Fish farms - hazardous to wild fish

[reelcrazy]

Read this with warning bells going off, admittedly it's about salmon farms located at the mouths of rivers.

However, the article definitely illustrates the dangers of fish farming for all species, and the potential risks towards the wild population.

This should be required reading for all authorities charged with approving fish farms in Aussie, not that I believe they'll listen when big dollars talk.

We need to declare our waters a protected wilderness and ban all fish farms.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4391711.stm

[Boxhead]

Reelcrazy,

I think aquaculture is the way of the future. I know for a fact that getting a license in Australia can be very difficult due to regulations and requirements. Going and banning fish farms is a knee jerk reaction to a clear mismanagement of this facility. But I do see your point. I believe personally that aquaculture should be restricted to land based facilities with very strict waste water management systems in place.

There is a Barra farm in Nelson Bay NSW that is a land based facility and is totally isolated from the local environment. They grow vegies in hydroponic setups to dispose of waste water-top idea, they sell the fish and the vegies.......

Nath...

[reelcrazy]

Nothing is completely isolated from the natural and local environment, that is the problem confronting us.

I did state that we should declare our waters a protected wilderness - and ban the farms from our coastline and inland waterways.

Even your example of the Nelson Bay barra farm is still an environmental hazard, even though it is landbased, and supposedly isolated, the local water table is potentially affected if the system spills through accident or freak of nature, not to mention the settled fecal solids in the ponds.

History has proven time and time again that wherever there are profits, there will be shortcuts and lack of commonsense in the pursuit of those profits.

One prime example of the dangers of this is in the British livestock industry. Industry bean counters decided it was profitable to recycle livestock carcases into feedlots, the end result - BSE, a devastated industry and the worse outcome of all, infected human beings with no cure.

There are too many other similar examples, it simply is not worth the risk, particularly when the costs are borne by all, current and future generations.

That article above clearly illustrates the dangers, yet in spite of that industry generating billions of dollars, and despite the threat to their livelihoods - they have proven incapable of providing a solution.

Stop it here before it becomes an industry.

[kc]

Below is a press release from the premier dated just 30th March...very timely.

The one glaring number in this release is that the aquaculture industry in Queensland is already worth $70M a year.

Take an averge price of $10 a kg it would appear it already produces 7 million kg of product...or maybe the figure is not just about product produced?? Don't know.

If aquaculture was removed, could our wild stocks absorb this much extra pressure?

The big issue here is that we are becoming the fish mongers to nations which have already ruined their own fisheries and our governments seem hell-bent on exporting as much as they can, while Australian domestic consumers get inferior, imported fish farmed product adorning every fish shop window.

This is why we have a policy against uncapped seafood exports.

Regards

KC
The Fishing Party




Premier & Trade, Peter Beattie

30/03/05


Smart State Serves Up Seafood "Brain Food" Bounty

A $4 million Smart State investment will put delicious, affordable and eco-friendly seafood on Queensland plates, Premier Peter Beattie said today.

The government will inject the funds into advanced aquaculture research over the next four years, to produce tasty seafood and ensure the aquaculture industry is sustainable in the long-term.

Mr Beattie said: "Aquaculture has the potential to guarantee an abundant harvest of delicious seafood, and by keeping up supplies of seafood from aquaculture we will help keep the price of seafood under control.

"Our sustainable regulation of natural fisheries brings this industry to the fore, because aquaculture relieves pressure on our oceans, estuaries and inland waterways.

"This funding will go into research to improve breeding of popular species such as banana and tiger prawns, barramundi and soft shell crabs.

"It will also focus on improving environmental management systems and regional planning, so that Queensland's aquaculture industry is ecologically sustainable.

"It's a case of using Queensland brains to breed better "brain food"," Mr Beattie said.

Queensland's aquaculture industry is worth about $70 million a year and has only just begun to seriously tap into the lucrative export market. It is estimated to employ 700 Queenslanders.

