Showing posts with label aquaculture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label aquaculture. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Challenging Monterey Bay on the Facts About Farmed Salmon

When you take a look at Monterey Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch FAQ, they list the following reasons why farmed salmon is on their red list. We'll address them one at a time:
Currently, farmed salmon are raised in coastal net pens, where they’re in direct contact with the surrounding marine environment. This open access results in at least five distinct problems when farming salmon, that often aren’t native to the area:

When farmed salmon escape from ocean pens, they threaten wild salmon and other fish by competing with them for food and spawning grounds.
A 2006 study by The Fraser Institute, Escaped Farmed Salmon: A Threat to BC's Wild Salmon?, came to some starkly opposite conclusions:
  • There is little risk of Atlantic salmon establishing viable populations in the Pacific northwest;
  • The number of escaped salmon has not increased radically as the production of Atlantic salmon has increased;
  • Cross breeding of Atlantic salmon and Pacific salmon is highly unlikely, as they are different species (Onchorynchus vs Salmo)
  • The numbers of public hatchery releases far exceed the accidental release of farmed Pacific salmon and will have a great impact; and
  • The transfer of disease between escaped farmed salmon and wild salmon is unlikely.
A 2006 study published in the ICES Journal of Marine Science concluded the following: "Exceptional marine survival of pink salmon that entered the marine environment in 2003 suggests that farmed Atlantic salmon and pacific salmon can coexist successfully in a marine ecosystem on the Pacific coast of Canada."

The authors noted that even with the fallowing that occurred in 2003 the biomass of farmed salmon in the Broughton during this period was consistent with levels in the preceding years. Climate regime shift and environmental conditions may have contributed to increased sea lice production as well. Their overall conclusion: conditions in the marine ecosystem around salmon farms in the study area in 2003 suggest that it is possible to have sustainable wild and farmed salmon in a common ecosystem.

Finally, Escaped Farm Salmon: Environmental and Ecological Concerns, a report compiled by Natural Resources Consultants Inc. for the Salmon Aquaculture Review (SAR) concluded:
  • The potential establishment of Atlantic salmon populations in Pacific rivers and streams as a result of reproductive success and survival of progeny in a series of years is considered unlikely.
  • Existing farm technology and practices have probably contributed to the recent reduction in the number of reported fish escaping from farms. Nevertheless, a standard process for preventing escapes, recapture or escaped fish, and more comprehensive reporting could lead to further escape reductions.
It's important to note that report’s conclusions were arrived at in the mid-nineties, prior to the implementation of the recommendations of the SAR and that since this time, the number of escapes have continued to decline despite an increase in overall production.

Next up, fish poop:
  • Waste from most salmon farms is released directly into the ocean.
  • As the result of a study completed for the Salmon Aquaculture Review, the province of British Columbia enacted the Finfish Aquaculture Waste Control Regulation (FAWCR). The regulation acts to mitigate and monitor the impacts of wastes from salmon farms:
    The regulation includes provisions for farm registration, pre-stocking sampling, domestic sewage handling, best management practices, monitoring and reporting, remediation, offences and penalties.

    Farm registration under the regulation has been completed, and compliance and inspection programs conducted by MOE and MAL are underway.

    The standards are “performance-based,” meaning that specific thresholds for defined chemical and biological indicators should not be exceeded at any time during production (previously, production levels and feed usage were regulated, rather than their actual impact on the environment).

    Farmers must carry out specific monitoring/remediation activities on the farm if the indicator levels are exceeded.
    That's certainly a lot different than the picture Monterey Bay painted of salmon farms directly releasing waste into the ocean and not caring. Instead, the province relies on scientifically-derived regulation to protect the environment.
  • Parasites and diseases from farmed salmon can spread to wild fish swimming near the farms.
  • Indeed, this is a concern (and it can go both ways). That's why all salmon culture operations both public and private must have a Fish Health Management Plan (FHMP) which is reviewed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands. Upon return to the company, the fish health staff of each are trained using the procedures developed in the manual and enforce its use across the organization.

