« May 2007 Table of Contents 
Point of View: Farmed fish no substitute for wild
By Terry Johnson
May 01, 2007
Two recent Point of View columns on farm-reared fish contain
statements that beg a response. In February, Philip Walsh
defended farmed salmon, and in March, National Fisheries
Institute President John Connelly offered the view that
aquaculture promotes wild stock sustainability. My main concern
lies with Mr. Walsh's piece.
I'm not attacking farmed salmon, per se. There is a place
for wild and farmed. People who value price over quality,
uniformity over character, appearance over flavor, or simply
don't know any better, are welcome to farmed salmon.
But Walsh made two statements that are simply untrue. He
characterized wild salmon as a "seasonal delight" that "does
not provide...the benefits of the year-round supply of farmed
salmon." High-quality wild salmon is available year round.
Perhaps he meant fresh wild salmon. A myth continues to persist
that a fish sitting for days on ice is fresher and superior to
one that was flash frozen at sea or in a modern shore plant
only hours after harvest.
More egregious, however, is the claim that without farmed
salmon, "pressure on wild stocks would have a severe impact."
Walsh appears unaware of the role of fisheries management,
which limits catches to the harvestable surplus - the
production of stock that is above the level needed to maintain
maximum sustainable yield. Market
demand is not a factor in
determining harvests. Farmed fish or no, harvest may not exceed
what the stocks will support, and fishermen continue to take
what's allowed. They just get paid a lot less. For decades
Alaska wild salmon have returned in near record numbers under
sound management.
Where wild salmon are depleted, habitat loss - not
overfishing - usually is the cause. The availability of farmed
salmon is more likely to exacerbate than alleviate that
problem. When the public and politicians believe there is a
ready substitute for a natural salmon resource there is less
incentive to protect wild salmon habitat.
Connelly wrote, "Farmed seafood takes pressure off of the
world's fisheries." In subsequent correspondence with me,
Connelly referred to the problem of illegal, unregulated and
unreported fisheries. It is plausible - if unproven - that in
some cases a farmed substitute could kill the market for pirate
fisheries products.
But I question Connelly's assertion that aquaculture is
helping the domestic wild-capture fisheries to survive. Each
innovation or policy change makes winners and losers. Seafood
suppliers, and the corporations that own fish farms, have won
handsomely on finfish aquaculture; commercial fishermen have
lost proportionally. Part of my work in marine extension is
trying to help fishermen survive and recover from the
devastating impact aquaculture has had on the salmon
industry.
I endorse the "one big family" view of the seafood industry
and agree that its players should avoid infighting. Aquaculture
advocates have a story to tell, but they should stick to the
facts. The myth that aquaculture substitutes for wild harvest
in the marketplace and therefore promotes sustainability should
be laid to rest.
Terry Johns on is a professor of fisheries with the
University of Alaska's Sea Grant Marine Advisory Program