I think you have to weigh the successes against the failures. In the case of open pen salmon farms the percentage of successes so far exceeds the percentage of failure so that over all it is successful and continues to succeed.
If you do the same with closed containment failure vs success the overall results are not the same. Not even close. Close containment continues to have the ability to find investment money but never really seams to pay any of it back. This keeps happening time and time again.
It is an interesting time in the debate. With many great returns last year of various salmon runs and this years forecast it is no wonder the anti salmon farming campaign is fairly quiet. There just sitting back waiting to pounce I sure when one of the runs doesn't meet the prediction.
Its no wonder Morton has changed her toon to other topics other than salmon demise and virus testing. Tough times for activist I guess.lol
yes you are correct, but your also comparing a fairly new way of raising salmon compared to the decades of experience open pens have had. lets also not forget the growing pains open pen farms have had with virus issues, sea lice, on going pollution, structural problems withe pen materials, predation...... right now your comparing gas mileage of a 1978 chev blazer with a 350 vs a with an eco boost ford focus.
if open pen farms are going to continue to receive various funding from governmental organizations then closed containment should also continue receiving possibly delerious investing.... even if its scewed.
morton is crazy, and I don't think you have to be an activist per se to thnk that theres a better way to raise salmon than in a pen in the ocean.
absolon.... there is a higher risk such as the the power outage article that open pen fars are not going to have because they sit in the ocean. They are also not on the hook financialy for potential environental damage. they are also subsidized in the event of a disease outbreak. Thats the most brilliant business model possible other than cutting cocaine.
The rules for calculating compensation, including maximum amounts, are
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2000-233/page-1.html#h-2its going to be a while, dare I say a few more failures before it is profitable. or until the costs go up for having a pen sitting in the ocean... I searched for a very long time and i could'nt find any actual costs farms pay to sit in the water and if there are environmental 'permits'. I read through the bc aqualculture license regulations and there are many 'measures' in place and there are no consequences. and consequences only listed in the fisheries act..... which reads as though none could apply to a farm.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2010-270/index.htmland this is a list of farms located in BC. its a rather large list. If you factored in an environmental tax like you have with the goverment wanting to impose carbon tax these open pen deals aren't so lucrative. other than reading about a farm being fined for killing sea lions in nets. no environmental costs that I can find are imposed on farms. tough to beat that financial advantage.
http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/licence-permis/docs/finfish-pisciculture-eng.htmlthis coming from a fisherbob-esque link.
Fish Farms reel in another $400 million in Canadian subsidies
On another aquaculture front, you may be even more unhappy to know Shea announced $400 Million in gifts to the aquaculture sector in Canada last week. That’s a lot of dead, diseased fish. I have asked her for $400 million be given to the commercial, sport and processing sectors in BC that provide 600% more in contribution to gross provincial product than fish farms. I’ll let you know.
Fish, profits turn to mush
And fish farms in BC have been losing money. Mainstream lost money in 2012. Marine Harvest has lost money in the last few years, too, largely due to Kudoa, a fungal disease that cost them $12,000,000 in 2012 – and just prior, in 2011, things were so bad they laid off 60 employees – right before Christmas. Nice guys.
Kudoa results in myoliquifaction that makes farmed fish into mush. Would you buy salmon you had to put in a container with a spoon?
Grieg losing money, drowning sea lions
Oh, and then there is Grieg. They got IHN too, last year, in their Cullodon site in Sechelt. Fortunately, we did not have to pay for that as well. Grieg is also the company that had to pay a fine of $100,000 for drowning 65 – 75 sea lions in their Skuna Bay nets in 2010 – they tarted up that site to sell to the unsuspecting in the USA as environmentally-sustainable, organic farmed salmon. Where is PETA when you need them?
Grieg has also been losing money:
In Canada, the company cut losses, with a negative ebit [sic] before fair value adjustment of the biomass of NOK 2.71/kg, compared to a loss of NOK 8.22/kg in the same quarter of 2012.
