Some Thoughts on Fish Farming

When my wife Janice and I started out to create a small “gourmet smoked salmon” business six years ago I knew very little about fish politics but have done some homework since. The issues around seafood are complex. I’m glad to see that stock depletion on the west coast is starting to get a greater proportion of emphasis as I grew up in Nova Scotia during the sixties and seventies and witnessed the destruction of the Atlantic salmon and cod stocks.

Salmon farming began in Norway some time in the middle of the last century and was considered an environmental triumph as it was expected at the time to be a great help in relieving pressure on the endangered wild Atlantic salmon. When these endeavours became big business, trouble started. On the west coast of North America multinational corporate Atlantic salmon farming arrived in a big way in the 1980’s. Early on David Suzuki and other environmentalists sounded some alarms but these were ignored. As conflict intensified issues which were raised as concerns included:

1. Escaped fish – leading to: 1) displacement of wild stocks; 2) transference of diseases or parasites to wild stocks; 3) genetic weakening of wild stocks (in the case of farmed indigenous species like Chinook)
2. Location and density of farm sites, of concern for 1) transference of disease and parasites such as sea lice. This is of more concern when farms are on estuary spawning routes; 2) destruction of sea floor under cages and net pens, of increasing concern with large numbers of farms in one area.
3. Health concerns for humans as higher levels of PCBs were found in farmed Atlantic salmon than in wild stocks.
4. Use of wild fish stocks to make feed for farmed fish. Although finfish like trout and salmon convert protein at a much better rate than other farmed animals (hogs and chickens are also fed fish meal) it still requires one and a half pounds of fish meal to create one pound of salmon or trout.

Trout have actually been “farmed” longer than salmon. But in the past fresh water lake stocking was the purpose. Traditional land farmers had also taken advantage of the availability of hatchery fingerlings to stock their own ponds and dugouts and simply let nature take its course. There is still a lot of this going on and some of this trout is available commercially. In such cases it seems self evident that concerns 1 through 4 above have very limited applicability. With minor exceptions, there is virtually no commercial “wild” fishery for trout.

Most commercially available freshwater trout are now farmed by one of three methods.

1. Raceways or ponds are land based. The fish are isolated from the wild environment but water enters at the “upper” end from a well, spring, or creek and then enters or re-enters the natural watershed after the effluent is settled or filtered.
2. Re-circulation systems are similar but more high-tech. A large portion of the inflow at the “upper” end is water that is filtered and re-oxygenated nearer the “lower” end so requires less water input from the immediate natural environment. However, this method requires considerably more energy.
3. Cages or net-pens are placed in a natural water body like a reservoir.

1. Seafood Choices Alliance (www.seafoodchoices.com)
2. Monterey Aquarium (www.mbayaq.org/cr/seafoodwatch.asp)
3. Oceans Alive (www.oceansalive.org)
4. Seachoice (www.seachoice.org)

These consumer and environmental organizations give quick and easy ratings of various sea foods, abbreviated sketches of the issues, and generalized opinions of practices within a product grouping. Freshwater farmed trout earn a high rating from all these organizations. All this information is very helpful in understanding issues but I have found that I need to know the specific situation of a producer in order to know whether or not where I am getting my trout from is a truly preferable source.

It gets so confusing that I do not blame anybody if they throw their hands in the air in despair. To make matters worse, if the awful truth be known, they would have to do the same for most of what they eat. Nevertheless, here is my own take on de-constructing fish politics. I’m interested in good fish – as cuisine, culture, health and environmental stewardship.

If you consider the four major concerns with finfish farming the apparent reason freshwater trout farming receives high marks by the watchdogs is because three of the major concerns, (i.e. contamination of wild stocks, pollution of the environment and toxin levels) are partially or wholly addressed by the most common trout farming practices. But if you want to know if a specific operation is good or not I personally find it necessary to have specific knowledge of that operation. What the environmental watchdogs do to help in the process is give me a checklist of issues to examine. I believe many consumers trying to be conscientious are encouraged to accept simplified guidelines. After all, let’s face it – trying to keep up with all the information necessary to be an ethical and informed consumer would probably require a personal assistant.

