Fish Farms Kill Wild Salmn - The Science

I am bringing together a number of posts on the issue of fish farms killing wild salmon. If anyone tries to tell you different, just refer them to this post.

1. Fish Farms Kill More than 50% of Wild Salmon. In the presence of fish farms, 50% of wild salmon die: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2013/01/fish-farms-kill-more-than-50-of-wild.html.This meta-data analysis examined Scotland, Ireland, Atlantic Canada and BC.

2. Fish Farm Lice Kills 34% of Wild Salmon: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2015/12/fish-farm-lice-kill-34-of-wild-salmonids.html. The experts from Norway, Canada and Scotlandm reviewed more than 300 studies.

3. Fish Farms Lice Kill Wild Salmonids, 2015 literature review: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2015/09/fish-farm-lice-kill-wild-salmonids.html.

4. The Atlantic Salmon Federation, 2016, highlights science that fish farms kill wild salmon:  http://asf.ca/letter-you-cannot-dispute-the-evidence.html.  They point out that DFO itself has noted genetic problems with escaped farmed fish and wild Atlantics: "Last month, DFO scientists revealed the results of a new study that confirmed widespread mating between wild salmon and aquaculture escapees in 17 south coast rivers, which they believe has led to reduced productivity and abundance in those populations."

And also that the greater amount of science on the subject is conclusive: "After many years and hundreds of studies, we are past debate over whether or not aquaculture has negative impacts on wild salmon stocks"

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

Do look in the two indexes to this site for other articles on this subject, and other topics you may be interested in: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2016/01/key-document-index-2015.html. The index cited here has the link to the earlier index to this site.

Highest Antibiotics in Farmed Fish - Human Problem

Everyone knows that use of antibiotics creates resistant bacteria. So, we want as little as possible in the food chain because we, humans, may pay the price. See: http://www.ecowatch.com/chiles-salmon-industry-using-record-levels-of-antibiotics-to-combat-ba-1891172698.html.

How is Chile doing you ask? Not very well:

"Following a Chile Appeals Court order, the National Fisheries and Aquaculture Service (Sernapesca) revealed that the country's salmon producers used 557 tonnes of antibiotics in 2015, with consumption rate per tonne of salmon reaching its highest point in the last nine years at 660 grams per tonne. The previous high was 640 grams per tonne in 2007. Usage was as low as 310 grams per tonne in 2010, Undercurrent News noted. The newest figures were compiled from 46 companies that operate in both freshwater and sea water."

SRS, or piscirickettsiosis, causes lesions, hemorrhaging and swollen kidneys and spleens. Do note that there is a difference between bacteria in cold-blooded and warm-blooded animals. Bacteria are adapted to the temperature range of their hosts, and are inactive at other temperatures.

And the unsustainability of feed derived from small pelagic fish that should feed human beings has consistently been pointed out as a problem: "Environmentalists have criticized salmon aquaculture, aka fish farming, as the carnivorous fish are fed animal-derived proteins called “fish meal,” or fish oil made from anchovies, which have been shown to carry Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and other toxins that can make their way into the human food supply." We don't need carnivorous fish being raised, only vegetarians.

Going on to related subjects, Justine Hausheer wrote: “Even the best farms still pollute their waters with parasiticides, chemicals and fish feces. The Chilean farmed salmon industry uses over 300,000 kilograms of antibiotics a year, causing bacterial resistances that affect fish, the environment and human beings.”

And SRS vaccines account for almost 90% of antibiotics use.

In the USA:  "The superbug crisis has been linked to 23,000 human deaths and 2 million illnesses annually in the U.S. at a price of $20 billion in direct costs." This is for antibiotics used in livestock, ie, warm-blooded animals.

Studies show antibiotics work their way into waterways, leach into soil, and thus cause resistance even when the chemicals have past through the livestock, an issue in farmed fish as well as on-land livestock.

Chile has been criticized for its 'staggeringly' high use of antibiotics, and it is still reeling from the 2016 algal bloom, partly resulting from fish farm sewage, killing 25 million farmed salmon, meaning  15 percent of the country's salmon production.Norwegian fish farms Marine Harvest and Cermaq operate in Chile. MH has lost 2.5 million salmon.