Mr Beattie said the aquaculture program would be part of the second stage of the Smart State Strategy to be released by the Premier on 18 April. $2 million in new funding over four years will be earmarked in the budget to be unveiled by Treasurer Terry Mackenroth in June.

"A plate of farm-produced prawns, crabs and barra by the beach ... that's where the Sunshine State meets the Smart State," Mr Beattie said.

The research will be done by the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, and will build on the foundations of its research in recent years.

Primary Industries and Fisheries Minister Henry Palaszczuk said world-class science and innovation was the key to achieving profitable and sustainable primary industries in Queensland.

"Investment in R&D is increasingly recognised as a fundamental driver of economic growth," Mr Palaszczuk said.

"The $4 million investment in aquaculture R&D will play a critical role in nurturing this new and emerging bio-industry in Queensland," Mr Palaszczuk said.

Queensland Government fisheries experts have already used molecular genetic methods to improve the quality of farmed species, and have made aquaculture farming techniques more efficient.

Importantly, they have found ways to integrate aquaculture with other agricultural production technologies, so that traditional farmers who want to diversify can become successful fish, prawn and crab farmers.

The Premier said: "Queensland has the perfect climate for aquaculture, plus world-class experts to build an ecologically sustainable and economically viable industry.

"This investment will ensure our aquaculture industry moves ahead, and delivers delicious seafood to Queenslanders, tourists and our export customers," Mr Beattie said.

Media contact: Premier's office 3224 4500
Minister's office (John Algate) 3239 3004

30 March 2005

[Leo_N.]

Reelcrazy,
The farm mentioned is not in ponds - barramundi woud die in pond conditions at that latitude. It is quite a simple task to concentrate faecal matter and use it for other uses eg. agricultural fertiliser.

Your example of sealice is an interesting one and does open up some considerations for management. However it is neither productive or logical to apply a broad brush to all aquaculture from this example.

Wouldn't it be more productive to write a post asking if anyone that is informed on this topic can contribute some facts on Australian aquaculture and how these issues can be mitigated?

Isn't it more logical to push for management controls to minimise environmental impact of such an industry rather than advocate closing it down?

My view is that aquaculture has the potential to be both environmentally and economically sustainable. The world supply of wild-caught seafood is in fact static, while the world population and demond on seafood is increasing. How do you propose the gap is filled other than by aquaculture?

[Boxhead]

Reelcrazy,

Mate, you are one angry man..... I studied aquaculture for quite some time and if you do believe in preserving the sea for us all then this IS the way of the future, sure, there is money to be made, but it's not simply a matter of buying a fish tank and starting a fish farm, it's a hugely expensive exercise and the risk of failure is high therefore the investors should be well entitled to a return....

The people making big money for bugger all risk are the pros who drag the arse out of the place - Aquaculture can put them out of business....

Do yourself a favour and research aquaculture a little more, you may find it suddenly becomes a good idea....

Nath...

[Kerry]

Well how about the fact that in general it takes something like 2-3kg of feed (fishmeal etc) to "grow" 1 (yes that is one) kg of farmed product and in some cases it can be much more at around 5kg plus.

Now if 1kg of meal could grow 2 kg of product then wow that would be something but that simply doesn't happen and to suggest otherwise is pure and simply PR BS.

Now logic says it doesn't make much sense to feed 2-5kg of protien to produce 1kg of farmed product and many people simply prefer to ignore this fact.

And what's even more staggering is guess where fishmeal etc comes from :o yes the very same people who they rave on about wanting to put out of business, some might call that to be hyprocritical.

Fish farming and acquaculture in general appear to currently have the ostrich syndrome very similar to developers who really couldn't give a rats ar.. at the downside as long as they get their cut and then simply move on in this ever increasing quest for profit and places to stuff.

Staggers me how some think acquaculture here is some how magically different to the rest of the world where in reality it has actually failed.


Cheers, Kerry.

[Boxhead]

Kerry,

The japanese have been farming fish SUCCESSFULLY for generations and feeding them organic products such as rice and other vegies.