But accepting simplified guidance can also be damaging to individual ethical food producers if generalized consumer choices are made. For example, what about the ethical beef rancher who puts her/his money into range management to avoid disease and the necessity for antibiotics instead of the cost involved in becoming organically certified. Range management necessitates low density (thus higher costs) but can result in high proportions of animals remaining antibiotic free. The cattle operation that is certified may have higher densities and more animals requiring anti-biotics but the animals can go into two categories: those destined to be certified and those going into the normal stream. Which system is better?

In recent times (until about 2006) the main question many concerned consumers thought it pertinent to ask about fish was “Is it farmed or wild?” That is not their fault. In the ongoing conflict over seafood the protagonists have employed tactics and strategies that sometimes use consumers as pawns. Because of this situation, the “informed” public has often been inadvertently (or consciously) led to SOME faulty food purchasing decisions. Sometimes there is nobody watching the watchdogs.

A case in point is the strategy of persuading consumers to think that they could act ethically by a simply purchasing wild over farmed. Any marketer knows the acronym KISS (keep it simple, stupid). The intention is to create a powerful weapon with which to engage the Atlantic salmon farming industry.

Unfortunately, there is collateral damage. This damage has come on two fronts. In the last couple of years it has become more and more obvious that very few wild fisheries actually are sustainable. Oops! This is not such a big surprise to me. I grew up in Lunenburg, Nova Scotia during the sixties and seventies. I experienced the “blame-game” as wild fish stocks disappeared and my home town turned from Canada’s leading east coast fishing port into a tourist town.

On a second front many well run, responsible fish farms (i.e. trout, char, tilapia, etc.) get a bad rap as farming, ironically, has become a dirty word. That hurts small and medium producers of healthy, sustainable fish.

There are probably no simple templates for making moral and ethical decisions in buying your food. It is necessary to get details on specific operations by talking to producers. Can they satisfy these questions in a common sense way:

1. Fresh or salt water?
2. Effect on other fish in the environment?
3. Effect on other species in the environment?
4. Parasites?
5. Disease?
6. Toxins in the flesh?
7. Antibiotics or other drugs?
8. Handling effluents?
9. Spawning routes?
10. Type of feed?
11. Genetic engineering?
12. How much energy is used to accomplish production?
13. Where do the fingerlings come from?
14. Future plans and philosophy?

No producer can answer all these questions with a completely satisfactory response. Every farm will have positive and negative points. The only way you can make a reasonable judgment about whether they deserve your support is ask these types of questions. Obviously, the smaller they are the easier this will be. If you cannot deal with all this detail yourself try to find a retailer or wholesaler you trust who can provide answers.

1. 90% of their fish start out in their own hatchery enabling them to avoid antibiotics. They currently use no antibiotics. They use no other drugs.
2. They are the only fish farm on the entire 100 mile long reservoir which means that effluent concentration and floor degradation is minimal and non-damaging to the environment.
3. Power consumption in this type of operation is very low in comparison to recirculation-type systems.
4. Wild West Steelhead raises trout which are rendered sterile at the hatchery, immediately after fertilization. This phenomenon occurs naturally at low frequency in the wild, but for commercial purposes is artificially induced in the hatchery to insure that, in the event of an escape, there is no risk of genetic dilution of the ‘wild’ population. (Note: there are actually no indigenous populations of rainbow trout in Saskatchewan as they do not naturally occur there. All have been stocked at some point.)
5. These trout have no access to the lake bottom and thus no exposure to parasites so treatment is unnecessary.
6. In lab tests performed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Wild West Steelhead claims toxins such as PCBs or mercury in their fish show up as virtually undetectable. They are willing to provide test result copies upon request.