Farm Raised Salmon?

[Boat Monkey]

Just curious what your thoughts are on this. Personally *I* feel that farm raised salmon will reduce commercial presure and increase run sizes. Additionally, I think that the recent articles on higher PCB percentages in farm raised salmon will push the public away from a very important renewable resource.

Here's a couple snippets:
We've looked at all the data and our advice to consumers is not to alter their consumption of farmed or wild salmon," said Terry Troxell, director of the FDA Center for Food Safety and Nutrition.

"Salmon is an excellent source of Omega 3 fatty acids, vitamins and proteins," he said. "These [contaminant] levels are extremely low and are not of public health concern to us."
As quoted on ABC News, January 9, 2004

"We certainly don't think there's a public health concern here," said Dr. Terry Troxell, director of the agency's office of plant and dairy foods and beverages. "Our advice to consumers is not to alter their consumption of farmed or wild salmon."
As quoted in The New York Times, January 9, 2004

Do you agree, disagree -- or don't care?

[Digifish]

I'm not a fan of current fish farming methods. They are set up to maximize profits and the ecological damage is a very real concern. Not to mention the gene pool pollution and competition for habitat from escaped atlantic salmon.

Here are a couple of links that shed some light on it.

Salmon Nation

Seattle PI article

[Siwash]

BM,

I can sorta agree with your argument, but I think i'm still leaning towards the opposition to salmon farming for many of the reasons discussed here in other similar threads (i.e. waste and/or disease concentration, inevitable escapement and probable intrusion into wild populations, etc). The FDA spokesman sounds reassuring, but i'm naturally a bit skeptical. On the one hand, I'm not necessarily anti-government (which a lot of folks are), but keep in mind the FDA has an interest in promoting such agriculture and so they may not be as impartial as you'd hope they should be. Look at the current mad cow mania in the news for a generally unfavorable perspective on food safety testing and regulation.

[willie17]

I GUESS HERE IS MY THOUGHT ON THE FARM RAISED SALMON. I THINK IT SHOULD BE STOPPED. I THINK THE FARM RAISING OF SALMON CAN DO NOTHING BUT HURT OUR FISHING SINCE WE WILL HAVE EASY ACCESS TO SALMON AND THE TROLLING FLEET WILL SUFFER. THE FARM RAISED SALMON DON'T BRING IN ANY INCOME FOR THE STATE OF OREGON TO HELP WITH BUILDING BIGGER RUNS THAT WE CAN CATCH.

IF IT WAS OPEN FOR A VOTE I WOULD VOTE TO CLOSE THEM ALL

JUST MY THOUGHT

[reeldick]

I won't eat it. I have also told friends to specifically ask for "wild" salmon at the store if they buy salmon.It sounds like the PCB's are in the pellet feed. I also don't like the idea of dying my dinner the color that sells best.

[Chris White]

I wouldn't eat it either. The stuff i've seen in the stores looks mushy and gray, except for the dyed meat which looks like something left over from 3 mile island (glow in the dark). Give me real fish anytime.
??? YIKES!!

[Boat Monkey]

Great points (and animation Chris.) My only rebutal is that if they are raised on a farm, they will have no migratory instinct to take them to the watershed to spawn--no?

Taxes and licensing of the fishery could contribute to hatcheries and promotion of native runs. Almost sounds like I'm being the devils advocate doesn't it?

[reeldick]

They do have migratory instincts. There is already a problem with farmed atlantic salmon showing up in B.C. rivers. There are evidently a lot of escapees from the west coast farms. What could that do to west coast fisheries?

[Joe Schwab]

We did a salmon feed at Paradise Cove last year for approximately 100 people. The manager bought farmed salmon from Freddy's and I agreed to do the grilling. The filets were beautiful, firm and tasted great. I don't know where some of these "grey, mushy" filets are turning up but the ones I have seen look and taste great.

There is no way the park could have sprung for so called "wild" fish for this many people. As for feeding myself, I never buy salmon in a store or a restaurant but there are other reasons for that, cost factor being the biggest reason.

Just like beef, there is good and bad. If it don't look good, don't buy it!

If you saw how some of the "wild" sockeye is handled in Alaska, you probably would not buy that either.

[ET]

I'm all for it. I have eaten it. You probably have too. And some of it is good(at least the Atlantic Salmon purchased at Costco is). Granted it tastes different than Pacific Chinook and Coho, but it is good. In my opinion, people that say it is no good are biased. Kind of like growing up eating your mother's potato salad and then saying all others are bad. Fresh and properly prepared, it's all good. As far as freshness goes, farmed salmon is more likely to be fresh than netted "wild" salmon.

Worrying about the reported levels of PCB's in salmon is ridiculous. What are you supposed to do? Eat less salmon so you can eat meat with higher levels? Anyone notice the level of PCB's in butter? Anyone drop that from their diet? Can anyone even find oranges that haven't been dyed? Americans consume color additives in massive quantities....soda pop, Doritos, hot dogs, butter, cheese, they are in virtually everything we eat... and yet we are supposed to be threatened by natural color additives in farmed salmon. Get real with yourself.

As for farming in the oceans... We are much better off farming in the oceans than farming on land. The ocean will recover from farming in a small fraction of the time land will. The more we can shift farming from land to ocean, the better off the environment will be. Is everyone requesting "free range" beef when they go to the stores and restaurants? Why the double standard?

World-wide we are currently netting portions of the oceans beyond their ability to produce. In my view, the ecological benefits of fish-farming outweigh the negative effects. Of course if we all became vegetarians, this problem would go away wouldn't it? Actually no...then we would be vegetable farming in the ocean...with chemical fertilizers...

[boater]

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
AQUACULTURE POLICY
Vision for U.S. Aquaculture:To assist in the development of a highlycompetitive, sustainable aquaculture industry in the United States that willmeet growing consumer demand for aquatic foods and products that are of highquality, safe, competitively priced and are produced in an environmentallyresponsible manner with maximum opportunity for profitability in all sectors ofthe industry.
DOC Aquaculture Mission: A mission of the Department of Commerce(DOC) is to create sustainable economic opportunities in aquaculture in amanner that is environmentally sound and consistent with applicable laws andAdministration policy. This mission complements and is an integral part of theDepartment's effort to restore and maintain sustainable wild stock fisheries inorder to maximize the benefits of U.S. coastal resources for its citizens.Aquaculture in the United States can make major contributions to the local,regional, and national economies by providing employment in a new and diverseindustry and by creating business opportunities both here and abroad. TheUnited States can lead the world in the development of aquaculture technologiesand advance international guidelines for the industry in order to maintain ahealthy environment.

Definition: Aquaculture is defined as the propagation and rearing ofaquatic organisms in controlled or selected aquatic environments for anycommercial, recreational, or public purpose.

DOC Aquaculture Objectives: The DOC and its agencies, working inpartnership with USDA, DOI, other Federal agencies, state, local, and tribalgovernments, environmental organizations, industry, academia, and otherstakeholders at the national and regional levels will create a business climateand technological base for industry to develop environmentally soundaquaculture. The specific objectives by the year 2025 are to:

Increase the value of domestic aquaculture production from the present $900million annually to $5 billion, which will help offset the $6-billion annualU.S. trade deficit in seafood.
Increase the number of jobs in aquaculture from the present estimate of180,000 to 600,000.
Develop aquaculture technologies and methods both to improve production andsafeguard the environment, emphasizing where possible those technologies thatemploy pollution prevention rather than pollution control techniques.
Develop a code of conduct for responsible aquaculture by the year 2002 andhave 100% compliance with the code in Federal waters.
Double the value of non-food products and services produced by aquaculturein order to increase industry diversification.
Enhance depleted wild fish stocks through aquaculture, thereby increasingthe value of both commercial and recreational landings and improving the healthof our aquatic resources.
Increase exports of U.S. aquaculture goods and services from the presentvalue of $500 million annually to $2.5 billion.
Policy Implementation:To achieve these objectives, the Department ofCommerce and its agencies, working in partnership with USDA, DOI, other Federalagencies, state, local ,and tribal governments, environmental organizations,industry, academia, and other stakeholders at the national and regional levels will:
Work with stakeholders to develop a set of aquaculture guidelines for DoCaquaculture activities by the end of the year 2000 and ensure that allsubsequent Departmental activities conform to these guidelines.
Conduct research and help develop guidelines for an environmentally soundand sustainable aquaculture industry and promote domestic and internationalcompliance with the guidelines.
Consistent with these guidelines, conduct basic and applied research todomesticate additional species, giving preference to high-value species and tothose that are least likely to create problems for the environment.
Deliver U.S. government aquaculture services, assistance, and research tostate and local governments and industry in a comprehensive and coordinatedmanner.
Hold national and regional meetings with aquaculture constituents toinventory present resources and issues and set priorities for the future.
Develop an efficient and transparent permitting process for aquaculture.
Accelerate the implementation of new aquaculture production methods bydeveloping both pilot scale and demonstration projects where necessary.
Develop effective enhancement strategies, where appropriate, for aquaticspecies to help wild stock fisheries recover and to provide additionalrecreational opportunities.
Integrate aquaculture development with wild fish stock management andenvironmental stewardship to maximize the value of our aquatic resources forthe benefit of the nation.
Minimize the adverse impacts of aquaculture on protected species throughproper design and siting of facilities and the application of appropriatedeterrent technologies.
Provide financial, marketing, and trade assistance to the aquacultureindustry.
Provide extension, training, and education programs to ensure acompetitive, safe industry.
Provide an information clearinghouse and information dissemination system to facilitate achieving aquaculture objectives.