    The majority of culture operations in BC maintain a broodstock program where all milt and egg donor fish are screened for pathogens and disease to ensure that any possible illnesses are not passed to the next generation. Fish are vaccinated prior to seawater entry against common fish disease – this not protects the farmed fish from getting infections from the environment and wild fish but also obviously protects the wild fish from getting infected from the farmed salmon.

    Additional protection against introduction of exotic pathogens is provided for in the National Code on Introductions and Transfers of Aquatic Organisms.
  • Salmon farmers may use pesticides and antibiotics to control outbreaks of disease among the fish. When consumers eat this fish, the residues from the chemicals may affect their health or interfere with medicines they’re taking.
  • To answer this question, we consulted with Dr. Sonja Saksida at the Centre for Aquatic Health Sciences. She passed the following onto us in a note.

    "In BC we don't use pesticides - we just use medicines - all currently used products in Canada (antibiotics and sea lice products) are licensed and regulated by the Veterinary Drug Directorate (VDD) of Health Canada, not the Pest Management Regulatory Agency which regulates pesticides," Saksida wrote in a note to BC Salmon's Mary Ellen Walling.

    She continued:
    SLICE® is an approved drug in most other major salmon aquaculture countries including Norway, Scotland, Ireland and Chile. In Canada SLICE® has been in the drug registration process since 2000 and as of mid-2008 is still unregistered. As a result, access to the therapeutant has only been available under a special release (an emergency drug release - EDR) from the Veterinary Drug Directorate (VDD) - a branch of Health Canada. The veterinarian responsible for a particular fish farm must submit a written request to VDD for an emergency drug release to Ottawa. The veterinarian must specify the location of the farm, the number of fish to be treated, the size of the fish and the amount of drug required. After verifying the information, VDD evaluates the request and upon approval authorize the manufacturer of the drug to sell a specified quantity of a drug (e.g., SLICE®) to the veterinarian to medicate the infested fish. Only veterinarians can access veterinary drugs through the EDR program. The treatment regime for SLICE® is the same as that used in other regions (seven day treatment at 0.05 mg/kg fish/day).
    The following is from the Health Canada website:
    Health Canada has recently amended its policy on permitted SLICE residues after completing a reassessment of available data. SLICE continues to be approved for limited use under the EDR program. Under the program, the modified Maximum Residue Limit (MRL) of 42 parts per billion (ppb) has been established. This compares to established MRLs in the European Union of 100 ppb. In addition, a revised WP has been established at 68 days from the latest treatment when used at a water temperature of 5 °C or greater.
    "So in Canada the permitted residue levels is lower than in Europe, and withdrawal periods are longer," wrote Dr. Saksida. "For comparison, withdrawl levels in Europe for SLICE are 0 days (Scotland and Ireland), 175 degree days (i.e. 7.5days at 10C water temperature). In Canada the withdrawal period is 68 days," she wrote.

    "With regard to antibiotic usage – all antibiotics used in aquaculture are only available through prescriptions obtained by a veterinarian. There are stringent withdrawal periods associated with all antibiotics used in aquaculture in Canada. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) closely monitors and routinely tests fish to ensure that they are clear of residues."

    Thanks to Dr. Saksida for that clarifying information.
  • It takes three pounds of wild fish to grow one pound of farmed salmon. As a result, farming salmon actually uses more fish than it produces, which puts more pressure on wild populations.
  • Simply put, that figure is old news. Currently, farmed salmon operations are converting fish meal to edible protein at a rate closer to 1.2:1. Due to protein substitutes, this will soon be less than 1:1, which means salmon farms will be a net protein producer -- a detail that has escaped Monterey Bay's Seafood Watch program since they last looked at the industry in 2004. Lastly, this feed is only taken from sustainable sources.

    We've passed research buttressing these claims onto MBA, but we've yet to get a response. When and if we do, we'll pass it on.

    Friday, December 19, 2008

    Just Who is Monterey Bay Aquarium Connected To?

    Yesterday we took a closer look at some background information about Monterey Bay Aquarium and the Seafood Watch Program. After going over yesterday's information, I think it's pretty clear that Monterey Bay isn't exactly an outsider organization, but rather a firmly established member of the environmental activist community.

    What it all comes down to is money. And while Monterey Bay Aquarium and its Seafood Watch Program have become self-sustaining over the years, the Packard Foundation has plunged ahead to fund an extensive Web of eco-activist groups that work together formally and informally, share information and coordinate activities.

    While Monterey Bay Aquarium doesn't directly fund these organizations, the Packard Foundation more than makes up for it. The following is a list of organizations that received grants from Packard in the fiscal year ending December 31, 2006 under the category of “Oceans and Coasts”. Most prominent must be the over $1.5 million in grants provided to the Marine Stewardship Council, an “independent” NGO chartered to establish a global environmental standard for sustainable fisheries:

    American Littoral Society
    Blue Ocean Institute
    Center for Environmental Law and Policy
    Center for Resource Economics (Island Press)
    Community Conservation Network
    Conservation International Foundation
    Coral Reef Alliance
    Coral Reef Research Foundation
    Environmental Defense Fund
    Environmental Law Institute
    Environmental Media Services (now Science Communication Network)
    Friends of Moss Landing Marine Laboratories
    Global Greengrants Fund
    International Center for Journalists
    International Community Foundation
    Living Oceans Society
    Marine Conservation Biology Institute
    Marine Science Institute
    Marine Stewardship Council
    National Environmental Trust
    Nature Conservancy
    NatureServe
    New England Aquarium
    Ocean Conservancy
    Pacific Marine Conservation Council
    Pfleger Institute of Environmental Research
    SeaWeb
    Surfrider Foundation
    Sustainability Institute
    Sustainable Fishery Advocates
    Trust for Conservation Innovation
    Union of Concerned Scientists
    Wildcoast
    Wildlife Conservation Society
    World Resources Institute
    World Wide Fund for Nature (World Wildlife Fund in the USA)

    Thursday, December 18, 2008

    An Inside Look at Monterey Bay Aquarium

    As a followup to the letter from the BC Salmon Farmers Association to Monterey Bay Aquarium (MBA), we thought it might be a good idea to take a closer look at MBA and how they operate. For the most part, non-profit organizations like MBA are seen as scrappy underdogs taking on evil corporations. But if you take a closer look at MBA and their operations, you'll find that it and its Seafood Watch program aren't scrappy underdogs at all. Instead, they're really a very powerful eco-lobbying organization backed by one of the largest non-profit foundations in the world.

    The Monterey Bay Aquarium (MBA) is one of the best-connected and funded charities in North America, if not the world. It was initially endowed by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, which was established by the late Hewlett-Packard co-founder. The Packard Foundation owns more than 70 million shares of Hewlett-Packard and is the company's largest shareholder with several family members serving on the Board of Directors. The Packard Foundation's endowment totals about $6.3 billion, making it one of the top 20 charitable foundations in the world.

    The Monterey Bay Aquarium was founded in 1978 by the Packards at the behest of their daughters Nancy and Julie with an initial contribution of $55 million. To this day, Julie Packard serves as the Aquarium's Vice Chairman and Executive Director and draws a salary. A third sister, Susan Packard Orr, is chairman of the David and Lucile Packard Foundation and serves on the board of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation. The aquarium opened in 1984.