Waste fish product has also been used to produce fish meal as well as fish farmers producing massive amounts of maggots and also some types of worms. Farmers have also installed fluro lights just above the water of their tanks or ponds to attach large amounts of moths and other insects. And you probably didn't know that the barstard of all fish, the humble carp is also used to produce fish feed. Wouldn't it be a good thing to create a demand for these fellas?

Sure it's early days in Australia, but I think the glass is half full not half empty...

Nath...

[dugong]

nath
aquaculture may be a wonderful way to prevent the destruction of wild fish stocks from over fishing,enviromentaly friends ect ect.
the problem is that at the end of the day the only thing that counts is the bottom line!!
something that may work great for yrs can turn into an enviromental disaster when economic pressure is applyed to boost returns and corners are cut.

australia is full of examples of wonderful ideas gone wrong and now with a lot of companys being foreign owned do you think that a board of directors from one of the countrys with a poor enviromental record would really care about preserving our enviroment at the detrement of the bottom line??

i read somewhere that it takes 4kg of wild fish stock as food to grow 1kg of farm fish does any one know if its true? if it is then how can aquaculture save fish wild stocks???
cheers

[Kerry]

...i read somewhere that it takes 4kg of wild fish stock as food to grow 1kg of farm fish does any one know if its true? if it is then how can aquaculture save fish wild stocks???...

The amount varies depending on the product being farmed but one thing is for sure there is nobody that is going to deny that it takes MORE food to produce an equiv farmed product. This is one subject that many who push the industry will simply duck shove around as if it was a handfull of hot coals.

BUT please why would anybody suggest at making carp valuable #[smiley=thumbsdown.gif] what an absolutely horrid suggestion. Boxhead, go and wash your mouth out #:-X the last thing any country needs is carp madness gone wild.

And when they start parting with thousands of yen per kilo for farmed bluefin etc then we'll know they are serious. #

Cheers, Kerry.

[Boxhead]

Dugong,

I will dig up some facts on aquaculture tomorrow if I get time, and I will post here. You may be amazed at the red tape that you must travel through to get a permit.

Many things affect the growth rates of fish in aquaculture facilities like: Water Temp, Light Hours, Water quality as well as the species that is grown. Some species are omnivores and require little fish meal in their diet, but, as mentioned earlier, if the fish meal is Carp then what is the problem?

Unfortunately the "bottom line" is what drives our economy, our jobs, our families and our lives. You get in the car and destroy the environment going to work all for the bottom line. The average human farts 40 times a day that equates to 8,000,000,000 farts a day in Australia! This can't be a good thing.... [smiley=end.gif]

Nath...

[Boxhead]

Kerry,

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Creating a demand on Carp as a source of fish meal to feed other fish would be a good thing.

Also, Southern Bluefin aren't "farmed". They are ring netted, towed close to shore, fattend up and sold (Yep, saw it on 60 minutes and was pissed off). So technically they are just grown. Real farming is from sprog to plate.

Banning aquaculture will be of no benefit to the rec fisho. The whole seafood demand will be filled from the wild stocks....

Nath...

[Kerry]

Yes Boxhead you know those ring netted tuna don't fall in to the farmed category in the true sense, nothing more than cowboys with checkbooks.

Cheers, Kerry.

[basserman]

i also belive that aquaculture is the way to go and yes it is in the earliy days but like everything it does take something to make something grow
what do cows grow from breathing? hell no it takes feed water and care
but like everything a day will come
they are growing plankton in farms that they feed to prawns and other bait fish that will then be feed to the barra or whatever the case is
i think many people would be suprised at how much farmed barra gets exported and also sold here in australia
it is said the barra farms are now one of the fastest grow industaries in the top end and WA

and crap is already a good resource both to sell and to get out of our rivers never to be seen
one of australias best sucesse storys is from a falmer that started to rid his dam of carp and is now setting native frendliy traps for them and blending them up as plant food and is now a milloinarie
i see nothing wrong with trying to get rid of carp and useing them for some good insted of just tossing them on the bank

[Kerry]

....Banning aquaculture will be of no benefit to the rec fisho.... Think so ??? most believe that the rejection of the Moreton bay proposal benefited everybody [smiley=2thumbsup.gif], oh apart from the money men ;D.

