The purpose of this blog is to educate the public about salmon culture in Alaska by:
- explaining what salmon ranching is.
- exposing marketing campaigns that make false claims like “salmon from Alaska is 100% wild“.
- making fair benefit/impact comparisons to other fish culture techniques around the world.
- breaking through the anti-fish culture smoke screen adopted by many Alaskan fisherman, marketers and journalists.
Vaccination station for juvenile salmon. Tutka Lagoon, Cook Inlet, Alaska.
To be clear, we support fish culture – it’s an efficient way to provide a healthy protein to over 7 billion people whilst reducing pressure on our wild fish resources that have been severely depleted over the past century.
What we take issue with is dishonest promoters of Alaska seafood who insist on covering up the fact that the Alaskan salmon industry does heavily rely on aquaculture. As history has shown, without aquaculture, Alaska would have wiped out it’s salmon many years ago.
We welcome you to our blog and we certainly welcome your comments, thoughts and perspective on this subject.
For our latest posting please visit http://alaskasalmonranching.wordpress.com/
I had no idea that this is going on in Alaska. Thanks for being the only website to expose this!! (I can’t believe how litle information there is out there on salmon ranching and the impacts of doing such a thing)
The use of the carotenoid asthaxantin has never been clearly explained. It provides necessary health benefits to the salmon. In an attempt many years ago to find a natural sorce carotenoid we used a very early product that was not yet well developed. Our entire crop was affected with poor colour and poor health. The good colour of the fish is consistent with good health. I have also done a lot of work on the whole issue of prices and I am quite sure that the drop in salmon prices corresponded more with the increase in Alaskan Ranching efforts than the rise in salmon farming. It was very close in timing. As far as the rest of your efforts, good work.
Hatcheries in Alaska are the only good thing going, just plain good
This is the first time i have seen this blog. i work for a trade association in Miami representing Chilean salmon producers. keep up the good work of keeping consumers and the public informed by providing fair and balanced reporting. our mission is to promote the consumption of farmed salmon. the MBA’s focus on attacking such a sustainable source of protein should be questioned and i am glad to see your blog focusing on it. keep up the good work.
Alaska’s Hatchery Program is a model the entire west coast should adopt. When fish are released into the saltwater as fingerlings, how would you identify them. Fact is, very limited hatchery influence with large positive effects toward the commercial industry. Wild stocks maintain opportunities to thrive and a livelyhood is energized.
They are NOT farmed fish, so if not wild then what? Go visit one in SE Alaska and broaden your perspective.
Hello Greg;
Thanks for your comment. How about we call them “half-farmed” or “half-wild”, or better yet, “ranched”, because that is exactly what they are. You say “very limited hatchery influence” in Alaska…we would respectfully disagree. In 2008, over 40% of the salmon caught in the commercial fishery were of hatchery (ranched) origin. There have been very few studies that have looked the affect that ranched salmon may have on wild salmon (if you don’t study it then there’s no problem huh?). Wild stocks may be overpowered by ranched salmon and there may not be enough fish meal in the ocean to support such high numbers of additional system. It’s this perspective that this blog is bringing to the table – and the fact that this is creating discussion is a good thing…for wild salmon.
I appreciate the alternatives you offer to the commercially sponsored & therefore more widely disseminated views.
Excellent job bringing this topic to light! The following quote is an email from Bill Heard, who is NOAA’s program manager in Alaska:
“You have identified a key point of distinction between different kinds of aquaculture, namely stock enhancement aquaculture where some hatchery activity is involved in producing juveniles for release into the wild environment versus farmed aquatic animals where they are retained in captivity until harvesting for market, such as farmed Atlantic salmon. Depending on location and species, Alaska’s capture fisheries for salmon do include various components in the catch that originated as juveniles in hatcheries. Again depending on species the duration of these juveniles at liberty in the ocean before returning as adults to be captured in fisheries varies from 1.5 to 5 years. Alaska has 5 active Regional Aquaculture Associations that release upwards of 1.8 billion juvenile salmon per year. Most of these are juvenile pink and chum salmon released at fry stages after some short term rearing in marine net pens. The proportion of hatchery- origin salmon in Alaska capture fisheries varies from year to year ranging from around 15 to 30 percent.”
In the aquaculture industry as a whole, there is not so much a dichotomy as a spectrum of control over inputs like confinement, reproduction, and feed. “Ranching” is normally a term that refers to capture of wild fish for control over grow-out conditions and harvest; stock enhancement is the control over early inputs and subsequent release. Only stock enhancement supplements natural fish stocks because so-called ranching does not produce more fish than the natural fishery. Alaskan salmon fishing has appropriated the term “ranching” in order to further up the cache of their products.
We, too, support fish farming, but operations that have control over the entire life cycle of salmonid species are not equivalent to stock enhancement. There are indeed issues of disease transmission and treatment that are legitimate concerns when salmon farming includes grow-out captivity. However, it is also true, as you have indicated, that ENGOs continue to parrot anti-aquaculture sentiments that make no sense. We hope that by highlighting the farming operations that take measures to address the real issues, consumers will begin to recognize the advantages of farming. We welcome your continued input on these topics.
Hello – thanks for the NOAA information, it’s very interesting. Is it possible for us to see your initial question/contact with Bill Heard, so we can put some context around his response. By the way, this year the “hatchery-origin” share was 42% this year, so his range of 15-30% is a little shy of the mark. And we disagree with the statement “Ranching is normally a term that refers to capture of wild fish for control over grow-out”. Salmon ranching in Alaska is the part where salmon are released into the ocean basin to “graze” for food. That’s ranching. Regardless, Mr. Heard seems to have “concerns” over captivity (farming) but doesn’t seem to have any concerns over releasing 1.5 extra salmon (given his nice cozy term, “stock enhancement”) into an ocean that was never intended to carry that biomass. We’re not against ranching, but the continuous message “farming=bad” and “ranching=what ranching?” gets tiring.
Thanks for passing along – if you can provide useful information to us we would certainly appreciate it.
I think this whole blog is just run by jealous salmon farmers that can’t compete with a wild product.
Hi Jim;
If that’s the way you feel then you are certainly missing the point of this blog. We support all types of responsible salmon culture including enhancement, ranching and farming. You are correct though; this blog clearly exposes the fact that most “wild” salmon are not “wild” at all (Alaska salmon ranching) and suggest that producers of salmon should be upfront with their methods of production. By simply calling their product “wild caught” is not a clear admission of how the salmon is produced. All production methods have benefits/impacts and only by openly discussing these benefits/impacts can we begin to do what is best for wild salmon.
Most salmon? Your numbers (40%) of Alaska salmon certainly are not most. That is in fact less than half. You’re not really exposing anything here. These fish are released as juveniles, and come back as adults after living and feeding in the wild. These fish are then harvested responsibly, and handled with care in order to bring consumers a healthy and sustainable product.
There are definitely some issues with the hatchery program, but overall the hatcheries have been a wonderful thing for the state of Alaska.
Don’t forget to mention in your blog that Alaska is in fact the top producer of 100% wild salmon in the world – we’re not including hatchery fish here.
Anyhow, a question for you: What are your credentials? Have you ever been part of the hatchery program? Which fish farming organization are you affiliated with?
I think that this site it very misguided, and a waste of energy for you, however, I am very happy to see that there are a lot of people out there who are interested and care about salmon.
Hi Lance;
Thanks for offering your thoughts. You’d be pleased to know that we probably agree on more than you think – especially conservation of our oceans This site’s goal is to expose the politics and marketing that often confuses the consumer into avoiding seafood – and salmon is a prime target. We are a consortium of folks with experience in seafood – hatchery technicians, processers, buyers, sport fishermen, farmers and conservationists.
You will also notice that we never attack seafood products, in fact, we clearly state that we support many types of fish culture and fisheries. We just aim to expose the de-marketing that seafood marketers and conservation groups will undertake to promote themselves or realize financial gain. If the criticism is “sustainability”, then it’s only fair that consumers have an opportunity to discuss the sustainability of the producer on the attack.
