Alaska fingerprints all over the “Smoking Gun”

It has long been accepted practice for U.S. philanthropic foundations to support environmental groups who have a hate on for salmon culture.

Let’s ignore for a moment that Alaska is one of the largest salmon culturers in the world. 

A new report now clearly shows that there is a strong link between these U.S. Foundations and the Alaska salmon fishery. It’s no secret that Alaska has hated competition from salmon farmers (again, let’s ignore that Alaska farms 1.5 billion salmon each year). But, it is now becoming clearer that Alaska has enjoyed the support of these wealthy foundations to create a “smear” campaign against the competing farmers.

Bruce Lloyd, columnist, writes:

In a nutshell, an American fishing industry organization named ”SeaWeb” has paid in excess of US$8.5 million to co-ordinate a program called “Seafood Choices”

This marketing strategy puts pressure on such stores as Wal-Mart and the like to only sell seafood certified by the Marine Stewardship Council which is primarily Alaska salmon.

The overblown claims and constant attack on fish farms that we have witnessed here in B.C. has in large part been proof of the veracity of the old adage that “if you say something long enough it becomes fact” to be sure.

Never mind that such “green” organizations – such as the Packard Foundation and others - have drawn monies from this “innocent” industrial fund to pay for “research” that runs contrary to a lot of the peer-reviewed research other organizations have been doing.

Check out the full piece at;

http://www.bclocalnews.com/opinion/64003957.html

Lucile Packard Foundation Ignorant Of Fact

A new study supported by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation takes aim fish farms….again. The study concludes that half of the fish consumed globally is now raised on farms.

It also raises concerns that this may put additional pressures on fish meal and oil fisheries that provide protein to most farmed aquatic species.

This is a valid concern and must require a careful approach to ensure sustainable development of the global aquaculture industry.

But, what we found particularly interesting is the special focus on one farmed species -salmon. One of the authors, Rosamond L. Naylor (Stanford University) claims that it takes “5 pounds of wild fish to produce 1 pound of salmon”.

• First of all, her math is way off (it takes less than 2 pounds to produce 1 pound of salmon, and this ratio continues to improve quickly).
• Secondly, it fails to recognize that salmon farming only utilizes about 10% of the world’s fish meal – the rest is fed to chickens, pigs, cats and dogs at a far less efficient ratio than salmon).
• Thirdly, it fails to mention that fish (salmon included) are the most efficient users of fish meal. Salmon are cold-blooded and don’t waste valuable energy heating their bodies like chickens and your cat Fluffy.
• Finally, and most strikingly, is the apparent (purposeful?) omission of important context…

Salmon isn’t just farmed, it’s also ranched. Ranching salmon utilizes far more fish meal (pound for pound) than farming (ranched salmon consume 100% fish meal whereas farms now utilize less than 20% fish meal in their diet). Japan, Russia and Alaska ranch over 5 billion salmon each year – far more fish than all the salmon farmers produce in the world.

PAY ATTENTION TO THE NEXT PART: 

The main funder of this study, the Packard Foundation, is also the main sponsor of Monterey Bay Aquarium’s SEAfood Watch program. The SEAfood Watch purpotes to base it’s seafood grading system on science and has given all Alaska salmon a green light (eat lots!) and all farmed salmon a red light (do not eat!). According to officials at SEAfood Watch, the #1 reason for the red light to farmed salmon is because of the fish meal consumed.

WTF Ms. Packard? Why do you continue to ignore the fact that Alaska salmon consume more fish meal than farmed salmon? Why do you sponsor paid spokespeople like Ms. Naylor and make them sound so stupid? Do you have to make it that obvious that your Foundation and your SEAfood Watch program is light on science and heavy on politics?

If Ms. Lucile Packard is actually dead, we apologize. Please forward this to her next of kin for us.

Do Alaskan salmon hatcheries affect Canadian salmon returns?

Posted by Sean Holman at Public Eye Online:

Last week, (Canadian) federal Liberal parliamentarian Ujjal Dosanjh called for an cross-border conference to address the collapse of the Fraser River’s sockeye (2009) salmon run.

But, in an interview on Public Eye Radio, former (Canadian) fisheries and oceans minister David Anderson said, “If we want successful salmon summits, we have to start bringing in the Russians, the Japanese, the North Koreans and others.” “We have about five billion artificially-raised Pacific salmon going into the ocean from hatcheries from mostly on the Western side – in Russia, Japan, North Korea – on the other side of the ocean,” he explained. “So we don’t know what those artificially-raised fish do to the natural populations of fix they mix with on the other side of the ocean.”

Correct David and well said. By “others“, we assume you’re referring to Alaska. It’s OK, don’t be afraod to say it!  Afterall, of the 5 billion ranched salmon, Alaska is responsible for 1.5 billion of the little suckers.

If wealthy U.S. Foundations won’t talk about it, then we’re glad Canadian politicians are!

The King is Dead : What Happened to Alaska’s Chinook Salmon?

The King Salmon (commonly referred to as Chinook) has disappeared from many rivers in Alaska in 2009. No one is sure exactly why, but here are some possibilities, as reported at redorbit.com;

• availability of food
• predator/prey imbalance
• changing river conditions
• changing ocean currents
• plankton blooms
• incidental capture of Kings in pollock trawl nets

Any other ideas? Oh yeah, we’ve got one!

