Tom Fletcher, “U.S. interests pull our strings”

Well, well, well. We won’t take any credit here (well, maybe a bit), but it does seem that the information provided on this blog is catching on, quicker than we thought. Today, Canadian journalist Tom Fletcher has released an article in over 70 newspapers which describes the clever (and quite possibly illegal) marketing of U.S. salmon.  This is good and echoes many statements made in this blog. You can view the entire article here, but in the meantime, here are some highlights;

If you go to the grocery store and buy a can of sockeye salmon right now, chances are it will say “product of U.S.A.” on the label.The can I’m holding was sold as a house brand at a large B.C. supermarket chain. The label states the ingredients – sockeye salmon and salt – along with Canada’s mandatory nutrition facts chart. It doesn’t specify that it’s from Alaska, which it likely is, but it does have a logo that says “wild Pacific salmon,” which is, to say the least, debatable.

With some B.C. sockeye runs in an apparent state of collapse, our commercial and even aboriginal food fisheries banned this year, Alaska and Washington state fisheries are relatively strong. The reason for this is the U.S. practice of salmon ‘ranching,’ where billions of salmon fry are raised in tanks, fed pellets until they’re big enough and then released to sea.

Ranched Pacific salmon don’t just flood the whole West Coast habitat, they interbreed freely with wild stocks. The Americans ranch chum, pink and Chinook as well as sockeye. As a result, Koenings testified in a Seattle court Oct. 23, all but four of Puget Sound’s watersheds are now dominated by hatchery fish. He warned that if the state focuses strictly on access work now, they will soon dominate the rest and the state’s wild salmon will be gone.

As I described last week, none of this is discussed in B.C. political circles. Here it’s all about the alleged evils of fish farms. Why? According to research brought to my attention last week, one reason is a staggeringly big negative marketing campaign financed by U.S. private foundations to discredit farmed salmon as a food source.

Former Kitimat resident Vivian Krause has assembled a heavily documented critique of the campaign, which has flooded North American media with exaggerated warnings, first about PCBs in farmed salmon, and now about the hazards of sea lice.

In the past two years, Krause has pestered two of B.C.’s environmental demigods, David Suzuki and Alexandra Morton, to detail the extent of the funding their foundations have accepted to take part in a “demarketing” campaign that demonizes fish farms and coincidentally benefits Alaska and Washington interests.

She documents that the David Suzuki Foundation has received more than $10 million from these U.S. sources.

 Tom Fletcher is legislative reporter and columnist for Black Press and BCLocalnews.com

http://www.bclocalnews.com/vancouver_island_central/nanaimonewsbulletin/opinion/68866257.html

Alaska has ready supply of feed for farmed fish

This may be confusing, so pay attention…

The United States (U.S.) is spending about $50 million on a fish food stimulus package to help fish farmers that are hit by higher fish feed costs in the last year.

Laine Welch - Fish Talk

So Laine Welch writes about this in her column for the Anchorage Daily News and says, “Let’s hope that the feed purchasers will “go green’ and “buy American” by sourcing some of that fish food from Alaska!”

Interesting thought Laine. For a state that poo-poos “fish farming”, you’re sure quick to get onside when there’s a buck to be made.

Laine continues, “Ironically, Alaska spends $20 million each year on fish feed for its 35 salmon hatcheries”.

Another interesting thought Laine. So, you do admit that you  ‘farm’ salmon – by way of 35 state salmon hatcheries.

Laine, are you thinking what we’re thinking…? You could take the waste from your Alaskan farm-raised salmon (60 million each year by the way) and render it into fish feed and feed it back into the 35 state hatcheries. Now apply for some of that ’stimulus’ money and save yourself about $20 million per year!

That scenario would be a heck of lot better than you’re current practice of dumping fish waste at sea. Yeah, that’s right, dumping fish waste at sea. We’ll talk about that dirty little secret on an upcoming blog. Stay tuned.

Lack of sockeye in Alaska, but we’re still killing ‘em!

It always amazes us that the human population seems satisfied to catch every last salmon out there regardless of sustainability.

In a recent article in the Kodiak Daily Mirror, journalist Derek Clarkston reports on the lack of sockeye salmon in the Buskin River, near Kodiak, Alaska.

So you’d assume that locals and tourists might be using words like ‘conservation’ and ‘restrictive action’. But no, instead, we get quotes like this:

“ Despite a lack of fish, people are still flocking to the river in hopes of reeling in a winner”

“This is just a convenient river to fish…”

“It could be worse, there could be no fish at all.”

Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.

Once Mark Bittman, Twice Shy

Yep, another paid advertisment for Alaska salmon. This time brought to you by Mark Bittman, a food writer also known as “The Minimalist”. The term “minimal” also describes his depth of knowledge of salmon.

Another paid hack?

In his recent blog in the New York Times, entitled “The Bottom Line on Salmon”, he promotes the consumption of…you guessed it…Alaska salmon. He also attacks the quality of…you guessed it…farm-raised salmon. Too bad that his opinions (and the comments below the article) are formed from a complete lack of knowledge of farm-raised salmon. And of course, you can bet he has no idea that 1 in 3 Alaska salmon are farm-raised – called salmon ranching. You can also bet that he has no idea that Alaska’s famed Copper River salmon has been tested for PCB’s, and has scored the highest mark (that’s not good by the way) of all salmon (farmed and wild) ever tested (Ewald et al. 1998).

It’s no coincidence that the Alaska salmon season is just around the corner, so get ready for more of this “attack the competitor” type advertising.

Well done Mark Bittman, your ignorance has got you a permanent place in our blog!

The Hypocrisy of David Suzuki

As appearing in the Courier-Islander;

An open letter to Dr. David Suzuki published here by request.

Scientist or paid mouthpiece?

I recently attended your presentation to Campbell River Chamber members on March 6th, 2009, the first talk in a series entitled “Inspiring Success”. I find it necessary to comment and question a few statements you had made in regards to salmon farming in British Columbia.

You made a very good point about the importance of wild salmon that return to their streams to fertilize the coastal ecology. I agree that we need to increase public awareness of this and ensure we conserve wild salmon stocks.

You also acknowledge that “aquaculture is absolutely necessary”, but that salmon isn’t a species that we should be farming because we shouldn’t be “growing carnivores in the water”.

But while you seem to condemn farming salmon, you actually promote Alaska salmon ranching (“David Suzuki Reader”, page 368). Ranched salmon are raised in hatcheries and net pens and then released into the ocean basin to compete for food with wild salmon. Few of these fish get to streams to fertilize the west slope watersheds. Even worse, the general public is being deceived into thinking wild Alaskan salmon stocks are flourishing due to a large commercial harvest. They’re not!

When ranched salmon return to their hatchery of birth, they are taken by commercial fishing vessels, sport fishers and the hatchery itself. These fish are not wild.

To be clear, neither salmon ranching nor salmon farming is meant to enhance natural stocks of wild salmon. Both farming and ranching grow salmon for the same purpose – for human benefit. So if you take issue with “growing” salmon, why do you attack one producer and promote another?

It’s important to note that salmon farmers in BC have made great strides to reduce the amount of fish meal and fish oil used in salmon feed. In fact, these improvements may be due in part to pressures from ENGOs like the David Suzuki Foundation. A past criticism was that it took three pounds of wild fish to produce one pound of farmed salmon. This may have been true 10-15 years ago, but not today. Thanks to efficient feed management and new diets, including vegetable proteins and oils, it now takes less than 1.7 pounds of wild fish to produce one pound of salmon. It’s expected that within two years, new diets will be a “net producer” of fish. In other words; less than one pound of wild fish needed to grow one pound of salmon.

But instead of acknowledging this achievement, you stated on March 6th, “The Japanese have shown that by the time you get up to 15% of (feed) pellets being vegetables, those salmon don’t taste like salmon anymore.” This statement is completely false and isn’t based on science, but on subjective taste.

I am disappointed that you continue to express your opinions, while omitting important information that may help your listeners create their own views. I look forward to your response to my concerns.

Craig Sherman,

Saltspring Island

Should Alaska’s salmon be MSC certified?

Who needs stinkin’ certification anyways? Well, apparently Alaska salmon fishermen don’t think they do. This appeared today on Callander McDowell’s website.

Just another lobby group?

Alaska thinks their salmon product is so sustainable that consumers just know it. They don’t need certification. So, in a strange turn of events, the Marine Stewardship Council’s US office is now asking consumers to “lean” on the Alaskan industry to make them renew their certification.

