the black diver

I have much less objection to farmed shellfish - my main gripe is the usually unsightly 'farms'.

For those unfamiliar with the distinction between farmed fin fish and shellfish, shellfish are filter feeders and as such are not fed and as far as i am aware not medicated either, so all round, a better proposition.

Not to say that farmed shellfish is all sweetness and light. There has been a dangerous practice of bringing in juvenile or seed shellfish to this country for 'finishing', the idea appearing to be that they can then be labelled as Irish rather than say, French - seems to command a better price, as I understand it.

This has resulted in at least one parasite being introduced which is now affecting wild domestic mussel as well as the farmed equivalent. Lovely.

For those looking for a practical example of what's wrong with how aquaculture is actually done in this country, take a look at

http://www.loughswilly.com/News/News.htm

and the main page of http://www.loughswilly.com


Pete, going back to the sea lice thing, where abouts have you caught infested fish from? Portsalon is the first place I've seen it happen in.

And Swithun, the name you're looking for is, surprise surprise, Pat 'the cope' Gallagher!

One of the things that gets me about the marine environment is how connected it all is. So the pollution produced by a farm can have a really wide impact in its area. Yes there is a diluting effect - more in some places than others - but everything in the area is hit to some extent by marine pollution. With a land based farm, the impacts can be (and usually are) much more controlled.

I believe therefore that marine aquaculture is potentialy more problematic than terrestrial farming. If a cow farmer puts rubbish on his land, then his cows may eat it, as may some birds and other animals. And there might be an upwards food chain impact on other species. But, firstly, it is unlikely to hit other bits of the human food chain than his cows - and therefore he has damaged himself. And secondly, the chemicals used are generally far less widespread than those used in marine environments: as someone mentioned, they are often massively toxic and hit everything in an area.

Bruce Sandison took a team of divers below the salmon farm that Jamie Oliver was praising 12 months ago in his Sainsbury's advert. Having already been once fined for pollution, the sea bed underneath the farm - and for some distance around - was completely dead. A thick mat of eutrophied waste made it impossible for other sea animals to live there. That kind of pollution only occurs sometimes - and with substantial penalties - in terrerstrial farming now. In fish farms it is the norm.

So - I think that there is a fairly big difference - on these points only - between marine (where the sea is used as a sewer) and terrestrial farms, which are pretty heavily regulated now. So I don't mind eating meat, eggs, milk etc nearly as much as I mind eating farmed salmon.

That was a bit heavy...apologies if it was a bit OTT. The bits of this site I've really been reading are the reports. But this was a bit where I have been involved in the debate elsewhere, so I dived in... :oops:

Thanks

Swithun

All opinions welcome, I say.

The only thing missing from debates like this here are large quantities of alcohol and a decent pub. :lol:

Aye on an evening like that... pub with nice fire and good guinness!

"Not to say that farmed shellfish is all sweetness and light."....Sandman, what industry if any is sweetness and light? If we were to talk about sea trout and their decline then for what its worth i would place the greatest amout of blame on the sheep farming sector. Sheep dips on main rivers and nursery stream and siltation of spawing areas through overgrazing of upland areas, enrichment of waters......how many anti-sheep farming websites do you know?

Loughswilly.com....ah please god no....Phil ***ig Coulter...cmon Sandman!You can be rest assured that the good folk in the save the swilly don't really care of what goes on in the swilly as long it can't be seen from their holiday home window, not a peep on that website about the really dangerous and insidious problem in lough swilly and that of all irish coastal waters.....human and agricultural pollution.

The bloody romans had better sewage systems than donegal does, the vast majority of towns in the county have no treatment facilities, most of the waste goes in untreated. This is 2006 and were still pouring it into our waters in its raw state. Thats were we should be looking to put the pressure on. An interesting bit of legislation is the european shellfish waters directive which obliges all local councils to maintain water quality in bays in which shellfish are farmed for human consumption...you'll not hear about that on salmonfarmmonitor or loughswilly. In fact what you will hear on those sites is a completely biased opinion in support of a particular agenda, some would say a hidden agenda.

Swithun said: "With a land based farm, the impacts can be (and usually are) much more controlled." come to Lough Sheelin in the summer and see how a great trout fishery was ruined by land based agriculture or how dogs have actually died and people have been warned of swimming in lakes due to enrichment from....you guessed it land based farms. What you get under fish farms is an area of enrichment where there is a reduction in the number of species but an increase in numbers of certain species (some animals do really well with lots of nutrients). But the effect is very localised. Now where do you see a similar situation but on a far grander scale? In the fields around you house of course...farmers have sprayed the once ecologically diverse countryside with fertilisers which reduces the amount of species down to one or at the most two grass types. A lot of these nice nutrients now pollute our groudwater and alter the ecosystem of our rivers and lakes, lovely. Then of course we have lost a heap of species which can't survive in this mono cultured field and simply dissappear - e.g. corncrakes.

