Fisheries Committee on May 12th, 2010

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Hobson, I would like to talk about the recommendations found in your document. As for your last point, you seem to express a preference for land-based closed containment, that is, containment on land, if my understanding is correct. There are many types of containment: open cages, nets, closed containments of various sizes, and land containment.

Did I understand correctly that this is your preference in terms of containment methods?

[Eric Hobson]

If I got the translation properly, I would support the land-based, closed containment technologies. There are ocean-based technologies. I think you heard from Agrimarine earlier in one of your hearings. I'm sure they addressed their systems for ocean-based tanks. We feel that land-based tanks have the biosecurity you need to have an industry that can thrive and grow in British Columbia.

We're talking about full recirculated farms, where you actually treat the water. You take your first load of water into the farm. The replenishment rate every day is somewhere between 2% and 5%. So you're taking water and reusing it. You're treating it and filtering it.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

If I am not mistaken, the tests have already been conducted elsewhere, and land-based containment is, in a way, more economically challenging. In addition, there is another element to consider: temperatures can vary enormously in land-based containment. There are all kinds of factors to consider.

I was wondering if you have conducted an economic analysis of this issue. I understand that analysis can only tell us so much, but it is important for the solution to be based on a number of crucial considerations. I do not find that economic considerations are the most important factor.

Have you considered things from this angle, as well?

[Eric Hobson]

Can I let Andy Wright address that question? Thank you.

[Dr. Andrew Wright]

The answer is yes. In our study, which runs to 50 pages, the biology of the fish was very carefully considered in terms of growth rates, temperature, and the feed-conversion ratios. Our study took the exact growth rates that were provided by Stead in the Handbook of Salmon Farming. Our growth rate and work was based around 18 months grow-out at eight degrees centigrade. In-ocean, you typically see temperature variations, water variations, that impede growth. So although it's not embedded in our analysis for the economic support, our expectation is that growth rate of 18 months would be reduced to 15--maybe fewer--months, and because temperature stability is higher and oxygen is higher and optimal, fish condition would actually be superior to ocean-based fish.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

There are other elements you talk about in your document. You talk about regulations and monitoring. I understand that those two elements require resources for ensuring proper monitoring and compliance with the regulations. Even if we had the best regulations in the world, we could still find ourselves in situations where we are unable to gauge what is going on and intervene when necessary. That explains the disasters we are seeing all over the place.

When considering regulations and monitoring, are you also giving some thought to the resources required for implementing these elements properly?

[Eric Hobson]

The answer to that I think lies in the licensing fees that can be charged, and perhaps should be charged, to any aquaculture operation. My understanding is that licensing fees are fairly minimal right now for the open-net cage industry. Some things have changed in the last couple of years. One is that the price has increased dramatically for farm fish. A lot of the reason for that is because of the problems that have been occurring in Chile and Norway and other places in the world that have actually caused a decline in the production of salmon around the world for the first time in a long time.

My suggestion on that would be that it does need more resources. You have to regulate it better and you have to monitor it properly. That costs money. I think the money should come from the licence fees.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Orr, do you have anything to add to the questions I have asked our witnesses?

[Craig Orr]

Not particularly on that. I've read Dr. Wright's study. I was at the workshop on recirculating aquaculture. I believe the economics are there. We also have to keep in mind that it's been popular around the world in resource management to offload fees, if you will, onto ecosystem services, which is exactly why open-net cage salmon farming is cheaper. We let the environment deal with this and we don't do full-cost accounting in terms of the damage to wild fish, the damage to the people whose livelihoods and cultures depend on those fish. All of that should be factored into the economics if we're really concerned about the transition to closed-containment aquaculture. But if you put those factors in, we would have transitioned a long time ago.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

Mr. Donnelly.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to both panellists for your presentations.