    For tax purposes, MBA is broken into three distinct, but affiliated organizations:

    • Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation – concerned with the day-to-day operations and financing of the aquarium itself. The Seafood Watch Program is an initiative of this arm of the Aquarium;

    • Monterey Bay Aquarium Support Services – which manages the real estate upon which the aquarium resides; and

    • Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute – an oceanographic research center based in Moss Landing, California. It was founded in 1987 and immediately endowed with a $13 million grant from the Packard Foundation. It has a staff of 200 and an operating budget of about $40 million per year and operates a fleet of three ocean-going research vessels.

    In 2006, the last year that the Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation filed an IRS Form 990, total revenue for Monterey Bay and its affiliates totaled well over $55 million – over $9 million in contributions, more than $339,000 in government grants, more than $26 million in program services, and over $12 million in investment income.

    The largest single line item in financial support comes from admissions to the aquarium. For all intents and purposes, through a combination of paid admissions (2 million visitors per year), special events, charitable giving, membership dues and prudent management of its investment portfolio, the Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation is a self-sufficient entity financially.

    Despite spending almost $45 million in 2006, Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation was still able to end the year with a surplus of almost $10.5 million. For the tax year ending December 31, 2007, the Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation boasted over $307 million in total assets, $55 million in revenues and more than $13.5 million in investment income .

    The David and Lucile Packard Foundation is the major funding source for the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute. In the fiscal year ending December 31, 2006, the Packard Foundation distributed grants to the Research Institute totaling nearly $41 million.

    Also of note are the extensive links between the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute and the U.S. Government. Several large agencies, including the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NASA, the National Science Foundation, the Office of Naval Research, the Department of Energy and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory made contributions totaling nearly $5.5 million to the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute in the fiscal year ending December 31, 2006. In 2004, NOAA awarded the Research Institute a $530,000 grant to tag and track tuna in the Pacific Ocean.

    In addition, a review of the Research Institute’s tax returns reveals that outside of grants to Stanford University to support a collaborative research program, it does not provide direct financial support for any outside organizations.

    While the Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation does bestow grants on a number of outside organizations, the total dollar amount is a mere fraction of its overall budget. For the most part, these grants have been distributed to organizations engaged in direct marine biological research (white sharks, squids and sea otters).

    More details, later.

    Friday, December 12, 2008

    Taking the Case for Farmed Atlantic Salmon to Monterey Bay

    Over the past several months, Salmon of the Americas has attempted to engage Monterey Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch Program in a dialogue about our industry and our practices. In particular, the industry as a whole believes that Monterey's Bay's evaluation of our operations are both are both out of date and unfair.

    In the case of the latter, we're referring specifically to the fact that "wild-caught" salmon from Alaska -- which should more accurately be described as ranched -- is rated "green" by Monterey Bay, despite the fact that the Alaskan industry engages in many of the very same sustainable practices that take place in both Chile and British Columbia.

    In short, we believe our industry has a compelling case, one that Mary Ellen Walling from the BC Salmon Farmers Association made directly to Monterey Bay's Geoff Shester in the following email that she asked me to share:
    Hi Geoff, first of all, I wanted to thank you for taking the time over the past few months to discuss your organization's approach to the evaluation of the sustainability of farmed salmon in both Chile and British Columbia.

    As I said earlier we're frustrated that Monterey Bay published an evaluation of our operations in the guide to sustainable sushi that relied on limited research material more than four years old -- the last complete report on farmed salmon published on the Monterey Bay Web site is dated April 27, 2004.

    One of our frustrations is that Monterey Bay continues to classify Alaska Salmon as wild, when ranched is a far more accurate term. In addition, while the Monterey Bay Web site lists several objections to farmed salmon, there is no mention that many of the practices that led Monterey Bay to place farmed Atlantic salmon on the red list are also regularly practiced in Alaska. Can you please explain this disconnect?

    In particular we note:

    Salmon escapes are listed as a concern. Modern farm practices, staff training and equipment improvements have ensured that escapes have been drastically reduced. As well, Monterey Bay does not recognize the 1.5 billion salmon that the Alaskan industry releases annually into the Northern Pacific and their effect on other wild fish populations.

