World Salmon Farming Expected to Climb

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

World Salmon Farming Expected to Climb Foreign Fishery Developments Table 1.-World production of pen·farmed salmon. 1981-83 and 1990 projections. Salmon production (t) Species and nation 1981 1982 1983 1990 World Salmon Farming Atlantic salmon Norway 8,907 10,266 17,016 80,000 Expected to Climb United Kingdom 1,000 2,100 2,500 8,500 Ireland 80' 103 256 2,000 Canada 35 140 180' 1,000 Faroe Islands 100' 130 160 2,000 Sweden 80' 80' 100' 500 Iceland' 20' 30 50 300 The world production of pen­ (Scotland), which produced 2,500 t of Finland 30 30 30 200 farmed salmon doubled during France 2' 5' 10' 30 salmon in 1983, is the only country -------- 1981-83. Of the 24,500 metric tons (t) besides Norway with a large and suc­ Subtotal 10,234' 12,884' 20,302' 94,530 of farmed salmon produced in 1983, cessful Atlantic salmon farming in­ Pacific salmon almost 85 percent was Atlantic dustry. Production of pen-farmed Japan 1,150 2,122 2,900 8,000 salmon, Sa/mo safar (Table 1). While United States 450' 680' 900' 1,800 salmon in other countries is not Canada 176 400' 129' 450 the farming of Pacific salmon, On­ substantial, but continues to expand. Chile 60 80 100 3,000 France 60 80 80 500 corhynchus spp., has also been in­ New Zealand 2' 5' 10' 50 creasing, the 1983 production ac­ Norway counted for only 15 percent of the Norway is the world's most impor­ Subtotal 1,898' 3,392' 4,119' 12,800 total world production of pen-farmed tant producer of pen-farmed salmon. Grand tOlaP 12,132 16,276 24,421 107,330 salmon. Their production in ocean cages has , NMFS estimates. Salmon are farmed by two com­ increased dramatically during the past 2 Includes ocean ranching. mon methods. Cage culture involves decade, from only 170 t in 1973 to rearing salmon in enclosures until 17,000 t in 1983. During January-May they are ready for harvesting. The 1984, Norwegian fish farmers pro­ enclosures may be pens, cages, or duced almost 10,000 t of salmon, or Table 2.-Norweglan exports of 'armed salmon, by country, 1982-83. tanks. Ocean ranching involves releas­ 44 percent more than during the same Exports (I) ing immature salmon and harvesting period in 1983. If production con­ Change the fish upon their return to the point tinued to increase at the same rate, Country 1982 1983 (%) of release. This report is primarily Norway would have produced an France 2,710 4,293 + 59 concerned with cage culture, where estimated 24,500 t of farmed salmon United States 930 2,486 + 167 German y (FRG) 1,850 2,466 + 33 the harvest is predictable and can be in 1984. Future production is also Denmark 1,240 1,957 + 58 done according to market demands. projected to increase to an estimated United Kingdom 930 1,381 + 48 Sweden 590 824 + 40 The NMFS Branch of Foreign 50,000 t in 1986 and 80,000 tin 1990. Belgium 370 558 + 51 Switzerland 350 504 + 44 Fisheries Analysis projects that the Norwegian production, however, Spain 270 453 + 68 production of pen-farmed Atlantic will depend on several factors in­ Netherlands 120 182 + 52 Japan 40 134 +235 and Pacific salmon may exceed cluding the supply of smolts and com­ Finland 140 127 - 9 100,000 t by 1990 (Table 1). petition from other countries which Other 40 94 + 135 Norwegian salmon farmers alone ex­ produce farmed salmon. Ironically, Total 9,412 15,464 + 64 pect to produce 80,000 t of Atlantic Norwegian companies have assisted Source: Royal Norwegian Embassy, Washing· salmon, but farmers in other coun­ many of these countries in ton, D.C., 1984. tries also plan to increase their pro­ establishing salmon farms because duction significantly. These produc­ Norwegian Government regulations tion estimates, however, depend on limit the size of salmon farms. Since whether economic and environmental the regulations do not allow the com­ conditions will permit such expansion panies to expand operations in their creased from 9,400 t to 15,500 t, or by of salmon farming industries. own country, several Norwegian com­ 4 percent (Table 2). Observers believe Norway is by far the most impor­ panies have exported their salmon that the salmon exports increased tant producer of pen-farmed salmon. farming technology to other countries because of the high quality of the fish In 1983, the Norwegian production of where favorable environmental condi­ and its year-round availability. farmed Atlantic salmon totaled over tions or potential markets exist. The Norwegian Government is ac­ 17,000 t, or about 70 percent of the Farmed salmon has become an im­ tively assisting and regulating the estimated world production. Japan is portant Norwegian fishery export. In salmon farming industry. The the second largest producer, but the 1983, Norway exported 15,500 t of Government assists small-scale entire 2,900 t of salmon farmed in farmed salmon, or over 90 percent of farmers by guaranteeing loans 1983 was Pacific salmon for domestic its production. During 1982-83, through the Regional Development consumption. The United Kingdom Norwegian farmed salmon exports in- Fund and the Agricultural Develop- 90 Marine Fisheries Review ment Fund. The Government also Table 3.