Cheers, Kerry.

[PinHead]

"I did state that we should declare our waters a protected wilderness"..I would guess that a "protected wilderness" would exclude ALL forms of fishing..or are we being selective..amateurs only allowed?

"australia is full of examples of wonderful ideas gone wrong"...Australia is also full of wonderful ideas that have gone incredibly right.

Why not feed farmed fish others items other than fish meal...simple solution.

[Boxhead]

Kerry,

I'm unfamiliar with this proposal (I'm a mexican) but were they oceans cages?

If so, I mentioned earlier that facilities need to be land based to protect the environment. I too am not a fan of ocean facilities, however, aquaculture setups that draw fresh water from the ocean are a good thing provided that the water is treated in accordance with the many regs (Which include bio filtration, UV sterilizers, settling ponds, etc) in place before being returned to the environment..

Nath...

[banshee]

I am for the farms,no doubt there will be teething problems along the way and untill it is all sorted it may very well be a case of choosing the lesser of the two evils.Fish in farms have to be fed fish meal if they aren't the product does not resemble the taste of what is perceived by the general public as real fish.

[Kerry]

Nath, yeah they were sea cages within Moreton Bay but as usual the normal contradictions are put forward for approval.

As for land based shows well todate they haven't exactly been the pinacle of proving they are inert, long way from it with respect some of the affects on both land and water.

As for this feeding regime where one puts in more than one takes that well that has absolutely no sustainability what so ever in any way shape or form. Take the pilchard debacle for example and what apparently turned into an introduced desease that basically wiped out the pilchard stocks. That's simply one example of unstainability and greed at any cost.

Cheers, Kerry.
#

[Chuong]

Did a quick seach on fish meal. Not an oz example but most of it is used for land animal feed.

http://www.feap.info/home/FAQ/Answers/ans7_en.asp

[Leo_N.]

Kerry,
Please stop posting the same mis-informed information. Your rates of 5:1 are far out-dated. For example FCR values as low as 0.78 have recently been reported for barramundi (Williams et al 2003). This is not to say that they actually make more food as the pellets are dry, but the fish is weighed wet.

It is a simple fact that fish require more inputs than growth. It is very simple biology that food inputs are used for growth and metabolic stasis, which is incidently common to all primary industries.

The problem here is that the fish that are of large commercial importance in Australia are high up in the food chain. That means that they are not adapted well to digesting plant material (short guts, lack appropriate digerstive enzymes, bacterial flora etc.). Therefore they are traditionally fed foods with large amounts of fishmeal. As it has become evident that this is not sustainable, a lot of research has gone into optimising the utilisation of fishmeal for growth (minimising its use for energy) and replacing fishmeal with plant and terrestrial derived protein sources. For plant materials this involves a lot of processing to remove antinutritional factors and increase digestibility, but is sucessful in replacing significant amounts of fishmeal in fish foods (37% replacement of lupins by protein % without reducing growth or FCR; Glencross et al. 2004). Bloodmeal and offalmeal can be (and are commercially being) used to further reduce these figures.

So if we considder that fish are about 60% moisture, the dry weight to dry weight ratio is about 0.78g food: 0.4g fish growth, or a dry weight conversion of 1.95. So using 37% lupin meal to replace this fishmeal protortion of the diet to 29% (Glencross et al 2004), and the fish:fish conversion is 0.23g fishmeal : 0.4g fish growth. Therefore it is achievable to grow more fish than the fishmeal input by about 1.74 X.

These are real figures, derived from peer-reviewed international journals. Unfortunately feed companies will not tell us the actual proportion of fishmeal and alternative protein sources that they do use, but I can tell you that fishmeal is very expensive when compared to lupins and other terrestrial protein sources. If economics do rule, then feed companies will be replacing the maximum amount of fishmeal with alternative protein sources that they can.