Swithun, please don't take offence when i say this, but you really are being a hypocrite when you willingly eat industrially produced meat, grains, processed food etc. and refuse to eat farmed salmon.

Sandman i got the flatties on beaches in south & west donegal, i've tried to take a note of numbers (of lice per fish)over the years but haven't noticed any changes. Wrasse came from same areas too. Seen them on the very odd pollock.

Pete

i accept the effluent problem of fish cages but this can be minimised by careful siting of the cage, really swilly does not have the tidal flow -neither do many of the scottish loughs. judging by the fish that ive caught while tied to the cages at red bay the sea bed there is tip top, my best was 10 species in a day on unbaited feathers every thing from angler fish and plaice to cod and mackerel. yes the pesticides are fierce and realy bad news but where ever you get large concentrations of any animal/fish pest and disease will follow and to make farming pay im afraid chemical are a necessity. comared to the muck that land based farmers/industries throws into the rivers (and so the sea)i dont think that it is such a problem YET!
to go off topic a bit-- now that the north atlantic drift (gulf stream) is slowing down the number of eels reaching our shores are down by about 90% this is fresh water eel but i'm sure conger are suffering too.

I think we can all recognise the Risks, potential and actual damage done by Fish farms.... but are there any real benefits, beyond a few jobs, some export revenue? Fish Farms are there to make money not protect fish stocks.

Do the existence of fish farms actually reduce the demand for caught fish?

Once a farmed version is available should we ban commercial fishing of a species ?

Note the question marks..im not sure if any reserch has been done - some of you guys seem to know a lot about fish farms though !

But Ray, if we priortised food, heat, education etc. over Beckams latest haicut, Nike shoes, Invading Iraq and iPods in our Governmental and personal budgets then, yes, we would have to spend more on food but we would be paying less out on unnecessary stuff. Then we could pay the REAL price for food that does not require pesticides, fertilisers, antibiotics, growth hormones nor will it need genetic modification. It would also make shopping in the high street a more fun option - rather than PC World, Dixons, Currys, betting shop, charity shop we could have a load of more traditional shops selling farm produce. Imagine farmers working for a living rather than collecting money for leaving land alone. It was called set aside I think.

I'm not that paranoid to think that Salmon breedeers will start selectively breeding salmon like "fancy" (read mutilated) goldfish where genetic misfortune is being selected as a preference. Maybe cross salmon with a mud skipper and we can breed them in estuaries. What I am saying is that as a race our priorities are incorrect and maybe salmon being available everyday is wrong.

I for one am happy to say that I would rather not eat salmon (other than expensive wild) if fish farms were removed. I'm not too concerned about the visual aspect of fish farming, we have mans influence on the planet in our face 24/7 but any kind of farming will have an impact on the land or sea. What we can do is be sympathetic to our environs and think with our childrens future in mind rather than our desire for the latest gizmo.

Anyone seen the new Zziplex :D

Swithun, please don't take offence when i say this, but you really are being a hypocrite when you willingly eat industrially produced meat, grains, processed food etc. and refuse to eat farmed salmon.

Hi Pete,

No worries - and no offence taken. In reality, I don't eat industrially produced foor very willingly at all, but the reality of both cost and quality of organic is a bit prohibitive. I do both - but don't appreciate the options much. One point you are totally right on: I know squat about Ireland (well...I remember what my Grandmother told about Cork but...). I am surprised about what you say about your situation though.

I am not suggesting that we do not have pollution problems from terrestrial farms here. We do. But it is really quite regulated, and if farmers get caught, they are in trouble. The fines are substantial enough to make them wish they hadn't done it. Compare that with Marine Harvest for eg who got a £4k (GBP) fine for dumping a huge pile of infected salmon corpses and there just seems to be a pretty big discrepancy. The cost of propert disposal of that lot would have far exceded the £4k fine. The incentivation is clear then: pollute and pay the fine (if it happens - which mostly doesn't happen).

So - mrine farmers are largely allowed to pollute water. Terrestrial farmers are not. They use significant volumes of widely dispersed (dangerous) chemicals - as a matter of routine. Terrestrial farmers do not. Both however use animal feed from unsustainable and pretty damaging sources.

I'm also not sure that it is fair to suggest that either Bruce Sandison has a secret agenda or that he is unwilling to criticise the problems of shellfish farming. It's just that - for a number of reasons - he is focuses on salmon farms.

I caught a sea-trout last summer on the west coast of Scotland that was so liced, I could not believe it could still swim. Just down from a massive set of cages. I do not read of that happening pre-salmon farms, but stand to be corrected perhaps.

