What is a wild salmon?

Alaska salmon is sold as wild. A fair question is: are they really “wild”?

According to one definition of the term wild, Alaska might be misrepresenting their salmon product;

According to the Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council,

“Salmon are considered “wild” if they have spent their entire life cycle in the wild and originate from parents that were also produced by natural spawning and continuously lived in the wild.”

So, by that definition, the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute is falsely

False advertising?

advertising. 1 in 3 salmon from Alaska spend up to 2 years of their short life cultured by man (or woman of course!) in hatcheries and net pens.

The fact that Alaska salmon are half-farmed is not the issue here. The issue is the false representation of their product and Alaska’s tireless condemnation of other farm-raised salmon.

In our next blog, we’ll look at the term “wild-caught” or “line-caught” – two adjectives commonly used by “wild” salmon marketers to confuse the consumer.

Yes, Alaska wild salmon has “color added”

Don’t panic, but many consumers don’t know that wild salmon from Alaska (and elsewhere) has had “color added” in order to showcase that lovely red color. The shock, the horror!!

It’s a fact that Alaska wild salmon are naturally an unappetizing grey color.  More shock, more horror!!

How does a flamingo turn pink?

OK, we’re being kinda funny here, but someone has to laugh. For years those who promote Alaska wild salmon have always attempted to scare the consumer away from farm-raised salmon by claiming that farm-raised salmon is “dyed” by adding a pigment to the feed that is fed to farm-raised salmon. This is not necessarily incorrect, but the messaging purposely leaves out some very important facts;

1. All salmon (farmed, ranched, wild, enhanced) have grey flesh before they eat food.
2. All salmon eat food that contains a beta-carotene (typically either astaxanthin or canthaxanthin) and naturally retain the pigment of the carotene in their flesh (similar to how a Pink Flamingo feathers turn pink when they eat krill).
3. Wild salmon eat krill which contain these pigments. Farm-raised, enhanced and ranched salmon receive the same pigments in their feed pellets.

So, all salmon are “color added”, and that’s absolutely OK.

Maybe, just maybe, someone in mainstream journalism will read this blog and let consumers know…but don’t hold your breath.

Daniel Pauly asks for a Boycott of Alaska salmon

Media hound Daniel Pauly (he’s also moonlites as a fisheries biologist at the University of British Columbia, Canada) has recommended a full boycott of Pacific salmon in order to preserve them.

Daniel Pauly

According to the report in The Tyee, Pauly says a full boycott of salmon consumption “represents something that is worthwhile”.

Although we don’t quite agree with Pauly, we do agree that this statement will create a lot of dialogue about what really threatens salmon on North America’s West Coast – and a fair bit of media attention for Pauly – something he’s never avoided!

But what we find most interesting is that the article also quotes some “conservation” groups like the Wild Salmon Centre, who “would never call for a moratorium on eating salmon”. Another group called the T Buck Suzuki Foundation (a group of salmon fisherman masquerading as an environmental group) also denounces Pauly’s suggested boycott.

Good “conservation” you bunch of “conservation” groups.

So, what’s the most important outcome from this slightly outrageous comment from Daniel Pauly? It may actually flush out the true agendas behind a few of these supposed “environmental” groups. 

Sweet.

Fuss Over Farming Fish

It’s truly amazing how most journalists, in a seemingly desperate attempt to promote Alaska seafood, criticize any form of fish culture while always dodging any mention of Alaska’s massive fish culture program.

Just one example, is an article written by Carla Helfferich called “Fuss Over Farming Fish“. In the article she mockingly quotes fish farmers as saying “the solution to pollution is dilution” – the apparent answer to potential impact of the ocean bottom beneath fish farms.

Now she could have easily mentioned that the “solution/pollution/dilution” model applies best to the ocean ranching businesses set up all over the coast in Alaska.  After all, 1.5 billion salmon are released each year to compete for food with naturally wild salmon and, we can only assume, need to crap somewhere.

Here’s something to think about:

The next time you read a scathing opinion piece from a pro-Alaskan journalist on fish culture, compare the criticisms to Alaska’s ocean ranching program.  Do 1.5 billion salmon eat, poop and look for some ‘wild tail’ (that is a play on words…we mean having sex with naturally wild fish)? You bet they do, and that may have far more reaching impacts than other ways of culturing fish.

To read Carla’s (uneducated) opinion click here

Call It What You Like Y’all, It’s Fish Farming

Wesley Loy, a journalist from Alaska’s Anchorage Daily News, is one of the few reporters brave enough to explain the game behind salmon culture in Alaska. Well done Mr. Loy!  Of course, we take issue with the line “fish farming is illegal in Alaska”. Actions speak louder than words, and the actions clearly state that fish farming is booming in Alaska.

Alaska’s salmon Ponderosa

Wesley Loy, Anchorage Daily News

Wesley Loy, Anchorage Daily News

Fish farming is illegal in Alaska, but the state still manufactures many of its salmon in captivity.

Every year hundreds of millions of salmon are born in hatcheries and raised to minnow size, then are released to the ocean. Most hatchery production involves pink and chum salmon, but sockeye, king and coho salmon also are produced in Alaska’s network of hatcheries.

Hatchery producers and state officials assiduously avoid calling this fish farming. Rather, it’s “ocean ranching.”

OK, so how big is Alaska’s salmon ranch?

The department of Fish and Game just released the 2007 hatchery report. As usual, the numbers are impressive.