It's very interesting.
We have always invited Ms. Inka Milewski of the Conservation Council of New Brunswick to come to our workshops. She decided not to come, and instead she preferred to cross swords, I would say, through the media, or maybe through your committee. It's too bad.
I would say it's partially true or nice editing. One time I had to write a rebuttal in the Telegraph-Journal in Saint John because she had cited an example. I told you it didn't work, she said, and as a matter of fact there is a new paper out that says it doesn't work. Unfortunately for Inka Milewski, I was a reviewer of that paper a few months before. So I knew the paper very well, and the sentence said that it doesn't work at higher concentration. That was omitted, or deleted. It was a classical curve where things work, work, work and they reach a plateau, and when there's too much organic it doesn't work. That's fine.
As an example, for sulphides, here is an example where there is a comparison. I don't know which site she's talking about, but I think when she said the island, she has numbers.... I don't know how she got these numbers, but let's say she has numbers. She's comparing production of a year-one site with little fish eating not much, so not many sulphides. Then she compares that to the same site in year two, where the fish are much bigger. If you look at the feed cycle for a site, year one is like that because it's little fish, and year two is like that because it's big fish.
Automatically, you will have higher sulphide numbers. When we are just in the process of equipping a site with a few mussel rafts, or a few seaweed rafts, you cannot say that it's a fully operating IMTA site. That's where I said previously that we are comparing apples and oranges, meaning it's not appropriate and it is a misleading conclusion.