Responding to collapsing wild-fish stocks worldwide, the World Bank has hotly promoted "aquaculture" -- essentially, large-scale, industrial fish farms.
The Bank has directed serious resources at promoting fish farming. Such projects make up a significant chunk of its "portfolio of over US$1.2 billion in fisheries, aquaculture, coastal and aquatic environmental management and related projects serving coastal and fishing communities."
Yet the idea of cramming thousands of genetically identical fish into a small space may prove as problematic as its land-based analogue: the confined-animal feedlot operation (CAFO). CAFOs must have once seemed a brilliant idea: They rationalized meat production, saving vast amounts of land through concentration.
We now know that those land savings are spectral: land once used to house grazing animals has been taken over by millions of acres of input-intensive feed crops (corn and soy). The environmental horrors of CAFOs are now well-documented -- and yet the model lurches on, stronger than ever.
Fish farming, too, is starting to reveal environmental liabilities. A new peer-reviewed study by Canadian researchers shows that salmon farms are severely depleting wild-salmon stocks, causing survival rates to fall by as much as half each generation. According to the study, the problem is worse than scientists had previously assumed.
The effect of salmon farming on wild stocks has been well-known for a while. As the researchers put it (quoted in the Globe & Mail):
Studies have clearly shown that escaped farm salmon breed with wild populations to the detriment of the wild stocks, and that diseases and parasites are passed from farm to wild salmon.
This study is the first to document how these processes affect populations. And the news is dire. As one scientist who studies salmon told the Globe & Mail, "Frankly, [the extent of devastation] is surprising to me. It's a stronger result than I would have anticipated."
So to stock our supermarkets with flavorless, nutritionally suspect farmed salmon, we're sacrificing entire populations of glorious wild salmon. Sounds like another one of industrial agriculture's fool's bargains.
Black (fly) magic
James Bond calls for more marine protected areas
Comments
View as Threaded
LGT Posted 8:45 am
12 Feb 2008
"To produce 1 kg (2.2 lbs.) of farmed fishmeal, the fish are fed about 5 kg (11 lbs.) of smaller wild fish."
http://feww.wordpress.com/2007/10/14/the-aquaculture/
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 9:11 am
12 Feb 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_farming
Notice, though, that in that context, "confined" is legally further explained as "confined at high stock density."
"Confinement" refers to all kinds of states of animals living under human supervision, after all. Animals in fenced-in preserves in some African countries have many acres to wander around in at freedom, in their own natural environment. Little White Dog is "confined" within the walls of our home, and she seems to like it that way; I strongly doubt she would want to run away from us, if the door were left open.
So, one animal-welfare issue is, how does "high stock density" affect the animals? My guess is that pigs have it worst in this country, but dairy cows and poultry not far behind. In China, dogs and cats raised in the abominable fur industry are thrown into tight cages for long periods, and I cannot imagine worse suffering than theirs.
With fish, it is very hard to get over the great gulf of foreignness between them and us. Even with frogs, we have an easier time of sympathizing than with fish. Nevertheless, there is plenty of evidence that fish feel pain, that they can conceive of hypothetical future states, and that they can suffer stress, for example as provoked by over-crowding, in the case of free-swimming species.
The important British study with wrasses featured in Andrew Sharpless's latest "This Week in Ocean News" is a good indication that the sentience of fish is not to be underestimated, but that indeed we need to continue our explorations of it.
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
NSaggie Posted 10:56 am
12 Feb 2008
Trout can use demand feeders, bump into a rod in the water, and food drops in from a small hopper above. The Atlantic salmon aren't quite so bright though.
The biggest problem is the location of the farms. Spawning and smolt runs should be off limits to farms, unless they can use the closed systems. The closed systems are ideal, but unfortunately very expensive, and need to be sited where the tidal forces are weak.
Permalink
dale ball Posted 10:46 pm
12 Feb 2008
Dale Ball
Permalink
Liz Borkowski Posted 12:14 am
13 Feb 2008
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 12:33 am
13 Feb 2008
We should of course remember that there are other forms of aquaculture which show greater promise than what look to be these shabby, on-the-cheap attempts with salmon.
Aside from the serious issues of overcrowding, and pollution and the spread of disease and parasites among wild, non-confined animals, there is also the issue of food source. East Asians already have a long history of cultivating herbivorous fish, especially carp (some varieties) and catfish. The pisciculture of those fish, as well as tilapia, is well underway in this country.
Also, in the penultimate "This Week in Ocean News" post, sent to us by Oceana's Andrew Sharpless, there was an exciting report of research in North Carolina on raising carnivorous/omnivorous fish on a (mostly) vegetarian diet, featuring soymeal, I think. (Obviously, feeding fish to fish, as is done in salmon aquaculture, is a pathetically short-sighted and moribund system.)
An idea of mine is to get cultivated carnivorous/omnivorous fish to switch from eating other fish to eating a diet based on common, easily controlled and rapidly reproducing invertebrates, e.g. insects and worms. To my knowledge, though, no one is working on that.
An important matter of an entirely different sort is aesthetics. Tom Philpott has more than once referred to the "flavorlessness" of farmed salmon, and he is far from being alone. And I do not know what to say to him on that matter. As a promoter of animal rights, I look to the day when we will all get beyond our sense of need and entitlement to kill animals, including fish, for our food; as a conservationist, meanwhile, I think human dietary "needs" for meat from fish might very well be satisfied by cultivated fish sustained on a vegetable-based and invertebrate-based diet; but as an aesthetician, I know that the taste of wild salmon is unique, and uniquely beautiful, and a valuable part of human experience.
It is a very complicated matter indeed. Some promoters of animal rights like to ask certain aesthetics-oriented carnivores, "How can you claim that your fleeting pleasure eating that piece of meat from Animal X justifies the long abuse and suffering of Animal X?" It is an excellent question. But the ethical calculus is not at all so simply resolved as such questioners might imagine.
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
blopa Posted 1:30 am
13 Feb 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:53 am
13 Feb 2008
I think it has great potential. For feeding chickens too. Earthworms are an excellent choice for this food chain.
A wacky idea I have had on aquaculture is kind of a free range fish farm. Floating ocean platforms that house wind and wave and underwater ocean current generators could serve to culture oysters with the dock mounted system they use now.
They could also be designed to shelter fish and put extra air into the ocean with the wave machine output water. A structure like this designed to increase food supply, just like natural structures, like corral does (where waves break on corral extra air is mixed with water), would incease food chain growth and GHG absorption all the way up through the local food chain around the platform. From micro-organisms to large fish.
These could be designed to serve as corral seed beds too. By planting corral on the underwater structure, than periodically replanting it in suitable locations on the seabed.
In over fertilized polluted areas like the Gulf coast/Mississippi delta, the wave machines could filter extra algae and weeds from the water and biodigest it, producing organic fertilizer and cleaning polluted water. Biogas for clean kwh would alsio be produced.
Lakes and rivers over run by overgrowth due to fertilizer and manure run off could benefit from smaller models of these floating systems. There are even micro-organisms that have a special ability to trap and concentrate heavy metals and radioactive contaminants for removal from the watery ecosystem.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amc89 Posted 3:35 am
13 Feb 2008
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 3:57 am
13 Feb 2008
"Each year, we grind up one-third of all ocean-caught fish to feed industrially raised pigs, chickens, and farmed fish. That's 30 million tonnes of fish turned into fishmeal and oil. What a waste."
Indeed. We are grinding down the food chain to plump up salmon and pigs cheaply, while seals, birds, and whales literally starve. And it's not just anchovies and sardines, now they're catching krill for the same purpose. Talk about impacting the food chain.
Check out her post and "eat like a pig seafood wallet card" here:
http://scienceblogs.com/shiftingbaselines/2008/01/eat_lik ...
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,100+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:10 am
13 Feb 2008
Worms feed on the waste stream. nature's recyclers, leaving huge amounts of worm casting as organic fertilizer to enhance the soil's carbon storage capabilities.
The worms could be fed plant overgrowth from fertilizer run off polluted rivers and lakes. Amongst other waste stream sources.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
NSaggie Posted 7:28 am
13 Feb 2008
Perhaps more controversial, is research looking at replacing the fish meal, at least in part, with things like oil seeds and other plant feed stuffs. We've had some success at my school with getting good growth from canola seed. But there are some obvious issues in trying to feed an animal with a straight gut, feeds intended for animals with the twisty kind ;) Also issues with providing proper amino acid amounts and other nutrients when using foods they aren't intended to eat.
Unquestionably, there are some major hurdles. Overcoming them will be difficult, as government seems to always look the other way.
I'm a big fan of the closed systems I mentioned earlier. There is a company in BC that makes something called the Sea System. It's a bag. It catches all the uneaten feed, and faeces, and pumps it up to the surface where the sludge can be removed. The water can be treated, the waste removed, and the fish inside are separated from the wild fish. The problem is cost. They're very expensive, and the tidal forces are so much greater on a bag sitting in the water than say a net.
Soooo many issues...
Permalink
Lauren Guite Posted 8:06 am
13 Feb 2008
Lauren Guite
Environmental Defense
finding the ways that work
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 9:30 am
13 Feb 2008
Is this still Gristmill or have I fallen into the weheartcafo.org website by mistake?
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 10:00 am
13 Feb 2008
Right as always, Spaceshaper.
I am glad the discussion of bugs got underway. But the original issue of CAFOization of aquaculture must not be put aside.
My assumption is that non-polluting pisciculture, with perhaps Asian origins, is most certainly NOT compatible with "high stock density."
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
iparnell Posted 4:34 am
17 Feb 2008
Ian Parnell
What's your ecotype?
Permalink
gayathriherath Posted 7:10 pm
10 Mar 2008
Permalink