-Number of Norwegian salmon farms Table 4.-U.K. farmed Atlantic salmon pro· provides funds to research institutes and production. 1975-83. ductlon. 1975-1990. studying salmon farming methods Number of farms Year Quantity (t) Year Quantity (t) and reportedly pays a $0.50/kg sub­ Salmon Salmonl Production 1975 200' 1983 2,536 Year only trout (I) 1976 400' 1984 4,000' sidy to airlines for shipping fresh 1977 400' 1985 4,300' farmed salmon. 1975 18 27 862 1978 450' 1986 5,300' 1976 33 28 1,431 1979 520 1987 6,000' The Norwegian Government 1977 53 31 2,137 1980 598 1988 6,500' regulates salmon farming by limiting 1981 1,333 1989 7,500' 1978 65 51 3,540 1982 2,152 1990 8,500' the maximum size of fish farms. As a 1979 72 75 4,389 1980 91 82 4,312 1 Estimated. result, most Norwegian salmon farms , NMFS projection. are small; the average annual produc­ 1981 97 118 8,907 Sources: Highlands and Islands Development 1982 136 127 10,266 Board (1975-79 estimates); Department of tion of the 301 salmon farms (rain­ 1983 179 122 17,016 Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland bow trout, S. gairdneri, was also pro­ (1979-83 data). duced by 122 of the salmon farms) Source: Norwegian Central Bureau of Statistics. operating in 1983 was 57 t (Table 3). This policy is intended to ensure that small-scale fish farmers can make a living. Additionally, the many small­ ty of which come from the United sion of the Scottish salmon industry scale salmon farming operations States. The Japanese Government depends on the future success of these maintain an industry and a popula­ does not offer financial incentives to onshore projects. tion in previously underpopulated salmon farmers. The British Government provides coastal regions. little assistance to the salmon farms United Kingdom Japan apart from regional development sub­ The United Kingdom (U.K.) is the sidy programs, which together with Japan farms only Pacific salmon in only country outside Norway with a European Community (EC) assist­ ocean cages. Japanese pen farming of large and commercially successful ance, have provided some start-up salmon began in 1973, when 1 million Atlantic salmon farming industry. All and working capital. While the coho salmon, 0. kisutch, eggs were U.K. salmon fanning is located in Government does have some authori­ imported from the United States for Scotland, mostly in the protected ty over fish farming (primarily to con­ freshwater culture. In 1975, the fjord-like regions of the Western Isles trol fish diseases), there are no regula­ Japanese switched to marine pen­ and off the northwestern coast. Most tions preventing large corporations or farming because the salmon grew salmon is farmed by large companies foreign investors from operating a faster in the ocean. such as Marine Harvest and Golden salmon farm. As a result, many The Japanese production of pen­ Sea Products. Other important pro­ Norwegian companies are playing an farmed cohos has increased from 72 t ducers are McConnell Salmon, increasingly active role in the Scottish in 1978 to 2,900 t in 1983. Japanese Joseph Johnson, Wester Ross, and salmon industry. companies are expected to produce Lancatch. Many small-scale salmon 4,500 t of farmed salmon in 1984 and farms have also started commercial Ireland as much as 8,000 t in 1990. The production in the past few years. Ireland produces farmed Atlantic Nichiro' company produced about Farmed salmon production has in­ salmon by ranching and ocean cage half of the estimated 1984 production creased rapidly from only 600 t in methods. In 1983, Ireland produced (2,500 t), followed by Taiyo (1,000 t), 1980 to 2,500 t in 1983 (Table 4). 256 t of pen-farmed salmon, much of Nichimo (500 t), and other smaller Scottish officials are projecting that which was marketed in the United companies (500 t). Currently, the en­ production will be about 4,000 t in Kingdom. Several state-sponsored tire production is consumed domes­ 1984. Since there is a limited number and private organizations are begin­ tically and the farmed coho salmon of suitable sites, the production of ning salmon culture projects. The does not compete with Japanese farmed salmon is not expected to ex­ Irish Government granted the Salmon salmon imports from the United ceed 8,500 t in 1990.
