Talk:Aquaculture of salmonids

Latest comment: 7 months ago by 2001:1C02:1990:A900:CD7D:4E60:B01:ADEF in topic Egg production

Pollution and toxins

edit

I have concerns about section 3.2

"Salmon farms are typically sited in pristine marine ecosystems which they then pollute. A farm with 200,000 salmon discharges more faecal waste than a city of 60,000 people. This waste is discharged directly into the surrounding aquatic environment, untreated, often containing antibiotics and pesticides."

The first sentence is a subjective statement without supporting citations.

It unsupported because is isn't true. 200,000 salmon at various ages would be fed 2 to 4,000 kg of feed per day (depending upon the size distribution and temperature) and 60,000 people would be on a starvation diet at < 100 gm/day or about 500 kcal. Deweaver (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)Reply


In the second sentence, how was this calculated? It cites a factsheet from the Seafood Choice Alliance which gave no details on where they got this info or how it was calculated? Using the term fecal waste and then directly comparing it to human waste without context is misleading. Salmonids do not produce fecal coliform bacteria (Spanggaard et al. 2000) as do mammals and birds. In this respect salmonid faeces does not pose the same health or environmental risks. Comparison to terrestrial loading (e.g. cities, farms) on the basis of individual nutrients such as nitrogen is a more objective approach. This is addressed in documents produced from the World Wildlife Fund's Salmon Aquaculture Dialogue which is referred to further in the article. --ReidGK (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Good to see you about again. That was a good job you did on Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture. The first sentence, above, was indeed a subjective statement, which I entered based on my observation of salmon farming applications in New Zealand. If in your experience, the statement is atypical, please feel free to just delete it. That's a good point on fecal coliform bacteria, and yes, the source is shaky. Do not hesitate to make changes to the article you think are appropriate. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Labeling requirements

edit

I just bought some farmed salmon from canada with the phrase "Fresh atlantic salmon FLT color" on the label. What does that mean? Are there requirements in the US or canada regarding this? 68.115.35.110 (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

With the name change

edit

Now that the article name has changed to include salmonids instead of salmon exclusively, there should be some mention of the chars Salvelinus, other Salmos, (Brown trout) and whitefish Coregonus species that are grown commercially. --Mike Cline (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

They could be mentioned in passing, but they do not seem to be significant producers. Lake whitefish is perhaps the most significant producer, but that amounts to only 12,000 tonnes a year and would not register on the graph. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Coho salmon

edit

The section on Coho salmon, especially about its life cycle, is inconsistent with both the cited source and the article. Most likely the information in this section applies to Pink Salmon not Coho. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

edit

This page has a lot of Dead Links.--75* 22:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Aquaculture of salmonids. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Wild versus farmed: Pollution and contaminants

edit

Are there more recent studies about health risks & benefits of both kinds of salmon? Those cited in the section are old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.141.248.61 (talk) 02:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Egg production

edit

So, it might be good to dedicate some words to the 'commodity chain' of for example trout farming. Non-organic farmers themselves typically buy the fertilized eggs from large egg producers. Since the non-organic farmers (in Europe at least) prefer all-female populations, the egg producers use hormone/testosterone feed to stimulate semen production in female fish. That way the fertilized eggs will have XX-chromosomes, always hatching female fish, which is exactly what the non-organic farmers want. Moreover, the fertilized eggs are heated and pressurized to make the offspring infertile, which aids their growth. 2001:1C02:1990:A900:CD7D:4E60:B01:ADEF (talk) 08:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply