Fish definitely do feel pain, definitely do suffer from stress, and some species definitely can be trained.

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.

Thank you, CanisCandida, for consistently representing the animals' interests, no matter how distant they are from our anthropocentric ideals of beauty, cuteness or usefullness.
Dale Ball

"Farming" fish in the open ocean obviously has the potential to damage marine ecosystems, but what about aquaculture in enclosed ponds? There's still a potential for unexpected consequences from having a single species concentrated in a small space, but it seems that the contamination should be less of a problem. Does anyone know of research comparing different types of fish farming?

Thanks, Dale; sure thing!

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.

There are people working on creating fish feed from insects - a company out of florida (I think in assoc. with a university) has developed something called ento-protein as a fish feed substitute.

"...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."

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

While thankfully there is a growing awareness about the suffering of animals on chicken, turkey and pig factory farms, there's unfortunately still little public awareness about the animal welfare conditions in these underwater factory farms.  And too many people still think of aquaculture as environmentally benign thanks to the propaganda of the fishing industry but hopefully the media will give more coverage to the negative aspects of aquaculture with the release of more reports like the above.  Hopefully the World Bank will respond by re-thinking their policies on aquaculture, as well as other factory farm operations.  If we want to protect the environment, prevent the spread of disease like bird flu and protect animals from cruelty we should not be exporting the factory farm model to developing nations.

I say switch to earth worms as a replacement protein source.  Save the fish, save the oceans!

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

I'm actually studying aquaculture at my school. There are people looking at alternative sources of proteins and dietary energy. The marine worms for instance. I worked for a company a few years ago through a NSERC grant. They were trying to get bloodworms and sandworms to reproduce in captivity. I can't actually talk about the specifics for two more years, signed on the line before I took the job. What I can say is probably obvious; the ecological function the worms provide makes them a great candidate for a replacement feed ingredient.

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...

Am I alone in finding this discussion kinda weird? Forcing captive fish to eat massive quantities of whatever we find convenient just to feed our own insatiable appetites?

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.

(The G stands for Wotan.)

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.