPO), over 2,500 people are employed in salmon production in Scotland. The Scottish Government estimates that over 8,000 jobs are generated directly or indirectly by the aquaculture industry.

Canada: Estimates on Canadian employment say that around 15,000 people are employed in aquaculture, where 6,000 are based in British Colombia.

Chile: Direct employment in aquaculture (incl. processing) is estimated to around 30,000 people in 2014. 

The Marine Harvest Group has a total of 12,454 employees in 23 countries worldwide (31 Dec2015).

In Norway, both salaries and levels of automation are highest, while the opposite is the case in Chile. Salaries in UK and Canada are somewhat lower

than in Norway.

                                          *************

Second: Now the BC stats figures, the only good stats in Canada: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2013/02/sport-fishing-how-we-tack-up-feb-6-2013.html.

BC Stats puts full, multiplier job figures for all of aquaculture, not simply fish farms at 1,700, or only 28.3% of what Marine Harvest claims.

I went out and found the actual number of employees at fish farms in BC. It is 820 jobs, or only 13.7% of what Marine Harvest claims.

So, if you want to know what the real number of employees in any country is, just multiply the Marine Harvest figures by .137, or roughly one in ten.

                                                    *******

Third: Also from the MH Handbook, p39:

"Salary: Salary level differs among the production regions but in general the salary cost is low because labour cost is a minor part of the total cost as much of the production is automated."

So, Marine Harvest has said it employs few people because so much of the production is automated. People are not needed in fish farming, brought to you by Marine Harvest. Hmm. Just as I thought.

Fourth: The actual number of Scotland jobs is 1256, less than half of the claimed figure. And only 25%, or 1 in 4, of the total figure. See:  "The salmon farms are highly automated and according to the Scottish government’s 2015 fish farm production survey, total full-time employment in marine salmon farms amounts to a mere 1,256 jobs in an economically active population of 3.5m. It is less than 1 per cent of those employed by the NHS [Natonal Health Service] in Scotland." See: https://www.ft.com/content/8b73e21a-7cf8-11e7-ab01-a13271d1ee9c."

Boom Bust Industry - Aggressive Takeovers, Billions of Dollars - Fish Farms, Updated Sept 29

I have consistently pointed out that one of the biggest problems with fish farms - Marine Harvest, Cermaq, Grieg Seafood, and so on - is that it is boom bust industry where workers are hired or fired based on market forces. There is no even keel for this industry, or workers - mostly workers.

See: http://www.marineharvest.com/globalassets/investors/handbook/2016-salmon-industry-handbook-final.pdf.

The top end people, like John Fredriksen who owns the company that owns Marine Harvest, not so much. He sold off more than $548 million in his MH shares (one third of his holdings) earlier this year to bet that MH shares would drop big time, and then could be bought back for less than he sold them for (his other industries in oil and shipping may need propping up this year, as well)

Kjersti Sandvik's new book, Under the Surface, points out that the profit margin is 23- to 25-%, a powerful big reason for entry into the industry. And companies like Cermaq, and Hydro actually started inside the Norwegian government, something that would not be allowed in Canada - as in fraudulent - and were sold out, Cermaq as recently as 2014 to Mitsubishi, the government still holding 34% of the share value.

This non-arms length nature is common in Norway. Business and government act together to put money in both's pockets.

There are many reasons for busts but mostly it is around losing crops of fish to disease, sewage, algal blooms, lice and so on. If you go to the index for this site (in Jan 2016), you will find the reference for the Kibenge Powerpoint presentation that points out the aquaculture industry loses 33- to 49-% of their fish/crop to disease. As in bust. These problems can be solved by putting fish farms on land. No one needs to get fired.

You will see that the boom bust nature is amply demonstrated in the Marine Harvest Handbook 2016, by one of the the appendices, on mergers, buyouts and takeovers:

But its doesn't end with this jaw-dropping list. The list goes on, as in BOOM BUST. And you will notice the Hydro company that had a long history in the Norwegian government:

While you are lifting your jaw off the floor, consider this list of Martine Harvest's various formulations over the years. At one point it was a shelf company that no one wanted. Fredriksen, a guy who operates in 'cyclical' industries picked it up as part of a deal for bigger company, and produced more than $15-billion in profits for shareholders over a decade, as in boom.

These images speak for themselves. I need not say another word.

                                                     *************

But you might watch this video:  https://www.facebook.com/alexandra.morton.1671/posts/1882311535330732.

Worker Job Numbers Worldwide - Marine Harvest Handbook 2016, Updated August 15 2017

Let me give you an example of how the industry vastly over estimates its number of jobs. This allows it to claim to governments that it is about 'jobs and revenue' for the country, which it is not. On the contrary, companies work solely for their shareholders.