And the kicker? Cermaq is owned 59.2% by the government and thus the people of Norway. Why do we give another government our money for their killing our fish in our ocean rather than raising their fish on land in closed containers? This does not make sense.
Ask Shea for BC’s $400 million. We can spend it on habitat restoration, something DFO has been sadly remiss about in BC for decades. This year’s total DFO habitat projects for BC is a measly $900,000, only 2.6% of our own money Ottawa sent to diseased fish farms in BC.
http://commonsensecanadian.ca/canadian-taxpayers-bail-norwegian-fish-farms-diseased-fish/doesn't read like they are raking in the profits.
Salmon Farming in British Columbia:
Industry Evolution and Government Response
By David Conley, M.Sc.
http://www.aquacomgroup.com/Page_sections/About_us/documents/BC_Salmon_Ind_Evol-r.pdfThe Entrepreneurial Phase, 1985-89
From 10 farms at the end of 1984, the industry grew to 119 farms in 1987 and to 140 farms in 1989. At its
peak the industry was comprised of about 100 companies, decreasing to 75 by August of 1989. Total
industry production went from 100 metric tonnes in 1985 to 12,400 metric tonnes in 1989. This rapid
growth created a number of problems which have tainted the industry ever since.
The attitude of the provincial government of the day toward salmon farming was one of “laissez-faire”. It
had no intention of hindering the growth of the new industry, nor did it provide any help in the way of
economic incentives, planning or policies to facilitate orderly growth as the Norwegians had done.
The Marine Resources Section of the Ministry of Environment was responsible for advising BC Lands on
site capability but the Ministry failed to formulate any land use planning for the industry. Staff was few and,
like the industry, relatively inexperienced in the biophysical realities that defines a successful salmon
farming site. Although they were able to eliminate the obviously bad sites, it was largely up to the
prospective farmer to determine the suitability of a site.
This opened up an exploitive situation where unscrupulous consultants acquired Investigative Permits
from BC Lands to examine the suitability of potential farm sites and then sold them to prospective salmon
farmers as fulfilling the necessary biophysical criteria. This speculation in and consequent use of unproved
farm sites had devastating results for some fledgling companies.
The influx of investors and entrepreneurs between 1985 and 1987 created a “gold rush” mentality, which
blinded people to the realities of the industry. Salmon farming in BC, despite its existence since the early 1970s, was still in a learning stage and relatively unproved for large volume production."
..........."Diseases, such as Bacterial Kidney Disease (BKD), vibriosis and marine anaemia, took a large toll during
this period. Attempts to maximize capital investment by holding fish at high densities only served to
maximize stress for the Pacific salmon, resulting in severe disease outbreaks. The industry averaged
losses of 30% of its production per year and some farms suffered losses as high as 70% in a given year.
Handling and grading also brought on outbreaks of disease.
The lack of trained farm staff with skills in fish health and fish husbandry, combined with a shortage of
veterinarians experienced in fish disease diagnosis and treatment, compounded the problems. Antibiotics
were applied in feeds to stem the losses but were ineffective because sick fish stop eating. This
challenged the industry and research institutions to find better ways to detect and monitor disease
organisms, as well as to develop preventative strategies, such as vaccination, to provide long term
protection for the fish.
In addition to disease problems, the Sunshine Coast was prone to nearly annual episodes of plankton
blooms that killed the farmed Coho and Chinook in great numbers. The recurring blooms caused salmon
farmers to leave the Sunshine Coast, beginning in 1987 and accelerating through 1988-89. Most migrated
north to the Campbell River / Desolation Sound area while others went to the west coast of Vancouver
Island in the area of Clayoquot Sound. These regions had cooler summer water temperatures and less
likelihood of blooms. More important, the new areas were less populated, which reduced possible conflicts
with other resource users"
and look what open pen farming has developed into. I think it may be erronous to expect closed containment to fail.
Author
Topic: Get your facts straight? (Read 1683354 times)