Cheers,


Swithun

swithun, if terrestrial farmers are not allowed to use chemicals what is it that they spray over the field outside my window 3-4 times a year? are they just watering it? and i'm not even counting the vast amounts of slurry that go over the land every spring much of which get washed straight into the river - all those cows/pigs/chickens create an awful lot of slurry and it has to go some where!
the sad fact is that there are an awful lot of people who all need to eat and have places to live and the earth is getting no bigger so we have to get more and more food of less and less land this means intensive agriculture is the only way to go. yes we could buy less ipods and not replace our PC just because it is 6months old and therefore "obsolete" -if most of you knew the spec of this computer you would laugh!! (3Gig hard drive) but every time you go into dixons or where ever and spend money you create a thing called an economy. the economy along with advances in technology which is itself fueled by the economy is what prevents us living like our greatgrand-fathers (working 26hours a day downt'pit and paying pit owner for the privildge of working there!).

Hi Ray,

I'll just say at the beginning - this is an excellent thread: a very wide set of views - and it is all well expressed and good tempered. That is so rare on web forums.

Anyway: from what I understand, the chemicals used on land are not as dangerous as those used in marine environments. Flowing water requires a significant volume in order to be effective and the chemicals tend to be pretty bad. On a field, they can be better targeted to just the area they need to hit - with small areas hit around them. They are also more controlled, and less toxic. I'm an accountant not a chemist, so I am paraphrasing stuff I've read. Happy to be corrected if that is wrong.

Where chemicals of any sort get into groundwater or a river, I am pretty sure that there is European legislation that can be used. If a farmer slurries a field and there is any level of run off into a water course, he can be prosecuted. Likewise with those who use (I think) Permethrin (the sheep dip stuff) and let it get into a water course. Yes - it happens too much. But it is an offence. Eutrophying a sea loch is not an offence. Nor, it appears, is pouring carcinogenic chemicals into one.

Which is why I make the distinction. I think we should be striving to improve all farming agri and aqua. I suspect that the aqua has the longer way to go though. Well - in England anyway... I totally agree about how we spend our money. Spend it better and we would all benefit. As would the environment.

Cheers,

Swithun

did you ever see any one dipping sheep? they are dressed up like a space man and i've been told that even a few drops on the skin give you "dippers flu" WHAT ABOUT THE SHEEP? are they immune? i know that at the start of BSE it was rumoured that warble fly treatment ( much the same as sheep dip)was the cause, (they are all organo-phosphates and really bad news). yes i know that i am seriously off topic here! but don't you think it strange that only the uk and ireland were really troubled by BSE?

just before christmas ten cormorants died of natural causes on our little trout river . now for the sums.... 1.5kg per bird per day = 15kg ... 15kg x 20 days = 300kg.that means that we have spared approx. 1200 trout that would be over the 9 1/2'' limit .now do you think for one moment that we can allow this to continue. our river would be wiped out in no time. you know what I think we should do with them.. :evil: :evil: :evil:

NATURAL CAUSES......10 OF THEM????
i'm sure that they eat other stuff, eels and the like either that or i take it that you can walk dry footed across the river on the backs of all the trout! seriously you should ship a few cormorants back as your river is seriously over stocked!!!!

Have to agree with Ray, 1200 saved in 20 days???? This is a way over simplistic view!

If the levels of small trout suddenly became a significantly bigger food source other species (including larger fish) would switch on to eating them big time reducing the number "saved", what about the competition for food amongst the surviving trout if there was suddenly a huge jump in population? How would this effect other animal and plant life in the river?, as i said before proper research is needed before action is taken.. i recognise that you stated natural causes and am not suggesting that any action was taken by you, im not practically a fan of birds on the whole (Alfred Hitchcock has a lot to answer for) but i think we need to be a bit clever when dealing with the environment and can not just jump on simple sums to justify culls or any other action.

But i don't think nothing should happen either and mother nature should be left to fend for herself (as some suggest) , im sure she would be fine in the end.. but we might not like the state of the fishing while she's working at it.

The options are:

Doing nothing and let Mother Nature take her course

Working with Mother Nature

Forcing Mother Nature along

Forcing Mother Nature to do our will.

Of all the options my preference would be working with mother nature and forcing her along a bit if the end result is ecologically sound.

By culling the cormorants would another predator (perhaps more voracious or carries a bug that kills an essential plant that the fish require) take it's place? Thats what we have to watch.

I agree, there needs to be a proper study of the Birds, the fish and a huge range of other environment factors:

Need to study the diet of the birds more closely, consumption levels and composition along the lines of

[url]http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/cormorant/lgalloo.pdf[/url]

allrounder - you could start collecting "pellets" and see what they are eating!

Perhaps there is no real problem.. maybe they are eating a range of species leaving more food for the remaining trout, we need to prove the overall negative effect before blaming the birds.

Need to study the amount of fish in the area, clear the area of birds (sure they could be scared away in the short term) and monitor changes

Monitor the effects

Look for other solutions, birds move…why have they suddenly moved to certain areas, can we fix problems elsewhere?

Should the stocks of fish be increased through other means (water quality, more adult fish allowed to return and spawn ect etc what effect would this have ??

Etc Etc Etc :arrow: (Insert research grant here) :D :D

History has shown us that we can’t afford to jump to conclusions and take un-guided actions, but doing nothing is also a poor choice.