Recommended publications
  • Thailand's Shrimp Culture Growing
    Foreign Fishery Developments BURMA ':.. VIET­ ,' . .' NAM LAOS .............. Thailand's Shrimp ...... Culture Growing THAI LAND ,... ~samut Sangkhram :. ~amut Sakorn Pond cultivation ofblacktigerprawns, khlaarea. Songkhla's National Institute '. \ \ Bangkok........· Penaeus monodon, has brought sweep­ ofCoastal Aquaculture (NICA) has pro­ , ••~ Samut prokan ing economic change over the last2 years vided the technological foundation for the to the coastal areas of Songkhla and establishment of shrimp culture in this Nakhon Si Thammarat on the Malaysian area. Since 1982, NICA has operated a Peninsula (Fig. 1). Large, vertically inte­ large shrimp hatchery where wild brood grated aquaculture companies and small­ stock are reared on high-quality feeds in .... Gulf of () VIET­ scale rice farmers alike have invested optimum water temperature and salinity NAM heavily in the transformation of paddy conditions. The initial buyers ofNICA' s Thailand fields into semi-intensive ponds for shrimp postlarvae (pI) were small-scale Nakhon Si Thammarat shrimp raising. Theyhave alsodeveloped shrimp farmers surrounding Songkhla • Hua Sai Songkhla an impressive infrastructure ofelectrical Lake. .. Hot Yai and water supplies, feeder roads, shrimp Andaman hatcheries, shrimp nurseries, feed mills, Background Sea cold storage, and processing plants. Thailand's shrimp culture industry is Located within an hour's drive ofSong­ the fastest growing in Southeast Asia. In khla's new deep-waterport, the burgeon­ only 5 years, Thailand has outstripped its Figure 1.-Thailand and its major shrimp ing shrimp industry will have direct competitors to become the region's num­ culture area. access to international markets. Despite ber one producer. Thai shrimp harvests a price slump since May 1989, expansion in 1988 reached 55,000 metric tons (t), onall fronts-production, processingand a 320 percent increase over the 13,000 t marketing-continues at a feverish pace.
