Dissemintaion of information about commercial seaweed harvesting and its abuses
Here is an article in Norwegian on Trawling – (from Jens)
click on image for full size
http://www.imr.no/temasider/redskap_og_teknologi/tral/bunntral/bunntraling/miljoeffektar_av_botntraling/nb-no article in full.
What I find most interesting about this is the difference in the information in this article and this one – this is very short and just a little part of a much larger piece
It is almost as if the information is being filtered. Now who would benefit from that?
Following the various debates on trawling it is clear that Norway has a 20 kilometer zone inside which no bottom trawling is allowed.
The details I have not been able to firmly ascertain but reading the Wikipedia article on trawling some things begin to make sense
Double click on image to enlarge.
One major effect of bottom dredging is the disturbance of sediments
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/search?q=bottom+trawling
The re suspension of sediments means the release of chemicals back into nature
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0269749112003284 This is a report on just this.
Double click to read snip
We have nothing on the effects of continual trawling in the seaweed beds but I cannot imagine there is a major difference here – this occurs along the entire coast including bird reserves.
Could this be why it is illegal to land blue halibut from Bodæ to Lofoten, or outside of Lofoten – they are contaminated by pcbs, but nobody seems to be aware of where these chemicals come from.
https://www.nrk.no/nordland/stenger-omrade-for-blakveitefiske-1.8139255
double click to read
Norway is a country well aware of any major marine disturbance so why is this allowed – perhaps this article may give some answers
https://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/frykter-rokkestyrt-havforskning/65211190
We also found some anomalies at the last meeting on Taretråling in Trondheim – there seems to be some confusion about the rights of these trawlers
http://stopptt.com/final-day-of-the-trondheim-seaweed-harvesting-meeting/
It seems even the most senior in the fiskeriedirektoratet whose job it is to regulate the activities of these boats are more interested in protecting their activities then they are in regulating them.
Seems strange that ordinary trawlers have such strict regulations whereas Seaweed trawlers have every difficulty removed, including priority over ancient rights belonging to our fishermen.
It appears many of Norway’s major institutions are governed by industrialists involved with exploiting marine resources. This is quite understandable and in fact common – however the cost in terms of health to individuals and the state and indeed the ultimate cost should their activities impact nature in the way we are all warned about would dwarf any benefit accrued to society or to the individuals concerned.
Over the last few years I have been studying seaweed and its harvesting worldwide on the internet.
A number of things stand out very clearly through contacts with universities, businesses the scientists concerned and many state and private organizations involved with marine protection and welfare –
The first is that there is no coordinated information on seaweed harvesting, its effects and worldwide activities.
Some of the state organizations are amazingly ill-informed.
There seems to be no information on the effects of over-harvesting, and very little historical data.
Universities and researchers seem to be so focused on parts of their particular subject that they seem to be completely unaware of major issues directly concerned with their subject coming from other major research institutions and organizations freely available on the internet. Many research subjects are duplicated.
Research is dependent on complete openness and honesty – good researchers rely on status and qualifications. If facts and figures are called into doubt then the credulity of the scientists involved is also called into doubt – status is very important.
The scientific world is extremely conservative in outlook and approach – whilst this is a plus for integrity it is open to exploitation.
Information is easy to control as it relies on funding, many of the Norwegian state funded research institutions have industrialists sitting on their boards.
Most environmental problems seem to be involved with business in one way or another.
The penalties for withholding information or falsifying information seem to be very minor. Any large concern caught lying can carry on with business as normal.
Public outlook and awareness is exploited by organizations and businesses involved with marine harvesting to cover up the effects of their activities.
It seems that the famous bird reserve on Runde is having problems. Some species of birds have nearly completely disappeared and others are in trouble.
https://naturvernforbundet.no/naturogmiljo/import/sjofugl-pa-randen-av-stupet-article9780-1009.html
The article mentions climate change and the warming of our seas as being responsible for the change in fish prey, but no mention at all of Norway’s biggest marine industry currently raking the entire seaboard for seaweed.
The connection perhaps requires research but the big question is first is there any research in this direction and second if there was and the result was positive, would it be published?
It is interesting to note that Peru and Chile had big problems with sea life in 2011
Big concerns involved with seaweed harvesting there including our FMC BIOPOLYMERS – there are a number of theories about this but the fact is the animals appear to have died of starvation.
Thiamine deficiency can do this and the symptoms are difficult to diagnose – this can come about even from some species of prey fish such as anchovies and herring – their gut from time to time can contain thiaminase which destroys thiamin
http://lan.sagepub.com/content/35/suppl_1/57.full.pdf
Articles are not too difficult to find.
We don’t know the mechanisms involved with continual seaweed harvesting in the same areas – we need a great deal more research – but if our seabirds and mammals start dying in numbers then one can say that the same is happening here and there is one common factor.
