This letter, written in reply to an article by Mr. Cy Couturier that appeared in last week's Independent , was submitted to the Independent for publication but rejected by the edior on the grounds that he had the right to edit it. The real reason I suspect for its rejection is what appears to be the not so "independent" position of the paper with respect to this Cooke-Barry aquaculture proposition for Fortune bay.
*******************************
Mr. Courturier having a personal interest in the Cooke /Fortune Bay proposed salmon farming enterprise and thus a desire to promote it, one can allow him a little "poetic license" considering that the better informed will recognize it for what it is and take it with a grain of salt. However, his insistence on a 1:1 ratio of feed to live weight in salmon farming is stretching his readers' humour a bit too far. Could that be achieved we could visualize the evolution - or mutation- of a species with not a single ass'ole amongst them. Great idea, but about as achievable as a perpetual motion machine, and for the same reason. Food is converted to energy as well as to body mass.
To quote Mr. Couturier: "Salmon diets in Canada average 15% fish meal and 9.5% fish oil.." Supposing those figures are accurate, it seems a little disingenuous to imply that therefore "the fish component of the diet is below 25%. What is conveniently overlooked is the amount of raw fish that must be processed in order to produce the 9.5 % oil proportion in any given unit?
The amount of fish meal and fish oil in dry salmon feed varies considerably, but a realistic estimate would be c. 35% for fish meal and 25 % for fish oil . The remaining component being comprised of vegetable matter and a cocktail of chemicals and other additives for which God only knows the recipe. To illustrate the high degree of dependency on chemical wizardry , the flesh of farmed salmon is a sickly white colour, like that of oananiche - hardly marketable. Experiments in genetic alteration and feed additives ( artificial colouring) are used to help overcome this obstacle.
Mr. Gouturier is close to the truth when he says that the diet of farmed salmon consists of less than 50% of fish meal and oil.
But here's the catch. It takes close to five tonnes of wild fish to make one tonne of dry meal, and more than eight tonnes of wild fish to make one tonne of fish oil. Given the 25-35% proportions , this means that it takes c. 2 tonnes of wild fish to make the fish oil for one tonne of dry feed, and fish oil being an essential ingredient for which there is no substitute, it follows that farming salmon will always result in a net loss of fish protein for human consumption. . Those calculations can get a little complicated, but the point is, they bedevil Mr. Courturier's misleading 1:1 ratio contention. Wishful thinking , or statistics derived from controlled laboratory conditions are one thing; conditions prevailing in the untamed ocean are quite something else.
In ideal conditions it is probably possible to achieve a 1.3 to 1.7 feed to live weight ratio, bearing in mind that this converts to 2.3 to 2.7 tonnes of raw fish for each ton of feed. Factor in inefficiency, accidents and wastage, and the actual ratio is closer to 6:1, or according to David Suzuki's research team, 8.2:1 . Since fish are not know to have good table manners, a major consideration in the feeding of penned salmon is food wastage ( estimated to be at least 5%) that settles to the bottom of the cages to mix with the feces. Yes, contrary to Mr. Courturier's 1:1 efficiency ratio, farmed salmon do defecate and thus the pens constitute a huge environmental problem. The amount of excrement relative to feed can be anywhere from 25% to 50%. Added to the feces and uneaten food , there is also the accumulated remains the fish that die and drop into the foul mess decomposing on the sea floor. Besides the well know problem of oxygen depletion and algae growth resulting from the nitrogen-phosphorous nutrients released by the decomposition of this noxious brew, there is also the drop-out from the cocktail of antibiotics, pesticides, and other drugs.
For every tonne of farmed salmon produced, it is estimated that 55kg of N, and 4.8 kg of P. are excreted into the marine environment. Relating this to the pollution resulting from the dumping of raw human waste into the sea, the 20,000 tonnes of salmon that Cook Inc is proposing to farm in Fortune Bay will contribute as much as 275,000 people in terms of N, and as much 87,000 people in terms of P.
To put it crudely, the pollution resulting from the crap dropped from the privy on the stage-head, or from the honey bucket dumped in the landwash, is pretty minuscule compared to what might be coming out of the Cooke fish farms.
Why there is so much opposition to salmon farming in coastal waters is plain to see, the grim irony being the enthusiastic welcoming of it by Newfoundlanders into their pristine bays and inlets.
I believe it is reprehensible for anyone knowing the difference, in particular our political leaders, and worse again if they don't know the difference, to contend that what Cooke Inc. is proposing for the North side of Fortune Bay will contribute in any way to the long term sustainability of the coastal communities in that area. There will probably be some short term "job" opportunities , but in the long term, what is inevitable is an environmental and ecological nightmare , not a pleasant prospect particularly when considering the potential for the annihilation of the straggling remnant but critically important bait stocks.
All things considered, statistical disagreements and inconsistencies notwithstanding, the bottom line is that salmon farming is counterproductive and unsustainable and can only benefit the few at the expense of the many. The irrational pursuit of this enterprise means not only less food for human consumption, but also less food for other fish, fowl and mammalian creatures that rely on the "bait fish" in the food chain for their survival.
Lloyd C. Rees
No comments:
Post a Comment