|03-08-2004 03:26 AM|
Thanks for the information.
I think the fact that there is so much opposition to the land based farm in Wales, illustrates the point that the general public would be more opposed to this than a sea cage farm. I suspect that the opposition would not be so strong if the farm was in sea nets/cages in a similar area.
That was a great thread that you pointed me to. It's a dreadful situation that yet another government is ignorant enough to ignore the environmental consequences of salmon farming in order to claim the glory for economical growth in rural areas. The truth behind the economic growth is that the financial rewards largely go to foreign companies that seem to be working their way round the globe destroying their neighbours marine environments.
|03-05-2004 04:44 AM|
Gary, I'm no expert, so don't take this as gospel. I believe, though, that organic aquaculture really isn't a lot better from the environmental aspect. They don't use the same artificial dyes in the feed to produce the vividly coloured flesh, and I think don't use medicine (eg antibiotics) routinely as a prophylactic, but only to treat outbreaks of disease. Don't know about stocking densities - they may well be lower than conventional farms, but will still be vastly higher than would ever occur in nature, so pollution will still occur. Nor do I know how they control lice - I remember reading something once about using another fish (a wrasse, possibly?) in the cages that was supposed to feed on the lice, like birds eating ticks on cattle, but don't know whether that ever came to anything. I certainly think the pellets on which the fish are fed are likely to come from just the same sources as conventional fish food - ie industrial hoovering-up of sandeels etc which form such a crucial part of the food chain, not only for fish but also seabirds. If you want to know more about the impact of organic farms, I think you can contact Bruce Sandison through that site I linked above; he will know much more than me. If there isn't a link, I have his email somewhere.
A land-based farm is theoretically possible, but it would have to pass its water through a purification system. This is likely to be very expensive indeed - see the figures suggested by OC towards the bottom of page 1 of this thread from a little time ago: http://www.flyfishingforum.com/flyta...&threadid=8822
A planning application has just been submitted for a land-based farm in Wales which proposes to pass its waste water through beds of sand stocked with lugworm, which are supposed to filter out the pollutants. The worms will then be harvested to sell to fishermen to use as bait. Interesting theory, but I wonder if it will really work. Here's a couple of links to the story http://icnorthwales.icnetwork.co.uk/...l&siteid=50142 and http://www.llanfairfechan.org.uk/~ab...y/itsfishy.htm
You may well be right about the visibility of farms, although if you go to the west coast of Scotland or Ireland you can hardly miss the cages, since they tend to be sited close to shore. There might also be issues with smell, for example, and it would be less easy to dispose of dead fish; at present it appears that they are often just dumped into the sea, which is of course in itself a source of pollution.
You're right about the politics aspect of fishing - if only it wasn't necessary!
|03-04-2004 02:37 PM|
I believe that salmon farming companies shy away from farming in landlocked areas for two reasons. Inland farming is generally more visible and immediate to the general public, thus increasing the level of opposition to more than just groups with an interest in wild salmon.
I also believe that the water quality would quickly become contaminated to a level that could not sustain the lives of salmon.
While I am an avid salmon angler, I am relatively new to the politics involved(wish there was not a necessity to get into politics for the love of our sport), so these are merely my opinions.
Sadly, we find ourselves talking more about solutions to these problems than about fishing itself.
There is also a company in Scotland that cultivates organic salmon(?) . Comendable, but until legislation is brought in to get all salmon farmers to give wider and closer consideration to the environment, it seems a very small step in the right direction.
Also, the fish may be fewer in volume in the cages, but to acheive a profit and grow the fish in a timescale that sustains the business, do these organic farms still feed the fish with a high protien diet(i.e. condensed fish food made from tonnes of natural resource that should be available as prey for wild salmon)?