    The report lists waste as a concern. We’ve done a lot of work in BC and elsewhere to ensure that farms are well sited, and that we have developed feeding strategies and fallowing techniques to reduce impacts, yet this is not recognized. We are concerned about the continued linkage of effects from fish waste and human waste as this is, from our perspective, scientifically inaccurate. Fish waste does not contain the contaminants carried by the human equivalent and has little, if any, measurable effect on local ocean life.

    In addition, we'd also like to express concern about the conclusion that it takes three pounds of wild fish to grow one pound of farmed salmon. In the BC farms as an example, this ratio has been lowered to near one-to-one thanks to the use of plant based proteins and other process improvements. In addition, our operations only use fishmeal and fish oil from operations that we have rated as sustainable.

    We would be happy to provide detailed scientific and veterinary data backing up this information and wish to ensure that this information is included in the upcoming review of the standards by Monterey Bay. I would like to discuss how we might provide this information to you and the timeline and process for the review in order that we might work with you to ensure an accurate assessment of our farm practices. I also encourage you to get in touch to discuss any of the questions regarding Sea Choices. I am more than happy to speak with you about sustainable farming practices and look forward to future discussions.
    That note was sent to Shester on December 4. We've yet to receive a response. If and when we do, we'll share it with you.

    Wednesday, October 22, 2008

    Questions for the Authors of the Sustainable Sushi Guides

    If you'd like to take a look at the sushi pocket guide published by the Environmental Defense Fund, click here. While you're reading it, keep the following questions in mind:
    • Why is nutritional guidance being given to the public without any peer review or even the availability of the underlying medical assertions?
    • Since the guides conflate “mercury and other contaminants” – even citing fish like salmon with scant trace amounts, how can consumers avoid confusion about the specific health threats being alleged?
    • If these guides actually dissuade some consumers from eating seafood altogether, as the federal government has warned can occur from alarmist nutritional information, wouldn’t that deny Americans proven and vital health benefits of eating fish?
    • Is it appropriate for environmental lobbying groups to be providing nutritional advice to the public in the first place?

    NFI on the Sushi Pocket Guides

    Another CounterPoint client, the National Fisheries Institute, just posted an item about the sushi pocket guides that were published today -- give it a read right now.

    Welcome to Salmon Facts

    Hi, I'm Eric McErlain of CounterPoint Strategies, and we're working with the trade group Salmon of the Americas to bring you Salmon Facts, a blog about salmon aquaculture.

    The issue we're watching today concerns a trio of guides on "sustainable sushi" that are being published simultaneously by the Monterey Bay Aquarium, the Blue Ocean Institute and the Environmental Defense Fund. We've known for a few days that each of these guides were going to place farmed Atlantic Salmon on their red list for some time now, and we're watching the resulting media coverage very closely.

    Needless to say, the folks at Salmon of the Americas in Chile and British Columbia don't agree with their findings. Here's a portion of a media advisory that the National Fisheries Institute and Salmon of the Americas issued jointly yesterday:
    Reporters and editors are urged to question the overall viability of the guides while keeping in mind there is little if any independent oversight and or uniformity in production of these types of materials. By causing confusion in the marketplace, these guides might actually dissuade consumers from eating seafood, something that would deny them the proven health benefits of cause direct harm to public health.

    What’s more, use of guides produced by environmental lobbying groups in order to obtain nutrition information is completely inappropriate.

    You are urged to consult with members of the seafood community to provide a fuller picture of the issues involved.

    The following spokespeople are available to provide input from the global fisheries industry regarding the guide's recommendations:

    Gavin Gibbons
    National Fisheries Institute
    703-752-8891

    Mary Ellen Walling
    Salmon of the Americas/BC Salmon Farmers
    250-286-1636
    For more, on salmon sustainability questions, click here. Keep watching this space all day long.