If you believe this site to be “misguided”, please let us know how and where that may be. We would enjoy the dialogue!
I just spent a half hour reading this load of horse #%@* and can’t begin to understand why this blog was started, you claim that it is to educate the public that salmon hatchery’s in Alaska do not produce wild salmon. In one aspect you are correct, the spawning, incubation, and rearing of hatchery salmon is not the same as if that fish swam up a river and spawned. But to say that these fish are genetically different, or superior any any way to a river spawned fish is completely wrong. The ONLY reason hatchery’s are in existence in Alaska today is to provide fisheries enhancement and sustainability. I have, in the past worked for two of the states non -profit aquaculture associations and have seen first hand the efforts made to ensure a genetically diverse salmon population.
Also the comments about the vaccination salmon are just not right, in the 5 years I worked in aquaculture, I never once saw salmon fry vaccinated. It just is not economically feasible to vaccinate 10 million salmon fry. I am not hear to say that everything in Alaska Aquaculture smells like roses, but it is a step in the right direction, unlike full term ocean pen salmon farming.
I am almost certain this blog is maintained by a Fish farming lobby group, and all of its readers should keep a open mind when reading.
Hi Matt;
We understand that, for some, the topic of salmon ranching in Alaska stirs up some emotion. It is not a topic that people like to discuss, and that in itself, speaks volumes. And yes, we agree that you should keep an “open mind” when reading any information you are getting via the internet. That is why this blog was created – to give people some perspective they rarely receive about aquaculture.
As we point out several times in this blog, we support salmon aquaculture which includes farming, ranching and enhancement. We also feel that a one-sided attack on one production method (ie, farming) doesn’t help ensure salmon aquaculture does what it was always intended to do – supply healthy and sustainable protein for future generations.
Salmon farming and salmon ranching have obvious benefits, and risks. When either businesses attempt to ignore those risks, thereby not addressing those risks, it’s a problem. I would suggest that you, like many, have focussed on the risks of “ocean pen salmon farming” and ignored the risk of “open ocean salmon ranching”. This blog simply brings those risks to the attention of the consumer. Sorry if this has offended you.
We also agree with you that “hatchery’s provide…fisheries sustainability”. Without ranching salmon, Alaska would certainly overfish and wipe out wild salmon stocks. But at the end of the day, it is also about economic opportunity – and there’s nothing wrong with that.
One last thing; lack of vaccination of the Alaska product is not something to brag about. The release of billions of potentially sick fish into the sea is a real risk to ocean life. Something else we need to think about.
Why is this blog’s writer anonymous? Lack of transparency = lack of credibility.
I would bet the purveyors of this blog are part of the British Columbia salmon farming industry. Not much mention here of all the negative side effects of salmon farming, just lots of questions and allegations about Alaska’s so called salmon ranching. The fact is, Alaska has many salmon hatcheries. Most hatcheries that support commercial fisheries hatch Chum, Pink, Coho, and Sockeye Salmon. But if you are eating an Alaskan King Salmon chances are it is truly a wild fish. Only in Southeast Alaska do hatcheries even rear king salmon to contribute meaningful numbers to the commercial harvest. Also, in areas such as Cook Inlet and Bristol Bay, Sockeye salmon are almost exclusively natural runs. Bristol Bay is the largest Sockeye run in the state and it is all wild. Naysayers (this blog) can try to rain on Alaska’s salmon parade but as a sportsmen who harvests Coho from runs that are supplemented with hatchery born fish, I would much rather eat a salmon that has spent its life swimming free in the ocean building healthy muscle mass, eluding predators, and eating its natural feed such as herring and krill as opposed to a farmed fish that has spent its life floating in a net pen, being “vaccinated” to ward off parasites, and eating fish pellets that contain dye to give them their “natural” color. But hey, that’s just me…
Hi ‘Steve Zzzz’. If you read closely, you will see that this blog supports aquaculture, including salmon ranching in Alaska. The point is to have a discussion about the real benefits and real risks about each ‘method’ of raising fish, and we’re glad you’ve become a part of this discussion.