    [Show full text]
  • Criterion 1: Inherent Vulnerability to Fishing
    Pacific Salmon Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) Sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) Image © Scandinavian Fishing Yearbook / www.scandfish.com Alaska February 25, 2005 Updated April 25, 2011 Matthew Elliott Consulting Researcher Disclaimer: Seafood Watch® strives to have all Seafood Reports reviewed for accuracy and completeness by external scientists with expertise in ecology, fisheries science and aquaculture. Scientific review, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program or its recommendations on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report. About Seafood Watch® Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch® program evaluates the ecological sustainability of wild-caught and farmed seafood commonly found in the United States marketplace. Seafood Watch® defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch® makes its science-based recommendations available to the public in the form of regional pocket guides that can be downloaded from www.seafoodwatch.org. The program’s goals are to raise awareness of important ocean conservation issues and empower seafood consumers and businesses to make choices for healthy oceans. Each sustainability recommendation on the regional pocket guides is supported by a Seafood Report. Each report synthesizes and analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and ecosystem science on a species, then evaluates this information against the program’s conservation ethic to arrive at a recommendation of “Best Choices,” “Good Alternatives” or “Avoid.” The detailed evaluation methodology is available upon request.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Columbia River White Sturgeon
    Columbia River Recreational Advisor Group Meeting January 14, 2020 4:00p-6:00p WDFW th 5525 S. 11 St. Ridgefield, WA 98642 Prepared by: Columbia River Joint Staff Columbia River Recreational Advisor Group Meeting WDFW - Ridgefield, WA 4:00p – 6:00p January 14, 2020 Agenda • Welcome and Introductions (5 minutes) o Advisor Group members and Agency staff • Update on white sturgeon (40 minutes) o 2019 population status and trends o 2020 fishery discussion • Update on Eulachon smelt (15 minutes) o Population trend o 2020 outlook • Summary of 2019 Salmon Fisheries (10 minutes) • Ocean Conditions & Forecasts (25 minutes) o 2020 forecast sheets o Preliminary 2020 spring/summer discussions • Additional Topics (25 minutes) o Other handouts • 2019 Returns – 2020 Expectations o Other/General discussion • Future Meetings o CRRAG February 11, ODFW-Clackamas, 4-6:00pm • Primary topic: spring fishery planning o North of Falcon #1, March 17, WDFW-Ridgefield, 10 am o North of Falcon #2, April 1, WDFW-Ridgefield, 10 am 1 Columbia River Recreational Advisory Group 2018-2020 Name City and State Phone Email Harry Barber Washougal WA 360-335-8505 [email protected] Lance Beckman Salmon WA 509-493-2006 [email protected] Ken Beer Cascade Locks OR 541-374-8477 [email protected] Pete Boone Forest Grove OR 541-760-1404 [email protected] Andrew Bradley Warren OR 971-235-4554 [email protected] Jim Bridwell Portland OR 503-791-7102 [email protected] Nathan Grimm Pasco WA 206-406-9040 [email protected] Kyle Hawes Vancouver WA 503-747-9604 [email protected]
    [Show full text]
  • Stillaguamish Watershed Chinook Salmon Recovery Plan
    Stillaguamish Watershed Chinook Salmon Recovery Plan Prepared by: Stillaguamish Implementation Review Committee (SIRC) June 2005 Recommended Citation: Stillaguamish Implementation Review Committee (SIRC). 2005. Stillaguamish Watershed Chinook Salmon Recovery Plan. Published by Snohomish County Department of Public Works, Surface Water Management Division. Everett, WA. Front Cover Photos (foreground to background): 1. Fish passage project site visit by SIRC (Sean Edwards, Snohomish County SWM) 2. Riparian planting volunteers (Ann Boyce, Stilly-Snohomish Fisheries Enhancement Task Force) 3. Boulder Creek (Ted Parker, Snohomish County SWM) 4. Stillaguamish River Estuary (Washington State Department of Ecology) 5. Background – Higgins Ridge from Hazel Hole on North Fork Stillaguamish River (Snohomish County SWM) Stillaguamish Watershed Chinook Salmon Recovery Plan ii June 2005 Stillaguamish Watershed Chinook Salmon Recovery Plan Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1 Purpose .................................................................................................................................1 SIRC Mission and Objectives ..............................................................................................1 Relationship to Shared Strategy and Central Puget Sound ESU Efforts .............................2 Stillaguamish River Watershed Overview ...........................................................................3 Salmonid
    [Show full text]
  • Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus
    Interpretative Fact Sheet Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) The following short article is from the Oregon Coast 101 Species collection used by the Guide and Outfitter Recognized Professional (GORP) training program. These articles are intended to provide interesting facts you can share with your clientele and add value to your services. An Interpretive Fact Sheet has been written about each species. We are currently uploading these blogs and creating the links. Come visit us! Tourism and Business Development College of Business, Oregon State University Extension - Oregon Sea Grant at http://tourism.oregonstate.edu/ Guide and Outfitter Recognized Professional Program https://www.GORPguide.org For more information about the GORP training program see: https://www.gorpguide.org/become-a-gorp-certified-guide Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) tourism.oregonstate.edu/coho-salmon-oncorhynchus-kisutch/ By colliek2 September 8, 2020 The Pacific Fishery Management Council finalized recommendations for the 2020 ocean salmon season recently. Forecasts for Columbia basin hatchery Coho Salmon abundance are very poor this year. Recreational Coho quotas were reduced from what was available in 2019. (https://www.dfw.state.or.us/MRP/salmon/) Coho that has returned to fresh water. (Courtesy of NOAA) It hasn’t always been this way The State of Oregon in February 1995 considered listing Coho, sometimes called Silvers, as a threatened or endangered species. At that time, findings did not justify the listing for either State or Federal designations. In 1998, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) authorized the first selective hatchery Coho (fin-clipped) fisheries. These selective fisheries allowed limited, but successful, targeted Coho salmon fisheries to resume the development of Coho.