[fishindogs]

I agree with those who oppose farm raised salmon. The problems with disease, pollution and escaped non-native species greatly outweigh the benefits (cheap, artificially colored salmon at the store.)

Remember, the killer bee problem started because honey farmers developed a "better" honey making bee in South America...which they kept in netted pens so it wouldn't cause problems. Worked out well, didn't it.

[jaydee]

I see aquaculture, once improved and better regulated, possibly helping to restore the stocks of wild salmon salmon.
As a sport fisherman, it would be a shot to my pride for me to go to the store and buy farm raised fish, or even wild fish.
But the average seafood consumer doesn't have means to harvest there own salmon. $5 a pound for farm raised fillets or $10+ dollars a pound for fresh wild fillets?
With the implications of health hazards correlating with farmed salmon in the media lately, I wonder if it will directly increase the demand for wild fish caught by those gill nets in the columbia and elsewhere. Plus it doesn't seem to really be a hazard after all the hoopla. Just a story to fill air time, and print on newspapers and computer screens.
It makes sense to me that if there is a viable option to purchase high quality farmed salmon, and the industry of aquaculture grows into an enviormentally friendly business, then there will be less demand for wild salmon world wide. And hopefully sport opportunities will increase, and gill killing will decrease.
And I don't have to express my opinion on gillnets. All I can say about that is look at what the gillnet ban in Florida did for the inshore sport fishery, and for the enviorment overall down there.
If folks out there (seafood consumers) must buy wild salmon, I hope that they ask for "troll caught" since that method of commercial fishing usually results in a better product, and that method doesn't usually kill unwanted bycatch. It can be selective, actually able to catch target species. It's done with hooks and lines, not fish mangling nets. And, I believe that, rarely are native steelhead caught by commercial trollers.
$0.02

J.D.

[ampersat]

Are the gillnetters hereabouts going to suddenly switch over to pen-raising salmon? What about their boats? What about their nets? What about the investment they've made in their livelihood? What about the lifestyle they've built around their livelihood?

Pen raised salmon would have to push gillnetters into bankruptcy before gillnetting will end. What we really need is better management of the available resource and better methods of netting fish that result in a much lower mortality rate to natives.

[Mark Mc]

With the current "standard industry practices" I am completely against it. If and when the industry adopts practices that will prevent escapement, prevent disease without the massive use of antibiotics (some of which are banned from use in human food sources), and prevent the terrible environmental degradation in and around salmon farms, then I would be more inclined to support it.

The arguement that "we need to produce more food / protein for the world" is completely baseless. #1 if that's the case it's easier to grow AND DISTRIBUTE more rice, beans, and corn (but gee, the government pays farmers to grow less); and #2 on a lb for lb basis, more "starving people" would be fed by giving them the fish & grain meal used to feed the fish, by a factor of 3:1.

Look who is buying the $3 - $5 / lb farmed fish in the stores - it is not the needy, malnourished people of the world, it is the middle & upper class people of the western world.

JMHO

p.s. good article on salmon farming in Canada here:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feat...uaculture.html

[ 01-26-2004, 07:48 PM: Message edited by: Mark Mc ]

[jaydee]

[ 01-26-2004, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: jaydee ]

[corrirod]

Farmed salmon will kill the troll caught salmon before they kill the gillnetters. In order to compete with farms you have to be efficient and trolling definately is not efficient compared to gillnetting.

As far as price goes, because the market is now controlled by farmed salmon, wild salmon has had to lower it's prices to within a dollar a pound of farmed if not the same price. The question is, farmed salmon for $5/lb. or wild for $6/lb.?

[Rakkasan]

I gill netted up in Alaska for Sockeye. When our season started we were getting $.35 a pound for fresh which went into a tender and straight to the cannery. At the end of the season we were getting $.50 a pound compared to what the old timers use to make at around 2 or 3 dollars a pound. We got a kicker of $1400 split between three people on the boat. I could have worked at McDonalds and made more after my expenses were paid for food and airfare.

So, you take, in my opinion the best tasting salmon out there, and throw it into a can. Yes all the fish we were getting was to be canned. If anything, can the farmed stuff.

Many fisherman up in that area have quite or have gone bankrupt. A guy I know who I fished up there with still fishes just to make his boat payment for the year and get the tax write off.

As far as our gillnetters down here? I cannot complain much because I am not out there trying to make a differance at this time. I will say that the fisherman out there do it to make a living as they have for years and years and make some of there income for the year to support a family.