Personally, you see a financial benefit from hatchery supplemented (ranched) salmon in Alaska. We understand and don’t disagree. But in the same breath you, like many other before you, attack all other methods of salmon aquaculture – that you may not fully understand nor benefit from.
For example, the fish feed that is fed to billions of Alaska salmon is milled at the same feed plants that supply farm-raised salmon feed, and include the same healthy carotenoids (not ‘dye’ as you suggest). Alaska salmon may also be vaccinated – this is actually a good thing, so they are protected from naturally ocurring diseases and viruses (not ‘parasites’ as you suggest).
This blog offers you a chance to do some homework on the subject. So go ahead, and then let’s have a grown-up discussion based on the facts.
TTAAS
Hi Christophe, this site receives contributions from many individuals with diverse interests, education and experience. They may be interested in, and expertise in, ocean conservation, seafood production and marketing, enhancement, aquaculture and fisheries. It communicates a collaborative thought and not an individual.
Perhaps its best that you focus on the quality of the information provided and less about the messenger – we are always looking for input and discussion!
TTAAS
So in one post you claim ranch salmon are not vaccinated this is bad and then in a comment you claim they are vaccinated and this is also bad. Which is it?
Where was it claimed that vaccinations are bad? If you check, it was simply claimed that vaccinations are used in the salmon ranching process.
This is exactly the type of information that chefs and consumers need in order to objectively evaluate salmon farms.
Thanks Andrew. And that’s exactly what we’re here for!
I cannot accept your point of view without more transparency. I suspect too that who’s behind this blog is a farmed salmon lobby. If that’s the case and you stand by your opinion there’s nothing wrong in telling us who you are.
Otherwise, sorry, but I have no reason to really take you seriously considering the large amount of conservationists literature on the subject that believes Alaska’s ranching, albeit not perfect, is way better than farming…. for the salmon, for us, for the eco-systems.
@Alessia,
I think that it is important to note that Salmon Ranching is aquaculture (or farming) , the only difference is that it is “non profit”. In my opinion, the danger in not being fully honest about the fact that over 50% of the seafood coming out of Alaska is begun on farms, leads people to believe that Alaska doesn’t support various levels of farming, and thus fish farming is bad. In reality this stock enhancement (or ranching) is a wonderful mechanism, and should be utilized more often in order to offset the decline of most wild fisheries.
Another website, I assume, from Vivian Krause, former manager of corporate development and public relations for one of the world’s largest foreign-owned fish farm and feed companies. In other words, disingenuous propaganda.
Hi Sid;
Sorry to disappoint, but the anwer is “no”, Vivian Krause is not affiliated with this website.
But we’d be interested to know what you perceive as “propoganda”. Please let us know what you find “inaccurate” on this blog, and we will be happy to clarify/respond/edit.
TTAAS
Our hatchery fish are natural, good for you and they create jobs for a lot of people without harming the resources. Keep on eating our Alaskan salmon
I tend to agree with the comments suggesting this blog is Fish Farm industry owned and maintained. TTAAS writes “Salmon farming and salmon ranching have obvious benefits, and risks. When either businesses attempt to ignore those risks, thereby not addressing those risks, it’s a problem.” There are many references of the risks of ranching in this blog but few if any references to the risks of salmon farming. Not exactly the transparency claimed by the blogs anonymous author.
I’m talking about the catastrophic sea lice infestations that routinely kill millions of out migrating baby salmon each spring, the polluting of the ocean floor under open net pens, the predation of wild fish swimming through open net pens and the killing off of untold numbers of marine creatures when parasite control chemicals are deployed to name a few. We are also seeing more and more escaped Atlantic salmon every year way up here hundreds of miles up the Skeena River which brings with it the specter of the new mysterious virus linked to Norwegian salmon farms to our wild spawning beds.