From Marine Harvest's Handbook 2016, industry estimates: http://www.marineharvest.com/globalassets/investors/handbook/2016-salmon-industry-handbook-final.pdf, its figures:

Norway: According to Nofima there were over 9,600 full time employees in the aquaculture industry in Norway in 2013. The employment effect of derived activities of aquaculture purchases are nearly 15,000 employees. In total there

are over 24,000 full time employees either directly or indirectly as a result of the aquaculture industry in Norway.

Scotland: According to Scotland Salmon Producers Organisation (SSPO), over 2,500 people are employed in salmon production in Scotland. The Scottish Government estimates that over 8,000 jobs are generated directly or indirectly by the aquaculture industry.

Canada: Estimates on Canadian employment say that around 15,000 people are employed in aquaculture, where 6,000 are based in British Colombia.

Chile: Direct employment in aquaculture (incl. processing) is estimated to around 30,000 people in 2014. 

The Marine Harvest Group has a total of 12,454 employees in 23 countries worldwide (31 Dec2015).

In Norway, both salaries and levels of automation are highest, while the opposite is the case in Chile. Salaries in UK and Canada are somewhat lower

than in Norway.

                                          *************

Now the BC stats figures, the only good stats in Canada: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2013/02/sport-fishing-how-we-tack-up-feb-6-2013.html.

BC Stats puts full, multiplier job figures for all of aquaculture, not simply fish farms at 1,700, or only 28.3% of what Marine Harvest claims.

I went out and found the actual number of employees at fish farms in BC. It is 820 jobs, or only 13.7% of what Marine Harvest claims.

So, if you want to know what the real number of employees in any country is, just multiply the Marine Harvest figures by .137, or roughly one in ten.

94% New Foundland Rivers - Farmed Salmon Escapees Breeding with Wild Salmon

Sadly, it has to be pointed out that the interbreeding and thus changing genetics of wild populations of Atlantic salmon has been found in 17 of 18 studied rivers in New Foundland - 94%

The escapees are from the 750,000 farmed fish that have escaped from fish farms over the years.

This has been confirmed by DFO, the government body that is in a conflict of interest of protecting wild salmon stocks while at the same time promoting farmed salmon.

You can read the full account at the Atlantic Salmon Foundation's site, of at CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/farmed-salmon-mating-with-wild-in-nl-dfo-study-1.3770864.

Here in BC, the same thing is happening: DFO in a conflict of interest. Canadians just want the government to simply put fish farms on land and solve the problem.

Meanwhile the biggest salmon farm operation in Atlantic Canada features Grieg Seafood wanting to put 11 farms, 7 million fish, in Placentia Bay. This does not make sense.

It is time to say once and for all that all science does is waste time. Fish farms call for it, and get a free ride while it is being carried out and then say more science is needed because it was not definitive, and so it is an endless cycle.

You can go to my post on the disease in BC: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2016/08/key-document-fish-farm-diseases-in-bc.html.

And go see this video that was taken at a random farm in a random pen in BC: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2016/09/marine-harvest-diseases-wild-herring.html. These are obviously diseased farmed fish. A reasonable person would conclude that if you can find such obvious disease in a randomly picked farm that disease must be endemic in BC fish farms.

Canadians do not want farmed fish killing wild salmon. There are 100,000 pages of science out there on the environmental damage caused by in-ocean fish farms. We don't need anymore science. We just need fish farms on land.

Google: fish farm environmental damage, and you will be reading all day, and into the night:  https://www.google.ca/search?q=fish+farm+environmental+damage&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=hRnkV-j_CNeqjwOP4YTwAw.

                                                        **************

Just in: Lawyer Owen Myers is taking the Grieg, NL, project to court: http://asf.ca/greig-aquaculture-taking-advantage-of-weak-regulations-says.html.

From the Atlantic Salmon post:

"Myers says beyond the legal reasons to file with the Supreme Court, there are a host of other reasons why the project should be halted.

He says there are so many obvious problems with the project he doesn't understand how it could have happened in the first place. The sterilized fish are already a problem in Norway and while Norway has strict regulations for sea-lice this province has none.

The date for the Supreme Court to hear Myers application is set for January 20.

Myers says it's pretty black and white. He says the Norwegian company sees the province as some sort of "banana republic" they can take advantage of and the government doesn't care as long as a few jobs are created and they get reelected."

Global Fish Reduction to Fishmeal and Fish Oil - Daniel Pauly/Tim Cashion, Updated Feb 23, 2017

(Note the links at the bottom, and that I give you the updated numbers of forage fish killed to feed fish farm fish in this post: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2016/10/fish-farms-kill-billions-of-wild-fish.html. The updated figures are: 113 forage fish killed per farmed salon.  