Why does MSC need Alaska so bad? Well, of all 2000 MSC certified products, 1500 are Alaskan fish and 700 are specifically Alaskan salmon.

Maybe MSC will finally start to look at other parts of the world for sustainable seafood and stop being lobbyists for everything Alaskan.

To view the entire article, click here.

Finally, some “Intelligence” about Alaska ranched salmon

The Truth About Alaska Salmon is pleased to see that Seafood Intelligence dot com is providing it’s readers some insight into Alaska’s ranching program. As described below, we find the unwillingness for promoters of Alaskan salmon to even discuss its salmon ranching program astonishing. Thankfully, there are journalists within Seafood Intelligence that will keep asking the questions until someone provides answers! 

Posted March 6, 2009, by Seafood Intelligence dot com.

We publish today the third part (out of 6) of a Seafood Intelligence investigation on issues relating to the sustainability and traceability of fish feeds used in Alaska’s ‘wild’ salmon hatchery programmes. Our interest for this issue was prompted by three events: 1) the 2007 melamine-in-feed food safety crisis (the largest in the FDA’s history), 2) the June 2007 ruling by a US federal court judge in Washington that “a healthy hatchery [salmon] population is not necessarily an indication of a healthy natural population.” [Thus that hatchery salmon cannot “necessarily” be considered as ‘wild’ when it comes to seeking protection for the species under the US Endangered Species Act (ESA)]; and 3) the WWF-initiated ‘Stinky Fish’ campaign, which was scaled-down only days following its launch after creating a huge ’stink’ and being criticised for its bias. Our questions are all the more relevant that the Alaska fisheries authorities are at odds with the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) as they strenuously argue that MSC certification for AK salmon should be “either for the entire state, or not at all.” Even Wal-Mart (which will soon only sell MSC-labelled seafood in its stores) has been pulled in on the topic… It is noteworthy that many fishermen’s organisations failed to answer our questions; so did many of the staunch critics of salmon farming in the Pacific Northwest, as we challenged the very notion of (some) Pacific salmon’s wilderness and redefined arguments in a debate too often simplified into a counter-productive wild-vs.-farmed opposition… “In Alaska, hatchery fish are carefully differentiated from farmed fish and are promoted as wild even though they are not ‘truly wild’.” wrote the Management of the WWF Global Marine Programme in a detailed response to Seafood Intelligence.

For more, click here.

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.

Fishy Editorial in the New York Times

A recent editorial in the New York Times (Protein Pyramid, November 10, 2008), weighs in on fish meal consumption by terrestrial and aquatic livestock. Interesting article indeed, but unfortunately lacks some key details. We certainly hope these omissions weren’t on purpose!

Here are some points that will help fill in the blanks;

1. Although 50% of fish meal is used by aquaculture, fish have the ability to convert fish meal into edible protein at a much more efficient rate than terrestrial (land) animals. For example, new diets fed to fish such as salmon and trout have converted into more edible protein – making it a net producer of fish protein (.8 pounds of fish meal convert to 1.0 pound of salmon = .8:1 feed conversion ratio). For comparison sake, poultry at its best will convert feed to meat at a ratio of 2 to 1.
2. The editorial makes no mention of the consumption of fish meal (forage fish like anchovies, sardines, etc.) by the common house cat. The domestic house cat is a very large consumer of fish protein. 
3. While the editorial seems to focus on the ‘farming’ of fish such as salmon, there seems to be an omission of the fact that Alaska salmon ranching is a very large user of fish meal and fish oil. In fact, Alaska salmon ranchers utilize over seven times the amount of fish meal than do salmon farmers on North America’s West coast. While farmers use technology such as camera monitoring for feeding and are replacing fish proteins with vegetable proteins, ranchers simply let their salmon go and forage for food in the wild. No one knows for sure at what conversion rate ranched salmon turn fish protein into body weight, but you can bet that it is less efficient than salmon farming.
4. The global fish meal fishery is one of the best managed fisheries in the world. Despite the growth of aquaculture over the past two decades, the overall consumption of fish meal and fish oil has not increased due to efficencies in conversion rates of aquaculture species.

The New York Times would be well advised to do some homework on the issue of global fish meal usage before attempting to cater to the idealistic views of a few vegans, millions of house cat owners and the Alaska salmon ranching corporations.