“Land-based ventures can be profitable, but the risk is still too high”. “We haven’t seen stable production yet” which is important to note as the RAS industry is in its infancy and no one has yet to show they can repeatedly produce salmon, cycle after cycle, year after year.
Nordic’s recently released power mix and usage numbers are clear, Maine is the wrong place for RAS based salmon farmers.
Does Nordic Aquafarms – or anyone for that matter – have the necessary experience to risk such a large project?
Energy, off-flavor, large mortalities, lack of skilled employees and a community willing to accept risk are just some of the challenges land-based salmon farmers face.
It seems wise investors would be concerned that RAS’s enormous and constant power requirements and the likelihood that electricity will only get more expensive going forward is reason plenty to think of investing elsewhere.
IntraFish reports today that “Land-based salmon farming’s dirty little secret” is the problem with their product’s odor stating that “Earthy and musty flavors continue to be an issue for land-based salmon producers” and wonders “Can it be solved?”.
Compare nut trees to either net pen or land based salmon farming and it’s clear; truly sustainable good nutrition is possible without such issues as animal welfare, local environmental damage and heavy carbon footprint.
RAS’s Achilles’ heel and Seafood Watch’s senior program manager Ryan Bigelow admits they recommend RAS to their consumers however “they haven’t considered the environmental cost of energy use in that assessment.”
While Nordic Aquafarms claims “the local opposition is vastly overstating the carbon footprint from land-based seafood in Maine based on faulty assumptions and misleading conclusions” it appears Nordic Aquafarms is vastly incorrect on their all important power mix number.
An “environmentally friendly solution to an important issue” and should be able to “skip environmental assessment?