Under the Surface - Kjersti Sandvik - 6

1. And now for something completely... the same: fish farms are a boom bust industry. They have been this way right from the beginning when the first company went from nothing to a billion as a family business in the northern islands of Norway. Go back to post four for the story of Lovund island and the two companies, Lovunklaks and Nova Sea that went from 2000 fry in a bag in 1972 to billion kroner companies: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2016/03/under-surface-kjersti-sandvik-4.html.

Now move ahead to John Fredriksen who owns Marine Harvest - as a holding company part of his even bigger firm (yes, the one whose CEO Jo Lunder was given a 6 months sentence for corruption in 2015 for hundreds of millions in bribes in Uzbekistan for telecom purposes).

And if you want to follow into Fredriksen's business problems, there is a blog that follows all the negative side of his business empire: http://fredriksenwatch.blogspot.ca/. He seems to be pretty unpopular with some people.

But let's go back to better times when JF looked at fish farms and said about the 2005 industry: This is cheap! Then he promptly bought Pan Fish and Nutreco. Of Troim and he, Sandvik notes: The duo was familiar with cyclical industries with high risk and found quickly realized that Pan Fish was extremely cheap compared to what it would be worth if it went well.

They bagged Pan Fish for a mere 766 million kroner, and you simply must read Sandvik's account of the merger, it is much better than can be summarized. This is near page 45 in the PDF of Under the Surface.

So, boom.

2. But there was this little legal wrinkle: a fish farm could not be owned more than 25% by a corporation. JF was Norwegian, but his office was in London. So, Sandvik notes the entrance of an apparently new, government player: That fall sent the Norwegian Fisheries and Coastal Affairs, Lisbeth Berg-Hansen, circulated a proposal to repeal the then ownership limitation of 25 percent.

Also spun into this was a requirement for research, processing and apprenticeships in the local regions where the farms operated. But Marine Harvest, now much bigger (boom) wasn't keen, thinking it a 'tax' on the industry that had to be eliminated for the companies to reach their potential. And also argued that such requirements were not made on other companies, for example, oil.

3. Sandvik: This is pure word for money. Here rejects NSL short and fine that the industry has no other responsibility than to ensure maximize the return to shareholders. Fish farmers owe

no society something. 

Note that we are talking about multinationals who owe no other allegiance than to shareholders- where ever they might live. Workers and local revenue are expendible.

And, don't forget Berg-Hansen. Note also that Fredriksen, drove Pan Fish, from 2005 to 2014 - nine years - to produce 15 billion for shareholders. Yes, this is a boom. 

 

4. You have heard of a banana republic? Yes? Well Sandvik calls Norway a Salmon Republic, Since the '80s parts of the government, and the industry wanted limits on concessions done away with. Note that you need to understand something about the government in Norway: it is a system of proportional representation, and thus those elected form part of the government, there is no Westminster model of the party with the most elected members forms the government with the smaller number of elected members from other parties forming the opposition and thus being frozen out of any power. So growing the industry is good, a national good, in Norway. 

Problems with unbridled growth? One government secretary expressed it this way; Sandvik: "There will not be any problem, I'm sure, "objected Minister's personal secretary, Svein Munkejord. "I think the issue is how we are to meet the market we have achieved with fish. " 29 

The government would help fund fish disease research and the industry had it in their better interest to see to fish welfare, so what's the problem?  And, government began moving to a system that made new licences not so needed as they allowed the size of farms to grow. But then, over the years, more licences were also granted. 

Sandvik notes one fish farmer who, tipsy, told the bar that the licence he got for 8 million, he sold for 30 million, doing absolutely nothing other than hold the licence a short while and sell it.

Then there was the move to direct licences to small local holders who would not be interested in speculation (yes, there is a convoluted logic here) because at 8 million kroner there would be no room to make it higher. And these owners would create the local jobs fish farms talk so much about.

The government  reaped 485 million kroner, and the small owners, like the fellow in the bar, made millions selling the licences, not creating jobs and local revenue. In fact, some license lots went for the astronomical interest of 296 million kroner.

So, again Boom Bust Industry, and the government in a conflict of interest, and making poor decisions.And speculation, rather than jobs and revenue.

                                                             ***

To see a review of the problems in the fish farm/seafood industry, look at this post: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2015/07/key-document-fish-farm-news-bites.html. Just scan the bold face titles for a minute.