    [Show full text]
  • Pacific Salmon: King of California Fish
    Pacific Salmon: King of California Fish A Challenge to Restore Our Salmon Resources of the Future or hundreds of years, Pacific salmon F have been a part of California’s natural landscape. Magnificent, resilient and ever- determined, they face incredible odds to travel from their inland birthplace to the open ocean, where they mature for several years before making the perilous journey back home to spawn at the end of their lives. These amazing fish serve as an icon of the state’s wild and free rivers, reflecting the spirit and tenacity of California’s earliest inhabitants. But over the past 100 years, the numbers of salmon have been dropping. In 2008 and 2009, the population of California’s Central Valley Chinook salmon was so low that the state had to close salmon fisheries for the first time in history. Businesses failed, traditions were lost and anglers were mystified. In an attempt to decipher the reasons for this decline—as well as to collaborate on ways to reverse the trend—many state and federal agencies, universities, consulting groups and non-governmental organizations banded together. The California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) plays a lead role in these efforts to restore salmon populations. The cost and the effort required to initiate change are enormous, calling for a pooling of effort, intellect and financial resources. Only cooperative and innovative fisheries management coupled with habitat restoration and public education about our natural resources can reverse the downward trend in California’s salmon populations. Classifications of Salmon The term Pacific salmon comprises several species, but two types in particular are declining in number in California: Chinook (also known as king salmon) and coho.
    [Show full text]
  • National Strategy for the Survival of Released Line-Caught Fish: a Review of Research and Fishery Information
    NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR THE SURVIVAL OF RELEASED LINE-CAUGHT FISH: A REVIEW OF RESEARCH AND FISHERY INFORMATION FRDC Project 2001/101 McLeay, L.J, Jones, G.K. and Ward, T.M. November 2002 South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI) PO Box 120, Henley Beach, South Australia 5022 ISBN 0730852830 NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR THE SURVIVAL OF RELEASED LINE-CAUGHT FISH: A REVIEW OF RESEARCH AND FISHERY INFORMATION McLeay, L.J, Jones, G.K. and Ward, T.M. November 2002 Published by South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences) © Fisheries Research and Development Corporation and SARDI. This work is copyright. Except as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), no part of this publication may be reproduced by any process, electronic or otherwise, without specific written permission of the copyright owners. Neither may information be stored electronically in any form whatsoever without such permission. DISCLAIMER The authors do not warrant that the information in this report is free from errors or omissions. The authors do not accept any form of liability, be it contractual, tortious or otherwise, for the contents of this report or for any consequences arising from its use or any reliance placed upon it. The information, opinions and advice contained in this report may not relate to, or be relevant to, a reader’s particular circumstances. Opinions expressed by the authors are the individual opinions of those persons and are not necessarily those of the publisher or research provider. ISBN No. 0730852830 TABLE
    [Show full text]
  • The Feasibility of Crop Insurance for Saltwater Aquaculture Contract Number: D11PX18749