Please correct me if I am wrong; I am on a learning curve at the moment.
|03-04-2004 01:06 PM|
Interesting that you mention open-water farming of salmon, Gary. There is a company called Glenarm that have been doing this for some time off the coast of Co Antrim - I think a Google search will find it for you. As well as producing a superior product (I've seen them on fishmongers' slabs; they look much better than the usual farmed fish), I believe they do avoid some of the problems of conventional aquaculture. The fish are stocked at lower densities, which reputedly lessens the buildup of lice and waste under the cages, assisted also by the open-sea currents in which the cages are sited (which also help to build firmer flesh). They are a premium product among farmed salmon.
But they are still far from perfect. Although the faecal waste isn't concentrated in one place, it is still produced. To claim that the sea is big enough and it will be sufficiently diluted not to matter is an outdated attitude - we can no longer continue to regard the sea as a convenient dustbin for untreated sewage, whether from humans, animals or farmed fish. There are also problems with escapes - Google will lead you to stuff about such incidents from the Glenarm farm and the impact on the genetic integrity of stock in local rivers. Remember that escapes from farms could transmit diseases and parasites (eg ISA and Gyrodactylus) to river systems, too, with catastrophic results. And the point Andy makes about the oceans being pillaged to produce fish food for farmed salmon remains, as it does for all aquaculture.
There is no doubt in my mind that on-shore fish farming is the best way. Pollution, disease and escapes can all be controlled far more easily that way, though the food issue remains unresolved.
It's been linked before, but if you want to read more, look at www.salmonfarmmonitor.org
|03-04-2004 12:14 PM|
I am no expert, but I have heard that sea lice do not attach themselves to cod. If that was the case, at least our migratory fish, and returning smolts, would be free to run the gauntlet of the cages without the threat of being overly infested with sea lice.
Maybe somebody can enlighten me as to whether sea lice attach themselves to species such as cod(?).
As we all know, it is high time that the salmon farmers were forced to increase there overheads by farming in more open waters(non migratory routes), where the pollutants from their industry would have a less direct effect than they do in smaller sea lochs.
I wish I knew more about this subject and will be watching closely for similar threads.
|03-04-2004 10:15 AM|
The salmon farmers going over to cod might well just change the species that polluting ,there will still be masses of fecal matter below the cages ,still huge amounts of fish food going to feed them ,maybe lice as well I dont know on that a fishery biologist would have to say .
|03-04-2004 06:08 AM|
Wouldn't it be a good idea to eliminate all net fisheries and offer the net fisherman training and jobs in the angling tourism business(i.e. ghillies, bailiffs, etc.)?
I know, I know, a sweeping idealistic approach; it would be nice.
While we are doing this, we could also force salmon farmers into farming cod. They would get as good, if not a better price than they do for their salmon, and the wild cod stocks could be allowed to recover. Idealistic?
|03-03-2004 02:11 PM|
Who you met a week or so again says thanks for the Hardy spool you pointed us at ,.
Gardener ,thanks for the invite ,its real conservation in action .
Mylo ,Ireland does some stonking things with salmon ,Currane being a great example ,but the nets are an anacronism .
sorry all its nearing my bedtime .
Malcom , see you very soon ,got some days on the braes .
|02-19-2004 11:19 AM|
The story I liked best regarding the queen mother, was from days gone by pre catch and release. An angler foul hooked and landed a fine salmon but seeing, her royal highness the queen mother fishing opposite he immediately returned the fish. He then heard the conversation
QM: - Gillie what is he doing over there?
Gillie: - he just returned a fish Mam
QM: - Dammed fool..
|02-19-2004 11:01 AM|
Malcolm, has anyone determined the correct etiquette if you are fishing the Dee and a member of the royal family appears on the other bank?
You will no doubt recall that story of the lady who dropped a deep curtsey to the Queen Mother when wading down a pool and filled her waders!
|02-19-2004 10:35 AM|
You had me grinning ear to ear! What at hoot (what we call it here in the colonies).
|02-19-2004 10:32 AM|
Thanks Willie, Sir, for clearing that up.
