Please take the time to read this letter from a Sue's Blog reader and contributor:
SALMON FARMING: GOVERNMENT'S SOLUTION TO THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES CATASTROPHE.
In letters to the editor, The Independent, 8/12/06, Mr. Cyr Couturier, President, Newfoundland Aquaculture Industries Association, dismisses my criticism of the Cooke Inc. proposed Fortune Bay salmon farm as the product of a "confused" mind. . Any expression of ignorance is sad, but when it comes for some self-serving purpose from one who knows better, it is disgusting.
Some of Mr. Courturier's counter claims are so outrageous as to suggest he is either totally uninformed about the industry, or else deliberately intending to mislead.
To begin with , he makes no distinction between the farming of carnivorous and herbivorous species - a vital difference - but proceeds to use aquaculture in The U.S. and China - where 80% of the world's production of farmed fish is produced - to illustrate the enormous importance and success of this industry.
Let's look at the Chinese model. Only shellfish, (oysters, clams, mussels) are raised there in coastal waters. This is an environmental positive because shellfish act as filters, cleansing their surroundings . Fin-fish, which in this instance are carp, and which comprise the bulk of China's aquaculture production , are raised in inland freshwater ponds, reservoirs and rice paddies. Carp are herbivores that feed on plankton, grass and bottom detritus (crap.) Carp do not eat other fish. We don't have carp in Newfoundland or any other herbivorous fish that I am aware of.
Mr. Courturier says that the U.S. has passed legislation to increase fish farming at least five fold in the next decade. True! However, this does not mean a proposed five-fold increase in carnivore farming. In the U.S., catfish (herbivorous) is the leading aquaculture product., with an annual production of c. 240,000 tons, or c. 2lbs/person, Mississippi being the catfish capital of the world. Catfish, like carp, don't eat other fish.
Because of the dreadful environmental problems and opposition from coastal communities - land owners, boat owners, environmentalists etc.- there is nowhere in Canada or the US where Cooke Inc. can expand its coastal based aquaculture enterprise, Newfoundland, presumably, being the exception..
In the U.S., (and in Norway) the farming of Carnivorous species is being forced to move many kilometers offshore ( the new trend) for reasons already mentioned. Here salmon are raised in cages far beneath the surface and monitored and fed by automated feed buoys - hardly what Cook has in store for Fortune Bay.
Mr. Courturier says that "wild fisheries have grown in all areas of salmon and mussel farming...". Not true for "wild fisheries" but true for lobsters and mussels. Reason: mussels thrive on the shoreline algae bloom caused by fertilization from feces and uneaten food from the farms. Lobsters are scavengers and thrive near fish farms for the same reason that rats and gulls thrive on "land-fill" sites. Pleasant thought, what!!
Mr. Courturier says, in contradiction to my comment about the dangers aquaculture presents to our remaining capelin, herring and mackerel stocks, that the fish I mentioned are " not used in feeds". Wrong, wrong, wrong!!!! Norway brought their pelagic stocks to the brink of extinction in the harvesting of feed for their fish farms. Similarly, bait fish stocks in Nova Scotia waters have been almost wiped out. What assurance do we have that Bill Barry has no intention of grinding his quotas for capelin, herring and mackerel ,should he succeed in obtaining them, into fish meal for Cooke Inc.. Certainly, he has expressed more than ordinary interest in the Cooke Fortune Bay proposal.
Mr. Courturier says that the ratio of feed to increased body weight in fish farming is "about one-to-one". Either Mr. Couturier is kidding or else he must think we are all morons. A ratio of one-to-one is not only too foolish to talk about; it is an impossibility. Leaving aside China, the most efficient fish farming occurs in the U.S. where, at catfish farms, the ratio of feed to live weight is two-to-one. The ratio of feed to live weight in salmon aquaculture is closer to ten-to-one. According to David Suzuki's calculations, it is 8.2 / 1
Neither does Mr. Courturier mention that in the farming of carnivorous species there is a net loss of fish protein available for human consumption. Farmed carnivores must be fed a diet mostly from fish caught in the wild. There is simply not enough fish left in the sea to grind into meal for feed for the farms . Furthermore, the product of fish farms is far too expensive for the world's poor. Farmed salmon are fed meal and oils made from small edible schooling fish like capelin, herring, mackerel, sardines, etc. What is happening, in fact, is that carnivore fish farms are competing for food with the world's poor. Are we really so hard up in Newfoundland that we have to resort to this sort of thing for a living! How many in outport Newfoundlanders will be able to afford to buy this farmed fish.
Perhaps the most shocking of all Mr. Courturier's arguments is his statement that "according to the United Nations, global fisheries presently discards 40% of fish caught at sea" . Those discards are comprised of immature fish and untargeted species. . Incredibly, he rationalizes this barbaric waste and crime against Nature as a potential (untapped) source of fish protein that could be turned into fish meal. Go figure!!
And then there are the dreadful environmental and health risks. The resulting debasement of the environment is self-evident; however, the health risks are a bit more subtle and insidious. It is recognized that because of the method of feeding , there is a high concentration of chemicals - some like PCB's: carcinogens - in farmed fish. Pregnant and nursing mothers, beware! Don't anyone take the chance of eating the skin or the fat! And then there is the added toxin risk factor resulting from operators having to use pesticides and antibiotics to help protect the farmed fish from parasites and disease. In Norway, they've reduced this risk somewhat by vaccinating each individual fish placed in the pen! A vaccinated filet...... How appetizing!!
World aquaculture is dominated by shellfish and herbivore species, mainly carp in China and India, catfish in the U.S. and tilapia in other countries. This is where the potential lies; not engaging in the counterproductive business of trying to farm on a large scale carnivores like salmon and cod.
It would be silly to argue that aquaculture does not have some positive aspects. What is wrong is when this is used as a diversion to get governments off the hook for their failure to properly manage and protect the great wild fisheries resource entrusted to their care. In this respect the New Fisheries Act being promulgated by Minister Hearne is particularly infuriating, since it will free the feds from any liability resulting from the terrible catastrophe brought upon our heads as a result of their neglect and gross incompetence. It is this especially that confirms, in my opinion, that any embracing of the Cook Inc aquaculture enterprise as a panacea for the South Coast is indeed an act of ultimate stupidity.
Lloyd C. Rees
PS. Subsequent to the appearance of Mr. Couturier's letter in the Independent, I listened to Mr. Bill Barry declare in the "Broadcast" that the Cooke plan is, initially, to produce 20,000 tonnes of farmed salmon annually. Simple math indicates that to grow this amount of product will require that 160,000 to 200,000 tonnes of other fish species will need to be harvested and ground into feed. How much sense does this make? Where will this feed be obtained and at what cost?