I'll just start off in Ottawa with Dr. Orr's last comments and relate them to the earlier question about motivation and why a company would move to land-based closed containment, or any closed containment, when it's essentially cheaper to do otherwise or to look at open-net systems. Would it be fair to say that you're considering the ecological impacts and people's reaction to ecologically friendly products, and the value-added of pricing things like that?

Second, there was a comment made at an earlier committee meeting about life cycle analysis, that is, the carbon footprint, energy inputs, waste management systems, etc.

I'm wondering if you can comment on both of those things.

[Dr. Andrew Wright]

The economic analysis that we did at the back end of the technical analysis was based on both commodity pricing and premium pricing for people who were prepared to pay for fish that was chemical- and therapeutant-free and raised in a more sustainable manner. The answer for that is yes, because Overwaitea is getting a premium for the first land-based closed containment salmon that they're selling. So a market exists for that, and you have seen it in breadth in both the beef industry and chicken industry.

Moving to the footprint issue, I would argue that in British Columbia—particularly where we have hydro, which is the biggest footprint concern around close containment—we have an advantage, because our power is hydro-based. It's clean.

Power keeps coming up, and I would like to put some stats on the table so that people are very acutely aware of how much power you really need. I'd ask you to think about the industry at full scale, ten years out, with 100,000 tonnes of landed farms, closed containment salmon, and the power that would be associated with supporting that. In your minds, think of one, two, or four nuclear power stations—and you're probably doing a quick calculation about that. But you will be shocked to learn that you can build a 100,000-tonne industry on the back of 0.01 of a nuclear power station, a 10-megawatt plant. In British Columbia, we have Bute Inlet, one of the biggest run-of-river hydro facilities. It's a one gigawatt facility. It's equivalent to a nuclear power station. The average run-of-river project is about 50 megawatts. So we're talking about a very small amount of power to transition this industry. Please do not be mistaken about that fact at all.

My numbers are based on a very conservative design that comes in at seven kilowatt hours per kilogram of landed fish. The best designs from AKVA and AquaMaof require three kilowatt hours per kilogram of landed fish, which would mean that we're at even lower power. That puts you in the realm of one pulp mill of the total power needed for a whole 100,000-tonne industry. So from a footprint point of view, that's very important to consider.

I would also reflect on the fact that the current industry utilizes diesel fuel to transport feed in and fish out, and the total amount of energy required for that transportation is about a tenth of the numbers I've just provided—except that's diesel fossil fuel, not hydro or clean hydro.

So I would recommend that Peter Tyedmers' work be followed up, because his working methodology was excellent, but the data that he has put on the table has errors in it and is old. It was based on a ten-year-old design that pumped water through 60 vertical feet. The modern recirculating designs are incredibly efficient, because two or three feet of head at maximum is all that it is employed in the new designs. They are incredibly efficient, and that must be factored into your thinking.

Thank you.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

If I may ask one other question, if I have time, Dr. Orr, you mentioned you were at a sea lice conference. I'm wondering if you could just add any comment on why the conference is taking place now, who is there, and any further comments you wish to make to this committee.

[Craig Orr]

It's an international workshop that happens every year. It just happened to be in British Columbia this year, but, again, we're hearing all the learning from Europe in particular, which has a really hard time seemingly to penetrate on this coast. We seem to be pioneers here. We have to reinvent the wheel all the time too. Again, we've heard a lot from people who deal with chemical treatments of sea lice, which is the major pest. There are something like 300 million euros spent every year around the world combatting sea lice. That's a factor that's not taken into account in terms of open-net-cage aquaculture either in the analyses.

I do want to finish with one thing on change, because you brought that up, Fin. I'd like to say that humans are notorious for resisting change. They cling to outdated ideas and practices even though they know these are damaging. You can look at all kinds of human behaviours that are self-destructive, and I won't go into those, but there have been many studies looking at this from an ecological standpoint. One of the biggest drivers to get somebody to change is they finally get into a crisis so deep that they have to look themselves in the mirror and say they have to change.