I agree that it is a concern that large amounts of fishmeal are used by aquaculture, but the situation is improving rapidly and it is important to be up-to-date when throwing figures about.

[Kerry]

....Well how about the fact that in general it takes something like 2-3kg of feed (fishmeal etc) to "grow" 1 (yes that is one) kg of farmed product and in some cases it can be much more at around 5kg plus....


Please stop posting the same mis-informed information. Your rates of 5:1 are far out-dated. And Leo please quote what your quoting in full instead of the typical selective numbers some of you people try to imply.

So Leo what specific fishery are you quoting those figures for? as yes there are fisheries aound 2:1 (as I previously mentioned) and then are others that are higher, right?

Now are you saying there is NO FARM FISHERY requiring higher feeding regimes :)

Does get rather interting Leo when numbers can be turned into just about anything anybody wants. As for weight well the real world scenario is at the fish counter, the weight one pays for, hey?

Cheers, Kerry.

[Leo_N.]

[quote author=Kerry link=board=General;num=1112220819;start=20#21 date=04/01/05 at 13:59:26]


:-/ Whoops

[Leo_N.]

Sorry, missed the quote bit, but you got the message anyway. You need to be clear what you are referring to, whether it be food, fishmeal, protein etc - they are all very different things. My previous post was an attempt to standardise the values so that you can understand them. Your original statement (that you quoted above) actually states "feed" which is in most cases the dry pellets. Therefore the values you are looking for are between 0.75-1.2 rather than 2-3 and up to 5. I can quote much more literature to you if you want.

I may be missing your point, but is the question "are there higher food conversion ratios currently used in aquaculture today?" ???

Tuna "ranching" is sometimes called aquaculture, and they do have much higher FCR's. Other than that I have not seen a literature value of a fish FCR > 1.5 in the last 5 years (other than those fish intentionally compromised for the sake of the experiment). If you convert this to a dry weight to dry weight ratio, this is about 2.5 g food for 1 g fish growth. There would have to be >40% fishmeal in the diet for a net decrease in the amount of fish produced compared to fishmeal used.

[Kerry]

So Leo let me see if I have this right?

When you are referring to "feed" you are not referring to everything they "eat" to make them grow? So "feed" is just pellets, what sort of pellets?

So what do we have to do here Leo add up the "feed", the "food", the "fishmeal", the "protien" etc etc

Hope we don't have to get bogged down in the anti-biotic saga denial, again! especially the PR "wording" #;D

Cheers, Kerry.

[Leo_N.]

Are you serious Kerry?? I'm trying to give an informed opinion here, backed up by rigorous research. All that I get from you is entirely uninformed and incorrect opinions. It seems that you are particularly fixed in your opinions whether they have any basis in reality or not.

[Kerry]

Leo, For someone "associated" with the industry, that has an "interest" in the industry and comments that are generally "from within the industry" and would probably rely on funding from the industry for "research" etc your comments could tend to be seen as very one sided, but about par for the course, considering.

It's rather amusing that anybody against some activities are always apparently ....uninformed and incorrect opinions.... funny that, hey.

Cheers, Kerry.

[markpeta]

I dont know much on fish farming but wouldn't better than 30 trawlers headeding out in the bay for a couple of days. These trawlers should be cashing in there licences and buying into fish farm surley with the price of desil and insurance each year. For such a small return trawling the damage that the are doing is so high.

Mark

[Kerry]

Hey Mark :) with all the so called build up with fish farms one should probably be buying all the trawler licences in sight, like fish have to eat too, don't they, no matter where they live ;D now who is going to catch that feed, protien, food (or whatever it's called this week) ;)

Cheers, Kerry.

[Boxhead]

Leo,

Thanks for your factual input into this topic it's always good to see relivant data presented in a logical way that most people can understand.

Kerry,

Thanks for giving me something to read... If you look up "arguement" in the thesaurus I think you will find 10 different photos of yourself ;D

Nath...