Ocean Ranching needs some studying for sure, commercial fishing needs a complete overhaul but open net salmon farming has to go. Until the open net pen salmon farming industry goes to complete closed containment I will continue to support initiatives that battle them.
This site blows. One-sided biased views and opinions that often contradict each other. You’re a moron.
Hi Mikey;
Feel free to point out where we may have contradicted ourselves. We would be happy to open up the dialogue!
This question does not pertain to the above conversation.
I am from the east coast and would like to purchase salmon directly from Alaska, I would like to know what reputable companies I can purchase from and to make sure that the fish is “wild”. Also, that the fish is properly cleaned and packaged etc…
I am looking for company that is more or less family operated . Basically, I would like to know the fish I am eating was caught and packaged that day etc..
Thank You, George
Hi George. This website is not a marketing or sales website. Perhaps best to contact the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute for the answer to your question.
Good luck!
TTAAS
You still haven’t answered the many questions asking who is behind this site. How about a little transparency?
Hi Geoff;
This site receives contributions from many individuals with diverse interests, education and experience. They may be interested in, and expertise in, ocean conservation, seafood production and marketing, enhancement, aquaculture and fisheries. No one person is credited for this site which is similar to your company’s twitter account http://twitter.com/#!/living_oceans. It communicates a collaborative thought and not an individual.
Perhaps its best that you focus on the quality of the information provided – we are always looking for input and discussion!
TTAAS
“This site receives contributions from many individuals with diverse interests, education and experience”
And none of you—not even one—will reveal his or her identity or affiliation?
“Perhaps its best that you focus on the quality of the information provided”
We all appreciate you diverse anonymous individuals telling us what it is best for us to focus our attention on. Kind of like the Wizard of Oz yelling: “Don’t look at the man behind the curtain!”
Something smells, uh . . . fishy.
Hi Michael. Thanks for reading. If you have any questions about the content provided in this blog, please don’t hesitate to ask.
TTAAS
If a person camping in the forest for a night feeds a wild turkey, is that bird no longer wild?? Did the Hunter who shot the turkey next thanksgiving, shoot a wild turkey or a “Ranching” Turkey??
Hi “joealaska”. Our opinion, and for simplicity sake, if a turkey was born;
1. in a forest, it’s a wild turkey.
2. in a barn and raised in that barn, it’s a farmed turkey.
3. in a barn and then released into the forest to feed, it’s a ranched turkey.
But more importantly, at Thanksgiving, no one cares. It’s just a turkey.
Maybe one day soon, no one will care whether a fish is ocean-raised, land-raised, wild, wild-caught, ranched or hatchery raised. It’s a fish and a darn healthy protein that we should be all eating more of.
TTAAS
Question: So if the department fish and game regulate all the fish and game in america, is anything really considered wild??
Hi “joealaska”. Good question, but we would suggest that just because fish and game or regulated, it doesn’t affect whether the animal is cultured or truly “wild”. Populations and habitat are managed, and that may include culture of an animal to ensure sustainability.
TTAAS
This site is downright eerie. Anonymous voices, appearing to advocate managing for “ranched” fish over wild fish, claiming that “at Thanksgiving, no one cares…” whether a turkey is wild, farmed or ranched–and, by extension that no one cares whether our salmon are ranched, farmed or wild? Yikes. I agree with those who observe that the lack of transparency on this site is disturbing and ultimately discrediting. As far as “no one caring…” My wife and I care. Many others do as well.
Thanks for your comments Jack and Barbra. To be clear, we do care, very much. That is why this site was created, to discuss the politics and marketing that have a habit of diverting a healthy discussion about fisheries management. Also to be clear, while the site is written to provoke discussion, it is not “advocating” for anything other than fact and science to win over emotion and economics. In fact, we have made it very clear, that both wild, hatchery and farmed fisheries can all be very sustainable and fish is undeniably healthy for us. We should all be eating more and we should all be having a very honest discussion of how to produce more, sustainably.
We also think you may have missed our sarcasm regarding the turkeys!
TTAAS