We've had a crisis with our Fraser sockeye. We've had the worst returns on record in the last year on the Fraser River, and to Minister Shea's credit, she called an inquiry into the problems here. We've had a crisis with salmon farming on this coast, which is the main reason why we're seeing some change on this coast, and it's not happening fast enough to save certain stocks of fish. So we should be looking at why people resist change. There's lots of literature out there on that. But we do have a crisis, we have to change, and it has to happen fairly soon.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the testimony from our witnesses. I'm going to first of all start by saying how pleased I am to see, Eric, that you are using your own wherewithal and your own means to do this. I think it's commendable. As an Albertan, I do believe that good things always come out of Alberta. Good ideas come out of Alberta. It's nice to see you.

I have a similar situation to you. I'm a sport fisherman; I love sport fishing. My interest in being on this committee is primarily from that perspective, but my background as well.... So I wanted to say thank you for the work that you're doing and for the seemingly middle-of-the-road approach where you're actually trying to find a solution where we have what appears to me, and before this committee, very divided parties coming together. It makes it easier for policy analysts and policy setters like us to hear from all those sides. It's nice to hear it from somebody who comes from a more tactful approach in trying to find a legitimate solution to the issue.

I do have some questions for you. On the closed containment issue, I believe there are some significant barriers in the knowledge there. Andrew, I know that you're working hard on this. Perhaps you could elaborate on some of this for me. My understanding is that the business model includes, obviously, using the waste product for lettuce. I'm not sure that there's a gap in the marketplace for lettuce. I think flooding the marketplace with lettuce would probably drive the price down, which might affect your model.

I also think that your proposal suggests that there are various different stages of cohorts involved in the same pens, at the same time, in the same tanks. Salmonids are piscivorous, which means they eat each other. Also, I'm a farm boy from Alberta and I know from intensive livestock operations that you don't grow different sizes of animals in the same pen at the same time. That kind of thinking doesn't work. So if that's the case in your model, could you elaborate on that?

I'd be very curious to find out how Overwaitea has dealt with this. Obviously they're finding a market for this; they're selling this fish. From my experience with fish farming, if you take a freshwater-raised salmonid and compare that to a farm-raised saltwater salmonid, and you compare that to a wild saltwater salmonid, the taste and palatability of those fish across that spectrum varies significantly due to the various issues pertaining to their growth. I'm hoping that you can address some of those.

This is something that's never been brought up in any of these discussions--and I think Ron MacDonald was highlighting that. His fear, as part of the sablefish organization, was that farmed sablefish will be called the same thing as wild sablefish. We haven't had a discussion. At any rate, farmed salmon are called Atlantic salmon. If you read the literature out there, when you take a look at what happened to the Patagonian toothfish, it was sold as Chilean sea bass to distort feelings in the marketplace or to confuse the consumer. So we haven't had very much discussion about whether we're accurately labelling what consumers are buying.

I would appreciate anybody's input on that.

Also, Dr. Orr, I would like to know this. Pharmaceutical companies, from my understanding, are often looking for new ways to access the marketplace. Is there anything that you know of or that you could enlighten this committee with? I would imagine if a problem is presenting itself through sea lice resistance, a pharmaceutical company would be looking to fill that gap. Could you let us know if there's anything new that's being tested or that's being proposed in a push towards the market to head off what everybody seems to see as an inevitable situation?

Thank you.

[Dr. Andrew Wright]

Shall I go first, Craig?

The first question was the notion of multiple fish in one tank. That's not quite correct. If you get the time to look at the report, it's multiple cohorts in the same water volume or same treated water volume, but they're actually separated into growth classes in different tanks. Small fish never meet big fish. That is called sequential harvest, and it's a technique that's used in all the other closed-containment fish farm species, to keep the loading on the biofilter the same.

What is required is good biosecurity protocols when you bring your new smolts in, that they don't bring disease in that then wipes out the whole of your farm. So you have to have a holding tank to do that biosecurity. That's quite standard practice in the existing closed containment industry.