Yes it does strip the rivers of fish as everything does (Nets, Sport fishing, seals, sea lions)

What I would like to see is the gillnetters and the sport fisherman find a way to work together rather than get P****d off at each other. Camplaining back and forth does not solve the issue. It just boils anger.

I can see all side and they are all understandable. I just have to remember not to be so narrow minded as I can do a lot. Sometimes I need a reality check. Such as life.

[Okie]

The one gill netter that I knew had a good job and fishing with a gill net was just a extra part time job. As gill netting season is very short and it is doubtfull if anyone could make a living at it that would last the year.

I'm not mad at him but I really don't see the need to gill net salmon in the Columbia River.

[SilverFly]

You would think that fish farming salmon would be a neat alternative to commercial fishing but it turns out to be even worse. Virtually all wild Atlantic salmon runs have been greatly reduced in areas of heavy salmon farming on both sides of the Atlantic. Since commercial salmon fishing in the Atlantic is now almost non-existent, and wild runs in non-farming areas are holding their own, farming is obviously a major threat to wild Atlantic salmon. We think of cross spawning between hatchery fish and wild fish as being a problem but the farmed fish are far worse. In Norway escaped farm fish are such a problem they have developed systems to screen them out of some rivers. By installing weirs and automated scanning systems, they can selectively exclude farmed fish based on body shape and fin deformities. The problems are the same in the Pacific with farmed steelhead, chinook, and coho but we do not have any such systems. Another problem with farms is they are factories for sea lice. In some areas adjacent to farms mortality on out-migrating wild smolts has exceeded 90% due to sea lice infestation. Of course, sea-lice are a problem for the farms too, so they treat the fish with pesticides to keep lice under control.

As for whether farm fish are safe to eat, it’s like anything else just a matter of how much. Yea, the health benefits of eating farmed salmon (as opposed meats with “bad” cholesterol) probably outweigh the risks. But the fact that they have to feed them red dye to make the meat orange makes me doubt how “wholesome” the farm fish really are. Sure there is some mercury and PCB’s in any fish but the levels are higher in the farm fish. I prefer to keep as much poison off my table as possible so why add pesticides to the mix. As table fare, farm salmon are OK but definitely inferior in flavor and texture to “free-range” fish anyway.

[TundraIII]

Watched a short report last night on this. I think you are going to see a gradual but steady rejection of farmed salmon in the restaurant business. The word is getting out on the risks of farmed salmon and a trend has already started amongst restaurant owners to remove these fish from restaurant menus. I hope that the salmon farms either fold up or find a safer way to produce a healthier fish.

[ 01-27-2004, 09:28 AM: Message edited by: TundraIII ]

[GutshotApe]

Much of the farmed salmon we see in Oregon stores comes from Chile. There were never any wild salmon, steelhead or trout in Chile...just an immense amount of sheltered fjords and protected waters perfect for salmon aquaculture. So I'm not concerned about the impact of strays from Chilean netpen operations. As for the added color and other additives to the farmed fish's diet...the dose makes the poison. Unless one ate farmed salmon 3 times a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks/year it doesn't seem there would be much of a problem...and then probably only a concern for very young children or pregnant women.

When you're as old as I am you've got a lot more to worry about than a few PCBs in the farmed salmon you eat.

I like to eat the wild salmon that I catch. In between those rare occasions, when I want some salmon, I buy and eat farmed Chilean salmon from Safeway. It's good! And cheap!

[Michael J.]

"Unless one ate farmed salmon 3 times a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks/year it doesn't seem there would be much of a problem"

This is an innacurate statement.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/..._salmon09.html

The recommendation of this particular study recommends to NOT consume more than one meal of farm raised salmon per month.

[GutshotApe]

It all depends on what you consider to be "much of a problem". If frequent consumption of low-dose salmon might lead to one theoretical additional cancer case per 1,000,000 people, or even 100,000 people, that doesn't sound like much of a problem to me.

[Michael J.]

You're entitled to your opinion, but I have done a lot of research on this topic and I think the dissemination of information would be better served with scientific evidence than opinion.

Based on the studies I've read I personally wouldn't recommend people consume more than 1 meal per month.

In regards to the threat of wild stock being decimated by salmon farming, just ask the Norwegian salmon fisherman whos previous strong Atlantic Salmon runs are non existant and the few escaped farm raised fish he catches fight like a boot.

Refer to these issues of Scientific American
http://www.sciam.com/search/index.cf...salmon+farming

Another good info. resource is the documentary Empty Oceans, Empty Nets http://www.pbs.org/emptyoceans/film/index.html

This is a great documentary if you ever get a chance to view it.

[fish assassin]

"Real men don't eat farmed salmon".

End of argument ...

-assAssin-