    The feasibility of crop insurance for saltwater aquaculture Contract number: D11PX18749 Draft report prepared for Risk Management Agency, USDA September 2011 Promar International 333 N. Fairfax Street, Suite 202 Alexandria, VA 22314 USA Tel:(703) 739-9090 Fax:(703) 739-9098 The feasibility of crop insurance for saltwater aquaculture Draft report prepared for Risk Management Agency, USDA CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I SECTION 1: THE FEASIBILITY REVIEW 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Objectives 1 1.3 Scope of study 1 1.3.1 Species 1 1.3.2 Types of aquaculture production reviewed 1 1.4 Feasibility study approach 2 1.5 The review of documentation in the NRMFPA 4 1.6 Interviews and specialist support 6 SECTION 2: US AQUACULTURE SECTOR CONTEXT 7 2.1 Global aquaculture development 7 2.1.1 Global production 8 2.1.2 US production 11 2.1.3 Consumption 11 2.1.4 Global trade 12 2.1.5 Key factors affecting demand in mature markets 13 2.1.6 Asia dominates sub-tropical and tropical aquaculture production 14 2.2 The future 16 2.2.1 The US competitive position and potential 18 SECTION 3: AQUACULTURE SYSTEMS 25 3.1 Ponds 25 3.2 Cages or net cages 26 3.3 Recirculating systems 27 3.4 Offshore aquaculture 33 3.5 Biosecurity 34 i 3.6 Aquatic animal health products 37 3.7 Causes of death in aquaculture 39 SECTION 4: AQUACULTURE INSURANCE 40 4.1 The previous review of aquaculture insurance 40 4.2 Aquaculture crop insurance – the private insurer’s perspective 41 4.3 RMA insurance plan design issues 43 4.3.1 Insurability and determinability 44 4.3.2 Measurability 48 4.3.3
    [Show full text]
  • Rainbow Trout
    COHO SALMON­ (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Common Names: Coho salmon, coho, silver salmon, blueback, sea trout Lake Michigan Sport Catch in Wisconsi n : 75,000‐200,000 per year Preferred Temperature Range: 54‐57 ºF, 12‐14 ºC Predators for Adults – Sea Lamprey, humans for Juveniles – Larger carnivorous fish, birds, and mammals Length: 11‐26 inches Weight: 5‐12 pounds State Record: 8/17/75; 24 pounds, 6 ounces from Lake Michigan Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Bureau of Fisheries Management PUBL‐FM‐107 08 March 2008 Identification: Adults are steel‐blue to slightly green on the back, brilliant silver on the sides, and white on the belly. There are small black spots on the back, sides above the lateral line, base of the dorsal fin, 2 and upper half of the caudal fin. Coho differ from upstream migration because there is no natural the Chinook and other salmonids of the Great reproduction of cohos in the Lake Michigan Lakes by having the inside of their teeth set in tributaries of Wisconsin. Thus, the stocking white gums, their tail slightly forked with spots on program is essential to maintain the salmon the top half, and having 12‐15 rays in their anal fin. fishing in Lake Michigan. Angling for coho begins in mid‐April in Distribution: Native to the Pacific Coast southern Wisconsin (Kenosha) and moves from southern California to northern Alaska and in northward as the season progresses. By far, the Asia south to Japan. Attempts to establish coho most successful method used to catch coho salmon salmon in the Great Lakes date back to 1873.
    [Show full text]
  • Attention California Ocean Salmon Anglers
    Attention California Ocean Salmon Anglers Please check your catch! Coho salmon are frequently contacted in California’s ocean fisheries. Although some of these salmon may have originated from Oregon or Washington, many are California coastal coho salmon, which are protected under the Endangered Species Act. Thus the retention of coho salmon is PROHIBITED in all California ocean fisheries. Please take the time to correctly identify each salmon caught before removing it from the water. All coho must be released. *Photo by CDFW Warden Bob Aldrich Help avoid contacting coho salmon: Rig to fish deeper - coho are more often in the top 30 feet of water. Fish nearshore for Chinook - coho are usually more offshore. Use large lures that select for larger Chinook and reduce coho catch. For additional information, please check the CDFW website at www.dfg.ca.gov/marine/oceansalmon.asp or call the Ocean Salmon Hotline at (707) 576-3429 Note: A few pink salmon have been caught in past seasons, usually in odd numbered years. Pink salmon are generally smaller than Chinook and coho salmon and can be identified by the large, oval- shaped spots found on their back and on both lobes of the tail fin. Their scales are very small and number over 168 in the row above the lateral line. The minimum size limit in California for pink salmon is the same as Chinook. The daily bag/possession limit remains 2 salmon of any species except coho. .