Ah well, as we used to say at the City Livery Club members table, ".....once a Lord, always a lord, once a Knight is enough!"
|02-19-2004 10:03 AM|
Seeing the question of an URL came up I thought it might be a good time to remind you (ex)colonials of the order of things.
Just in case you ever get invited to fish with any of the upper classes.
PEERAGE AND KNIGHTS
Titles of nobility in descending order are as follows: duke, marquess (not marquis, except in foreign contexts and occasional Scottish titles), earl, viscount and baron. At first mention, give the formal title (as in Who's Who) eg, the Marquess of Paddington, the Earl of Waterloo, but then Lord Paddington, Lord Waterloo etc. This does not apply to barons, who are always Lord except in the announcement of new baronies. Dukes are always dukes and do not become Lord (eg, the Duke of Rutland). Note style of the 2nd Earl, the 3rd Viscount etc.
Baronesses in their own right or life peeresses are Baroness at first mention, and then Lady (eg, Baroness Thatcher, then Lady Thatcher).
The wife of a duke is a duchess (and is always called Duchess, eg, the Duchess of X); the wife of a marquess is a marchioness, of an earl a countess, of a viscount a viscountess. Use Lady at second and subsequent mentions. The wife of a baronet, eg, Sir John Euston, should be called Lady Euston from the start. Widows or former wives of all these titles who have not remarried use their Christian name before the title, eg, Margaret Duchess of Argyll (no commas). A widow may also be known as the Dowager Duchess of Y, or the Dowager Lady Z.
Apart from royalty (eg, the Duke of York), all these titles take l/c rather than cap after the first mention (eg, the Duke of Argyll, thereafter the duke).
Some titles include a place name , eg, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, Baroness Jay of Paddington, while others do not. Again, follow Who's Who, where those whose place name must be included appear in bold caps.
Always give the full title at first mention, thereafter the abbreviated form, eg, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, thereafter Lord Bingham. Among titles spelt differently from the place name are the Marquess of Ailesbury, Marquess of Donegall, Earl of Guilford, Earl of Scarbrough.
Take great care with the use of first names with titles, especially the wives of peers, baronets and knights. The wife of Lord St Pancras is simply Lady St Pancras. The wife of Sir John Fenchurch is simply Lady Fenchurch (together, Sir John and Lady Fenchurch). However, when the name is a common one and there is no other convenient identification, or where there is some other compelling reason to give the first name, it is permissible to say Lady (John) Brown (brackets essential; see last sentence of next paragraph).
Baronets and knights are known as Sir John Smith, thereafter Sir John. Again, to repeat this essential point, no wife of a baronet or knight takes her Christian name in her title unless she is the daughter of a duke, a marquess or an earl. If a baronet has had more than one wife, the first wife is, eg, Mary Lady Smith (no commas) - the same form applies to the widow of a baron. If a knight has had more than one wife, the former wife puts her Christian name in brackets, eg, Lady (Alice) Brown, to distinguish her from the present wife, Lady Brown.
Also, if there are two baronets or knights with the same name, their wives (when mentioned apart from their husbands), put his Christian name in brackets, eg, Lady (Stephen) Brown, Lady (Andrew) Brown.
Dames of an order of chivalry take the same style as knights, eg, Dame Felicity Brown, thereafter Dame Felicity. A dame who is married may prefer to use her own style, eg, Dame Margaret Arrowroot, wife of Lord Arrowroot of Nice; personal preferences should be respected.
|02-19-2004 06:10 AM|
|paul locke||hi fred, thanks for your interest. i am an older generation near computer illiterate, fisherman who is completely lost how to respond [nice change some wil say!] as far as i know URLs are what keep getting people into trouble re sponsors and thats all i know! sorry i cant answer your question, paul|
|02-19-2004 05:42 AM|
Gentlemen: a great read.
Has a 'url' to this thread been posted to the UK board?
|This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|