The updated figures are: 113 forage fish killed per farmed salmon; 67.8 million forage fish killed to feed one farm to harvest; 5.76 Billion killed to feed an industry the size of BC's to harvest. The larger figures at the bottom are those if one uses the commonly found conversion rate of forage fish to fish feed of 5, to 1. I have been convinced that it is too high).

This paper allows attribution of actual fish farm landings, as in how much the Norwegian-style fish farm system has responsibility for collapsing world fish stocks to feed carnivore fish for first world mouths, rather than direct human consumption by third world mouths.

This means Marine Harvest, Cermaq and Grieg Seafood. 

Answer to come, but for now the abstract::

Globally, the production of fishmeal and fish oil(FMFO)has been reliant on dedicated fisheries since at least the 1950s. While these products formerly found diverse uses, they are now usedalmost entirely for livestock and aquaculture production (Tacon and Metian 2008). There has also been a growth in the practice of direct feeding of fish to aquaculture operations for various taxa (Funge-Smithet et al.2005).Both of these uses are for purposes other than direct human consumption (DHC) and have been criticized as wasteful and unethical (Naylor and Burke 2005;Tacon and Metian 2009b). On the other hand, the market possibility and complete use of all fisheries landings for DHC has been contested (Wijkström 2009,2010). However, this debate has also been marked by a lack of clarity around what fish are used for fishmeal and fish oil production and for direct feeding, outside of a few major species that have come to characterize the sector,such as the Peruvian anchoveta (Engraulis ringens). 

 Furthermore, as the fishmeal/oil sector is thought to represent close to 1/3 of global capture

fisheries in recent years (Alderet al. 2008;Tacon and Metian 2009a), understanding its dynamics is important to guide future fisheries policy and fisheries research. We aim to characterize the role of non-DHC fisheries in global capture fisheries, including both reduction fisheries for fish meal and oil and fisheries for ‘trash fish’ (i.e., direct feed). Thus,

we provide a global coverage of reduction/feed fisheries for each fishing entity (i.e., fishing country or flag country) from 1950-2010, based on the reconstructed global catch database of the Sea Around Us (Pauly and Zeller 2016). This will enable us to analyze a sector of capture fisheries that is relatively poorly understood in its global extent and development, and permits the documentation of current trends within reduction fisheries. Additionally our focus on the full time period back to 1950 enables us to develop an understanding of

the use of fisheries landings almost since the beginning of post-WWII industrial fisheries. 

                                                      ***************
The point is that the killing of 282 fish to feed one fish for human consumption in a vastly different consumption from human consumption of the 282 fish, and the industry, far from being able to claim the communications spin that they are 'saving dwindling stocks' by replacing them with farmed fish, is patently incorrect.

Account for the 282 dead fish, plus the salmonids killed by fish farms, some 50% of such fish in the area that fish farms operate, and the deficit is huge. For example, my estimate for the BC industry being that 14.4 billion fish are killed to feed one harvest of farmed fish in BC PLUS the 50% of wild fish they kill. (I will put the link from my site here shortly). 

                                                ********************

This is the NOFIMA report from Norway on the issue: https://www.nofima.no/filearchive/rapport-53-2011_5.pdf. More to come.

This is the Daniel Pauly/Tim Chashion document: http://www.seaaroundus.org/doc/publications/books-and-reports/2016/End_Use_Reconstruction_Report.pdf..  A reduction fishery means using the fish for fish meal and/or fish oil for aquaculture or other agricultural use, distinct from direct human consumption.

In brief, from the Pauly document, the Norway situation is this: "Norway has the largest reduction fisheries in Europe.The data are based on published national fishery statistics from 1961, 1968, 1975, 1984, 1992, 1999, and 2000 - 2010 (Central Bureau of Statistics 1960; Director General of Fisheries 1968, 1979; Statistics Norway 1979,1984,1996, 1997, 2002; www.ssb.no), in addition to other supplemental sources that document changes in these fisheries for Norway and the North Atlantic fisheries in general. Landings are often aggregated for different uses to include fishmeal and oil production and animal feed in one category, however, fishmeal production is the dominant use, and this was addressed for some taxa detailed below.For an overview of the fisheries of Norway since 1950, please see Nedreaas et al.(2015)." This quote is from page 19.

This is the most important document on reduction fisheries in the world. Lots of work went into finding the figures, accounting for different uses, and interpolating data when not available. The major tables start on page 74 to 76. You can go directly to these and read the results.