Jump to content

Fish Farming & Aquaculture


peeriebryan
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

salmon farming. but it does cycle between success or failure. i think we should expect and maybe prepare for the next down turn.

 

Or upturn, downturn in 2010 maybe? Depends what happens in Chile:

 

"The overall market for salmon in 2009 is expected to be positive with moderately higher prices due to the expected shortfall in Chilean supply. Salmon sales have previously shown to be resilient in difficult times and with an estimated income elasticity estimated at around 1, sales are expected to hold up relatively well next year. Overall demand is expected to increase by about 5%. 2010 however could be difficult for producers if the Chilean production comes back on stream."

 

http://www.globefish.org/index.php?id=4649

 

if you don't rotate a site then your going to build up problems. if you stock a site for years on end its going to alter the natural balance of the area.

 

research was done about the lice and its been shown to cause damage to the natural wild fish stock. hence the salmon rivers in Scotland not being in love with farms.

 

I think SEPA decide how long each site can be stocked for and how long it has to be left empty before the next input of fish, depending on the hydrography of different areas.

 

If the lice from fish farms were responsible for a reduction in wild salmon stocks, why was there a decline in the East coast rivers where there are no fish farms?

 

 

 

when its cheaper to buy salmon than a standard white fish you should start thinking something is not right.

 

Looking at the shetland seafood auction site, I see wild cod selling at less than 2.00 per kilo and farmed salmon selling for 3.60 per kilo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

paulb we already know you are broadly 'anti' fish farming but you really do need to upgrade your knowledge of how the modern industry operates.

 

Every salmon farm site has to have a fallow period after each production cycle - that's not just good practice but is part of the consent needed to operate. The purpose - to break any disease cycles and sea lice presence.

 

The issue with sea lice treatments over the years is they always end up with resistence developing in the lice. The main reasons for that are many but one of them is a failure on the part of different farming companies to operate a strategy of cooperative treatments, i.e. a whole area approach. This may well be the more likely reason for a lessening of effectiveness. It's nothing to do with stocking density.

 

I would agree that there is a natural capacity level for fish farming in each area and if there are too many fish overall that will lead to problems.

 

Incidentally, as crofter has said, the market outlook and prices for salmon right now are excellent - so the issue will be if Shetland loses out due to the type of production problems that exist just now.

 

Re the issue of compensation, why should a fish farmer be discriminated against? If farmers can expect to be compnesated for stock loses due to Government eradication schemes such as F&M, bird flu etc what is the reason for a fish farmer being treated differently? Your position on this is frankly very odd. We're talking about a big industry with a lot of peoples livelihoods at stake in Shetland so for you to be against the companies being helped is pretty crass to the say the least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...