[Kerry]

That's ok boxhead, at least you don't have to read between my lines like some well concocted PR ramble ;) with double takes, double meanings, deliberation of intentions.

Yeah boxhead some of the factual input is very cleverly done :D

Cheers, Kerry.

[PinHead]

Leo, For someone "associated" with the industry, that has an "interest" in the industry and comments that are generally "from within the industry" and would probably rely on funding from the industry for "research" etc your comments could tend to be seen as very one sided, but about par for the course, considering.

It's rather amusing that anybody against some activities are always apparently ....uninformed and incorrect opinions.... funny that, hey.

Cheers, Kerry.



I would be interested to read where your figures come from Kerry..not as an insular figure but an across industry average backed by the name of the author of the paper the information was gleaned from.

[reelcrazy]

Interesting discussion here, but getting a little off track from my original post about fish farms endangering wild fish stocks.

My opinion that fish farms should be banned from all waterways still holds, and since it has been raised, this ban (with a few exceptions) should be extended to those inland as well.

The link to the article clearly shows that the industry has some serious problems that are starting to devastate wild fish populations, and worse, the industry has no solution.

What appals me most is that one of the studies clearly show one fish farm as the vector for dramatic increases of sea lice in local wild fish populations. What is even more surprising is that there was no outcome, other than the usual academic posturing and vested interest inertia. Commonsense say either shut the farm down or force it to scale back operations.

Any form of intensive food cultivation is an environmental disaster, the ongoing quest for greater yields fly in the face of sound environmental and age old husbandry practices.

No argument to the contrary will convince me otherwise. This goes for arguments about environmental safeguards and containment practices, these are simply specious in the face of reality, as a clear illustration of this, look at the history of spills at Ranger, Beverly and Olympic dam uranium mines.

Uranium mining is a supposedly highly regulated and politically sensitive industry - yet all those regulations and sensitivity in practical reality mean nothing, to make regulations work, you need enforcement, to have enforcement you need the political will, and if that is ineffective for an industry as politically sensitive as the uranium industry, you can guarantee it will be even more so for the aquaculture industry.

If the aquaculture industry is allowed to flourish, without question, it will be an environmental disaster, made worse by the fact that did not have to happen. - We are seeing the impact of mature acquaculture overseas, do we really have to make the same mistake?

Let the industry be still born I say, it isn't worth the risk.

[Kerry]

Pinhead,

Figures are just that, Figures and one can make what ever figure one requires ans some are very good at doing that especially industry funded research, whatever figure you want is the figure you'll get. Independence is the key word and many so figures would know what independence was.

You see justification of all this type of activity really doesn't have anything to support all the wonderful claims

Reelcrazy makes some good points
....the industry has no solution.... but yet it tries to basically bully it's presence in an almost condescending manner with the predictable
.... usual academic posturing and vested interest inertia.... [smiley=2thumbsup.gif]


....We are seeing the impact of mature acquaculture overseas, do we really have to make the same mistake?.... here here Yet for some strange reason things are supposed to be different here yet in many cases it's basically the same companies thrown out of overseas countries moving to do more of the same, based on the same principles and based on selective critera, their own selective criteria.

So as far as harming wild fish population (and heaven help us if the stupidity of growing carp comes up again) and as witnessed by the pilchard debacle all one gets is excuses, no solutions just excuses. Well the industry has some major major hurdles to get over and no amount of the typical industry rhetoric and smoke screens cut it.


Cheers, Kerry.

[PinHead]

"Well how about the fact that in general it takes something like 2-3kg of feed (fishmeal etc) to "grow" 1 (yes that is one) kg of farmed product and in some cases it can be much more at around 5kg plus.

Now if 1kg of meal could grow 2 kg of product then wow that would be something but that simply doesn't happen and to suggest otherwise is pure and simply PR BS.

Now logic says it doesn't make much sense to feed 2-5kg of protien to produce 1kg of farmed product and many people simply prefer to ignore this fact."

