One of the initial reactions to the publishing of the Farm Animal Welfare Council's report on fish farming was on the length of time it had taken to produce. And even then it needed considerable updating and adaptation. Now, early in the New Year, the Soil Association is publishing its rules for the production of organically farmed fish, and like the FAWC report, it has taken just over five years to produce.
Part of the reason for the long period of production of such reports is that so many differing people are consulted to give an input to the final document. In the case of the Soil Association however, the significant factor was the strength of the call for a set of rules for organic production. Clearly there is an interest in organics as applied to fish, particularly salmon. Although it may be a comment on the degree of intensification of current farming practices and all that goes with such intensification, it also expresses the desire of small farmers to find a nice specialisation area which suits small farm practice, and where larger farmers cannot compete.
Certainly salmon farming in all countries now shows very firm signs of size differentiation. Fish food companies are targeting the four or five main companies in each country and offering very substantial discounts for large tonnage orders. To a certain extent it has been going on for the past few years but the targeting and discounts offered are now far more intense. This means that smaller company costs of production can be - and often are - nearly 30 per cent higher than larger company production costs, no matter what hard work savings are tried. As I have said before, it is all so reminiscent of the post-war chicken industry. Nevertheless, some areas of specialisation do exist where initiative can pay off. Apart from the organic possibilities there is something to be gained from breeding. I know companies of medium size already trying to specialise in ova production. But considerable concerns are becoming apparent in the keeping of broodstock. Firstly, based on a comparison with five years ago, broodstock fertility has dropped by over 10 percent. I know one ova producer who has taken action and imported a special broodstock ration from Norway. The use of this ration stopped the deterioration of fertility, but did not increase ova size which is also reducing each year, even when taken from third or fourth year fish of over 20kg.
As a side issue it is interesting that a special ration had to be imported despite so many prime feed producers manufacturing in Scotland to satisfy the main users. Specialist requirements do not represent a large enough tonnage to interest compounders but do represent an important customer requirement which is currently under-supplied, both in terms of content and volume.
Much of the ova produced in Scotland and Ireland goes to Chile to support the ever increasing production tonnage there. This is an interesting dilemma for the SSGA to sort out when the tonnage, mostly originating from Scottish stock, appears in Europe in competitive amounts.
An interesting genetic factor of growth applies here since the Chilean industry's geographical position in the southern hemisphere enables them to have ova every six months, taking into account their own ova when these are seasonal.
A similar arrangement has been attempted by Scottish hatcheries, but very much frowned upon on health grounds. Tasmanian trout ova have not proved a big success, nor have their salmon ova, yet I believe they are the only acceptable source of salmon import from the southern hemisphere. I am sure that the ova importation will not last long unless considerable improvements are made on the genetic basis.
The similarity of the present salmon farming industry to the past development of the chicken industry, is important, and I wonder if the SSGA fully realises all the implications of this. It is the farmers who control their association, but the public perception of the SSGA is not all that it might be. The association is seen by many to be secretive over factors that affect consumer safety (Ivermectin use), fish welfare (which affects flesh quality) and many other farming practices that affect the value of the product. I recognise that the association is run by the farmers for the farmers, but the only way to survive is to realise the prime importance of customer confidence. Seeing explanatory press articles on salmon farming practice retrospectively of any actions causing public criticism does not build consumer confidence in the product.
Neither is there much confidence when so much is made of the association trying to fix the price of Scottish salmon. This cannot bode well for the industry as a whole but especially for the few remaining independent farmers who just survive now and have only a hard working year ahead.
I do not wish to end the year, for I write this in December, on such a dismal outlook. I suggest that, like the chicken industry, there are some very worthwhile areas of farming that require great specialisation. Just as in the processing field, specialisation can give the best future for real entrepreneurs. And that, in the salmon world, involves a lot of people, for it is entrepreneurial activity that got this industry into its rightful prominent position in Scotland's economy.
(excerpts from Hugh Horrex in Fish Farmer, 20(1):18, January/February, 1997)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------