Alaska’s salmon ranching program pumps out billions of salmon (mainly Pink and Chum species)that compete with wild salmon in the ocean for food, but only produces minimal amounts of King salmon. Could ranched salmon, given the head start in a hatchery, be outcompeting wild King salmon for food? It’s seems a little too coincidental that the one species not heavily enhanced is the one not returning at historic levels.

Please welcome the elephant that just entered the room.

“The Only True Wild Salmon…” : WWF

The World Wildlife Foundation (WWF) was recently quoted as stating, “The only truly wild salmon is one that hatched from an egg in a gravel bed of a river.” Good for WWF to use its “outside voice”!

According to Seafood Intelligence dot com, this belief is echoed by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC).

MSC

This was in response to a new study published by Oregon State University. The study determined that hatchery raised steelhead that were born from two hatchery raised fish could be significantly less productive than a steelhead born of two wild parents or even one of each.

We wonder if anyone involved in the Alaska salmon industry will bother to read the study? Alaska introduces 1.5 billion salmon into the Pacific Ocean each year – over 40% of the salmon caught in Alaska is a hatchery raised salmon. We’re not going to bother to do the math, but we’re quite sure the odds are that there’s quite a bit of “wife swapping” going on in Alaska (we’re only talking salmon here people) and that will certainly have a serious affect on the gene pool.

“The message should be clear’”, Oregon researchers claim, “Captive breeding for reintroduction or supplementation can have a serious, long-term downside…”

Hmmmm, so the best thing may be to actually keep the farmed salmon captive for their entire lifecycle thus preventing them from intermingling with wild salmon. Maybe it should be called “salmon farming”. What a great idea!

Blogfish: Wild fish vs. Farmed fish

We have been following a blog called “Blogfish” for a while now. Good stuff to check out. In a past blog, they’ve written about Alaska’s “half-farmed salmon”. Today, they have a great post about the efficiency of farming fish – in relation to the amount of protein used. This information is relevant to our blog as we have continued to point to the fact that “farming” fish is much more efficient than “ranching” them.

As posted on Blogfish:

Time for a battle royal, a smackdown over who’s the real sustainable source of fish, fishing or fish farms.

Right now, fishing has the moral high ground with stories on contamination in farmed fish and ocean harm from fish farms. But aquaculture is making a strong push with economic clout and improving technology, and the acccurate pitch that the world needs farmed fish.

Now a fish farming business is making a run at the moral high ground of sustainability, with a striking new argument that actually rings true to me.

To read more, click here.

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.

Marketing Disguised As Science

When a newsletter for the Alaska seafood industry personally thanks the folks at Monterey Bay Aquarium for “a big boost”, one can only conjure up images of back alley deals between a geeky little Californian scientist and a burly frostbitten Alaska fishermen.

So what’s the “big boost” boys?  

Ahhh, you mean the marketing plug that MBA gives you each year. You mean the Seafood Watch program – yeah – the one that omits to give unknowing fish eaters any information about Alaska’s salmon ranching program.

This Blog has uncovered some disturbing information about MBA’s ‘Seafood Watch’ program and their apparent love for anything Alaskan – heck, these guys would probably give the ‘best choice’ rating to processing waste that’s been on the floor for a day – maybe they call it the 8 hour, 15 minute and 45 second rule?

Monterey Bay Aquarium should stick to mating guppies

In a world filled with confusing marketing campaigns and mixed messages, the Monterey Bay Aquarium may win first prize for pulling the wool over our fish consuming eyes.

The Monterey Bay Aquarium (MBA) produces a report card on fish – what’s apparently good and bad to eat – called the ‘Seafood Watch’. We are now exposing an important and blatant omission on their report card when it comes to salmon.

They give a ‘best choice’ rating to ‘wild-caught’ salmon from Alaska (more on ‘wild-caught’ in an upcoming blog). Only salmon from Alaska get the green light, salmon from Washington and California state, Canada and Europe don’t get the same courtesy. Yep, only Alaska. So why the apparent sponsorship deal for Alaska and what are they not telling us?

What is Monterey Bay Aquarium hiding?

In their rush to sponsor Alaska salmon, it seems as though the 116 page report on the state of Pacific salmon from Alaska has forgotten to discuss the fact that over 40% of the salmon returning to Alaska rivers are actually hatchery raised in plastic trays, net pen reared, pellet feeding, vaccination receiving little guys (and gals). They also forgot to cite in their report the multiple studies that voice concern over the impact of letting go 1.5 billion extra salmon into the ocean’s basin (called salmon ranching). Why is this important information? Well, these cultured salmon do eat small fish, do poop and do have the balls (well, not literally) to breed with natural wild salmon. But more importantly, what do they have to lose by simply admitting that not all Alaska salmon is wild? Lots. The whole marketing game would be up.

So, why would a respectable organization like Monterey Bay Aquarium lie to us (some call it omissions, we call it a lie)?

The Seafood Watch report card is produced with funds from the Dave and Lucile Packard Foundation. This Foundation spends millions of dollars to promote Alaska salmon. When the funding agency has an agenda, you already know the result. Just one example is the $225,000 granted in 2007 to the Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform (CAAR). According to David Suzuki of the David Suzuki Foundation (one of CAAR’s member groups), competing salmon to Alaska’s salmon are “poison”. Wow, ain’t that scientific Dr. Suzuki? Nothing better to promote yourself than by attacking the competition. 

There will be much more on this subject in the near future.  Stay tuned.