Fish farms

[FlyAlf]

If you for instance compare it with flyfishing I would guess its a few millions times more sustainable .

how about comparing a sock to a crocodile and ask which is more dangerous ... sorry - this is downright bullshit

I deal with facts, and I don't take the morale high ground either way. My point was, and still is that we do a lot like flyfishing that is not good for the environment (car and fly travels etc). We also eat a lot of stuff that is better or worse than fish farming for the sustainability.

Lets compare flyfishing and fish farming. Lets assume you eat your catch or the meal you brought along on your trip. How big do you think the environmental footprint is when comparing per calorie, or per monetary value spent?

It is clear that fish farming has a environmental impact, as do every other food producing. But what is better (in all 3 sustainability dimensions)?

Lets deal with facts rather than using words like bullshit and I will discuss this further. If not have a nice day!

[Paul Arden]

Yes I don't think the problem is farming, Alf, that's the problem we've created by raping the seas in the first place.

Cross-posted!

[FlyAlf]

Yes I don't think the problem is farming, Alf, that's the problem we've created by raping the seas in the first place.

Cross-posted!

Yes, as we did with earth farming the last 15 000 years .

As for sea-farming lets rather discuss the direct impact on wild fish (that we indirect document in the sea-lice reporting) and other indicators, the capital flow (economic) and employment and indirect impact in rural regions (social). It's also possible to compare with flyfishing as a product sold in rural areas.

If we try to this we end up in more complex discussions than the black/white "is it good". If we want these serious discussions we need facts and unbiased researchers using the facts.

[Paul Arden]

For me it's really ecological. Are there any examples of fish farms being positive to their local environment? I'm curious because I fish a lake with fish farms. The product is then shipped to the USA where they are not allowed to farm I was told for environmental reasons. This kind of puts a question mark in my head.

It's really a mute consideration because we're going to have more fish farms and less fish in the ocean. It's not one saves the other, both will be exploited to the maximum possible

Cheers Paul

[t.z.]

well, if the "facts" are presented like a bullshit argument it must be called "bullshit" ... same as the bullshit marine harvest communicates.

[Lasse Karlsson]

Hi Alf

How is the impact on the surrounding environment of sea fishfarms compared to landbased farms?

Cheers
Lasse

[t.z.]

Hi Alf

How is the impact on the surrounding environment of sea fishfarms compared to landbased farms?

Cheers
Lasse

The shit ... the fishshit, not the bullshit ... is more visible on the land based. The problem remains, but at least the unmonitored dumping of waste and chemicals is a bit harder. The lice issue is lesser if at all present.

In the sea based farms they are fighting it with heavy chemicals (hydrogen peroxide) which than is dumped at sea causing severe damage to the shrimp populations.

[FlyAlf]

Hi Alf

How is the impact on the surrounding environment of sea fishfarms compared to landbased farms?

Cheers
Lasse

First, I'm not an expert on fish farming, but I have some knowledge on trying to harvest data to display the status.

Landbased fishfarms are IMO not sustainable economic nor environmental. This is due to the need to pump enormous water volumes and clean this water before pumping it back (or else the effects are nil). So it requires much energy and large areas. If you go for land-based the production (but not establishing) effects on local sea surrounding environment is much less then sea-based if you filter the water.

A good compromise can be to farm smolt at land up to 1kg (post-smolt), and then grow it in the sea.

Many believe that the fish-farming should have no impact on environment. This is not so (as all other food production). The real question is whether the environment can handle the impact without degrading (to much over time). For this reason fish farming in Norway has to be moved among different areas in long cycles to try to get the areas to "recover". The question is of course of this is good enough?

As to medical treatment of sea-lice on salmon. Hydrogen peroxide is among those used (you can see the usage on https://www.barentswatch.no/en/fishhealth/2016/46 - use the filter on left hand side, in week 46; one of aprox 500 used it). This chemical is heavily used in agriculture and among women to bleach the hair . When used in sea its quite rapidly broken down into harmless substances. It is harmful for scrimps locally where its dumped, although we frankly still don't know the effect good enough. The governmental funded research has so far judged the risk low to medium, that is there are more severe risks (see IMR risk analysis). Also there are other chemical combinations that are potentially more dangerous.

(When judging what indicators to display in Fishhealth we use the IMR risk analysis as input.)

Personally I eat some farmed fish because I know its more healthy than wild fish (check NIFES) or non-ecological vegetables, and my understanding is that farmed fish is much more healthy and environmental friendly than all meat production. I eat some wild salmons, trout and char when fishing but I know that wild salmon contains more dangerous elements than farmed, but more healthy omega-3.

And no, I don't represent the industry. I, so to say, represent the other side, the management side that monitors the industry. This side can do better, but at least the data IMO is more transparent than most other industries. Please feel free to educate me on other sites that provides indicators for food production sustainability. The real question boils down to the funding of the (governmental) management side of the different industry sectors, that again depends on politics.

[Neil Owens]

Sea lice in Scotland seem to be a big problem and there's a fair amount of evidence to suggest it's affecting wild Salmon and Sea Trout populations.

If you can watch BBC iPlayer there's relevant bits in this programme.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... rwickshire
Scroll to 9:20 and then to 27:45 to watch Countryfile's report on #LochMaree and the Scottish #sealice problem!

Interest groups are producing some compelling evidence that points the finger towards Sea Lice.
http://www.salmon-trout.org/uploads/61e ... 2fbd2f.pdf

[Geenomad]

A perspective on perspectives. Whose ox is being gored is a pretty good starting point. http://blogs.bu.edu/junepark/2011/10/03 ... -is-gored/ How something is seen, analysed, characterised, advocated or condemned etc etc largely depends on the self interest of the observer, analyst, advocate or critic.

Unless and until people make an effort to recognise the influence of their own self interest, the legitimacy of other viewpoints and the difficulty of finding workable solutions without accepting the necessary complexity of the bigger picture we are condemned to polarised argument and small pee politics instead of sensible and strategic policy decisions.

History, current practice and even a good many posts in this thread suggest to me that Paul's assessment of maximum exploitation is the most likely future scenario.

Cheers
Mark