    [Show full text]
  • HOW to IDENTIFY the FIVE SALMON SPECIES Found in the KODIAK ISLAND/ALASKA PENINSULA AREA
    HOW TO IDENTIFY the FIVE SALMON SPECIES found in the KODIAK ISLAND/ALASKA PENINSULA AREA KING (CHINOOK) SALMON: COHO (SILVER) SALMON: Greenish-blue Blue-gray back with silvery sides. Small, irregular- back with silvery sides. Small black spots on the back, shaped black spots on back, dorsal fi n, and usually on dorsal fi n, and both lobes of the tail. usually on Black mouth with white upper lobe gums at base of teeth on of tail lower jaw. only. Spawning coho salmon adults develop Black mouth with black gums greenish-black heads and dark brown to at base of teeth on lower jaw. maroon bodies. Salmon mouth illustrations courtesy of California Department Fish and Game SOCKEYE (RED) SALMON: Dark blue-black back with silvery sides. No distinct Spawning spots on back, king salmon dorsal fi n, adults lose their or tail. silvery bright color and take Spawning sockeye salmon adults develop dull on a maroon to olive brown color. green colored heads and brick-red to scarlet bodies. CHUM (DOG) SALMON: Dull gray back PINK SALMON (HUMPIES): with yellowish-silver sides. Very large spots on the back No distinct spots on back and large black oval blotches or tail. Large eye pupil— on both tail lobes. Very small covers nearly the entire eye. scales. Spawning adults take on a dull gray coloration on the back and Spawning adults develop olive green upper sides with a creamy white coloration on the back with maroon color below. Males develop a sides covered with irregular dull red pronounced hump. bars. Males exhibit many large canine- like teeth.
    [Show full text]
  • Top 10 Species Groups in Global Aquaculture 2017
    Top 10 species groups in global aquaculture 2017 Written by Junning Cai,a Xiaowei Zhou,a Xue Yan,b Daniela Lucentea and Camilla Laganaa a Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) b Chinese Academy of Fishery Sciences (CAFS) reduce to 10,5pt so until note in p.2 Highlights (2017) Freshwater fishes – Carps, barbels and other cyprinids: #1 species group, accounting for a quarter of global aquaculture production quantity (112 million tonnes) and value (USD 250 billion) in 2017; including 38 ASFIS species items farmed in 92 countries (or territories); four carp species (grass carp, silver carp, common carp and bighead carp) are among the top 10 ASFIS species items by quantity and/or value. – Tilapias and other cichlids: 5.25 percent (#4) of world aquaculture by quantity and 4.42 percent (#4) by value; the most popular species group farmed in 127 countries; Nile tilapia is the #9 ASFIS species item by quantity and #8 by value. – Catfishes: 4.93 percent (#7) of world aquaculture by quantity and 4.24 percent (#5) by value; including 27 ASFIS species items farmed in 86 countries. – Freshwater perch-like fishes: 2.85 percent (#9) of world aquaculture by value; a high-value group, including nine ASFIS species items farmed in 30 countries. – Freshwater fishes nei: 2.19 percent (#10) of world aquaculture by quantity; including miscellaneous WAPI FACTSHEET WAPI freshwater fishes farmed in 65 countries. Diadromous fishes – Salmons, trouts, smelts: 3.11 percent (#9) of world aquaculture by quantity and 8.94 percent (#3) by value; a high-value group, including 20 ASFIS species items farmed in 83 countries; Atlantic salmon is the #2 ASFIS species item by value.
    [Show full text]