I wager I'm probably the only person in the room who's eaten land-based--

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

I hate to interrupt you. I just want some clarification on that point. Are you suggesting that the smolts are not coming from another biosecure facility? My understanding is that these things are reared and come from hatcheries.

[Dr. Andrew Wright]

Yes, for sure, but if you take the position that you're an isolated farmer and you're buying the stock in, you can believe that it might come from a biosecure facility, but—

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

You have no control over that.

[Dr. Andrew Wright]

—it's not yours.

We saw that in Chile with the ag-lime disease, coming through the ag-lime into Chile. Enough said, perhaps, on that.

The second question was with regard to the quality of the fish. I'm probably the only person in the room who has had the luxury of eating land-base-raised coho and ocean-based coho. I can tell you that I couldn't tell the difference.

In other species, such as barramundi, which are delivered fresher to the market because they've been raised in good-quality water close to market, the quality of the raised fish is actually superior to wild fish, because you can go from tank to table in under two days, whereas if it's harvested in another part of the world and flown across the world, the fish quality goes off. That is true of the barramundi market.

Third, you put a question mark around the production of lettuce. Lettuce is only used here as a placeholder to illuminate the value of the waste in terms of two things: how much you can grow, and put a value on it. So there's a whole range of crops that you could grow on the back end of these farms. It doesn't have to be lettuce, but in this work, the bioproductivity from a pound of waste into what it means in terms of growth has been documented, articulated, for lettuce.

The economics, by the way, stand on their own without hydroponics, but why would you throw $4 million away every year when it's there to be had?

Was that the full set of questions?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

I think you pretty much answered that.

My other questions were more along the lines for Dr. Orr, or perhaps yourselves as well, talking about the consumer labelling of salmon. But also, I would appreciate having an opportunity to have Dr. Orr respond to my questions before the time expires.

[Craig Orr]

Sure, I can do that.

Andy, do you want me to do the chemical resistance?

[Dr. Andrew Wright]

Go for that.

[Craig Orr]

I was at a session yesterday at Sea Lice 2010, called “Resistance”. It had titles such as “Reduced sensitivity to emamectin benzoate in a farm population of sea lice”, “Increased tolerance towards emamectin benzoate versus fitness in lab-reared sea louse”, etc.

The plenary talk was given by Professor Tor Horsberg, from the Norwegian School of Veterinary Science in Norway. He's a pharmacologist who has studied this for a number of years. He's a world authority. He showed us the problems that were happening in Norway. One of the things he said was that SLICE wasn't working in this last year. It's the last chemical that has been developed, and it was developed in 1999. So we're talking about something that's 11 years out of date now in terms of recent developments. He did say that they were working on vaccines for fish to deal with sea lice, but as far as he knew—and he should know—there was nothing in the pipeline for vaccines right now.

He was quite worried about the efficacy of SLICE, obviously, as were many of the other people. He talked about how they had to resort to other ways that were used in the past to deal with lice, including organophosphates like DDT and those kinds of things, and chitin disruptors.

One of the things that Norway does, too, is take boats around to these farms, closed boats, and they have a hydrogen peroxide bath that they put these fish in to kill the lice. But all these things have limitations on what they do in terms of killing lice, and Norway has a problem.

I also sat down to lunch yesterday with Dr. Karin Boxaspen, who's a major sea louse researcher in Norway. She said the only reason they actually saved some fish last year, in terms of the wild fish, is because they had an exceptional cold snap that killed off some of the lice. She said it would have been far worse without the weather assisting in terms of killing lice.

So we have problems, even though we spend 300 million euros a year—that's from the paper I told you about before, by Costello. We have considerable problems in killing lice off in a way that's sufficient to save wild fish.

Peter Heuch, who is a leading expert on the sea lice action plan that they have in Norway, was at the conference as well. He has shown that as farms get larger and larger, they have more and more problems with these chemical treatments. They just do not do the job, and they have been unable to recover their wild fish in Norway because of salmon farming.