"Figures are just that, Figures and one can make what ever figure one requires ans some are very good at doing that "

So where did your figures come from or are you just making some figures thay you require???

[Heath]

So where did you get the figures from Kerry?

[jaybee]

I'm against Fish Farms in the natural environment, however i beleive rasing and releasing fingerlings could be a sustainable propersition without too much impact on nature.? who knows? however having said that Pinhead
in general it takes something like 2-3kg of feed (fishmeal etc) to "grow" 1 (yes that is one) kg of farmed product yep don't make sense to me but then nor does this which has been going on longer. A broiler chicken needs 2.2 kilograms of feed grain per kilo of live weight gain. For pork it is four kilos and for beef seven kilos. This means that animals have become major competitors with humans for grains, leading to higher grain prices and denying the hungry access to cheap food.
Source: http://agitprop.org.au/lefthistory/1997_middleton_environment_hunger_population.php actually the last paragraph is interesting reading. No I am not a marxist but have an interest in the Social Sciences.
cheers
Joe.

[Kerry]

Well just for Heath's doubting benefit ;D AMCS actually state between 2-12 Kg of fishmeal to produce one kilogram of farmed fish or prawns, depending on the species. So 2-3 up to 5kg is fairly middle of the road, wouldn't you think as overstating things generally brings out the doubting tommies.

Now Heath if you really want to take that further you should ask the AMCS as they obviously have enough balls to put those figures down in print.

The other interesting thing is the source of some brood stock, wild brood stock that is and if this is the case then it certainly adds to the already suspect over promotion and underestimation (depends on which side of the fence one is) of some fishing practices and statistics.

Cheers, Kerry.

[Derek Bullock]

Not entering the arguement but below is an extract from PETA. Just thought we should be fighting them not each other

Fish Farms: Underwater Factories

"Conditions on aquafarms are so horrendous that on some farms, 40 percent of the fish may die before farmers can kill and package them for food." #

Fish farming, or “aquaculture,” has become a billion-dollar industry, and more than 30 percent of all the sea animals consumed each year are now raised on these “farms.” The United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization reports that the aquaculture industry is growing three times faster than land-based animal agriculture, and fish farms will surely become even more prevalent as our natural fisheries become exhausted.

Aquafarms can be based on land or in the ocean. Land-based farms raise thousands of fish in ponds, pools, or concrete tanks. Ocean-based aquafarms are situated close to shorelines, and fish in these farms are packed into net or mesh cages. All fish farms are rife with pollution, disease, and suffering, regardless of their location.

"We don't take what Mother Nature throws at us. This is a factory for fish." — Bill Evans, Vice President of Mariculture Systems, Inc., Salmon-farming company #

Aquafarms squander resources—it can take 5 pounds of wild-caught fish to produce just 1 pound of farmed fish—and pollute the environment with tons of fish feces, antibiotic-laden fish feed, and diseased fish carcasses.

Fish on aquafarms spend their entire lives in cramped, filthy enclosures, and many suffer from parasitic infections, diseases, and debilitating injuries. Conditions on some farms are so horrendous that 40 percent of the fish may die before farmers can kill and package them for food. In short, fish farms bring suffering and ecological devastation everywhere they go.

[Heath]

Kerry,

One wouldn't ask a question unless it was for ones benifit would one. ::)

Talk about stating the obvious. ::)

[Kerry]

Well Heath, somedays the circling wolves tend to sound obviously the same, all trying for a bite, you know what I mean #;) I'm sure.

So what now #;D you going to comment on that figure?

12kg ??? (to me) does sound high but obviously one wouldn't think they would publish numbers for the industry to shot holes in their credibility. Similar with the industry numbers as one would have to suspect those to be "engineered" as low as possible but like all numbers not really show the real useage.

One might assume somewhere in the middle of both camps is possibly where the real usuage lies as in traditional fashion the number one wants is the number one can generally derive.

The wording at times can give hints to credibility of some numbers in conjunction with their source.


Cheers, Kerry.
#