This is from the county governors office in Telemark. The first bit is from Hartvig Christie – essentially is says that seaweed is an essential part of the ecosystem. As the plants die the mass of plants have an important part to play in the ecology of the ocean. Mengden såkalt biomasse som produseres i tareskogene i nasjonalparkområdene er beregnet il 60 000 tonn hvert år The amount of biomass produced by seaweed in Jomfruland national park area is estimated at around 60,000 tons per year – this figure is interesting in that our local seaweed harvesters here at Smørholm Say they take in 500 tons per day – or about 50,000 tons per year (below is from their website). Normal dagslast pr båt er på ca 125 tonn og altså samlet rundt 500 tonn pr dag. I løpet av året leveres det rundt 50.000 tonn fra Smørholmen. You can read it for yourself here http://www.kommunenvar.no/?div_id=54&pag_id=55&art_id=1180
There are supposed to be at least 5 places on the Norwegian coast doing the same – in fact i think there are more but i have limited facts. Considering that at least 5 times the amount harvested is officially left loose – removed from the rocks – then there are some frightening consequences possible from this. Gunnar larsen from the Fiskeriedirektoratet mentions that the seaweed forest can have a strong effect on enrichment of the sea on light and even climate change Gunnar Larsen fra Fiskeridirektoratet hadde en god gjennomgang av ressursgrunnlaget for fiskeriene i Telemark og hvordan de utvikler deg, blant annet i lys av klimaendringer og overgjødsling Is it possible that there is a growing concern about the state of seaweed on our coastline? Jomfruland nasjonalpark
>
Del: Facebook | TwitterSkriv ut
Stortare. Foto: Øystein Paulsen
Foto: Foto: Øystein Paulsen / Foto: Øystein Paulsen Det var for så vidt noe vi visste, men vi ble fascinert da Norsk Institutt for Vannforskning (NIVA) og Fiskeridirektoratet la fram sine rapporter om naturgrunnlaget i sjø og fiskeri sist torsdag. Foto: Øystein Paulsen Publisert 07.04.2014
av fmtegma Hartvig Christie fra NIVA fortalte engasjert om produksjonen i havet. Han la spesielt vekt på de store tareskogområdene som leverer store mengder næring og energi til både dypområdene og til strandsonen. Mengden såkalt biomasse som produseres i tareskogene i nasjonalparkområdene er beregnet il 60 000 tonn hvert år. Det gir mat og næring – hele året, ikke bare som plantemateriale men også med store mengder snegler og krepsdyr som i neste tur er mat for fisk. Tareskogene leverer økosystemtjenester som blant annet er viktig for fiskeriene. Det er grunn til å tro at tareskogene ut Jomfruland er svært viktige for produksjonen av reke i dypområdene utenfor. Rekefisket er bærebjelken i fiskeriene på Telemarkskysten. Gunnar Larsen fra Fiskeridirektoratet hadde en god gjennomgang av ressursgrunnlaget for fiskeriene i Telemark og hvordan de utvikler deg, blant annet i lys av klimaendringer og overgjødsling. Det foregår en omstrukturering i fiskeriene langs hele norskekysten med færre, men mer effektive fiskere og båter. Fiskeri er fortsatt viktig som næringsveg i både Kragerø og Bamble, selv om det nå foregår på annen måte enn for noen tiår siden. Nå er trålfiske etter reke det aller viktigste. Det gir også bifangster av sjøkreps, torsk og andre fiskeslag som er etterspurt. Fiske etter leppefisk på grunne områder har blitt viktig de siste årene. Leppefisk er «manikyrer» som fjerner lakselus fra laks i oppdrettsanlegg på Vestlandet og i Trøndelag. 
Just a little footnote – Our little group STOPPTT:COM has probably done more direct action about taretråling than any other environmental organization with several prosecutions under our belts – this is because we do research and spend time monitoring what is going on. Over the next few years this issue will grow in importance and bigger organizations will become involved. Until then remember that you can do something – ask your political representatives what they know about this matter – find out if they have read any papers or just have been told – write on our facebook side or send us a message at stopptt@stopptt.com – every little helps.
All animals require vitamins.
Probably the most important is vitamin b1 or thiamin.
We were alerted to the thiamin deficiency syndrome by a large environmental group we work with in Norway.
https://www.pnas.org/content/106/29/12001.full
There were a number of strange reports included – land mammals and birds were also dying – so why – this could be a very reasonable answer
http://www.ansci.cornell.edu/plants/toxicagents/thiaminase.html
It appears that this chemical Thiaminase is produced by a number of land plants – and is found in the gut of very important sea food animals such as Herring and Sardines – what it does is it renders thiamine useless.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiaminase Wikis article on the matter.
This is a report on keeping seabirds and mammals
http://lan.sagepub.com/content/35/suppl_1/57.full.pdf A small extract on Thiamin and Thiaminase
Thiamine : Thiaminase, which breaks down the vitamin thiamine, is present in the t issues of some ®sh. Feeding birds on stored fish alone may therefore present a risk of thiamine deficiency. However, there is little evidence that this is a problem in practice in seabirds (although it can be fatal in sea mammals). The common practice of feeding seabirds thiamine supplements tucked into the opercula or gut of fish is also likely to be of little benefit, as thiaminase is present in high concentration in the gills and guts and will rapidly break down all the thiamine in the supplements
.
It seems that thiaminase is found in the gut of herring, and many other species of fish – it is difficult to find out the mechanisms for this, for instance where the substance comes from and why – it is also found on the surface of some sea urchins, produced by algae – perhaps a protection.
This article is about a mass die off of marine birds and dolphins
For the seabirds, he wrote, the “most plausible hypothesis so far” from the National Agricultural Health Service is that they are dying from a lack of food, mainly anchoveta (Engraulis ringens), a Peruvian anchovy, as a result of the sudden heating of coastal waters.
The Environment Ministry said the dolphin deaths had no link to fisheries, red tides or other biotoxins, bacteria, heavy metals or pesticides. It said it had also ruled out any connection to offshore seismic testing by companies to locate oil and gas deposits under the seabed.
The one thing the article does not mention is any connection with thiamin or thiaminase – pure speculation on my part? There are a few indicators – Anchovies being a nearly exclusive food and thiaminase often being found in their guts and bodies – dolphins in another article appearing to be dying from too rapid ascent and descent causing the equivalent of the bends – a brain malfunction?? Thiamin deficiency can cause this – How this is connected to seaweed destruction is unclear but it seems that nearly everything in our seas is connected in one way or another – there has been massive uncontrolled harvesting on those coasts, so much so that Chile banned it in 2008 though it still continues.
Watching the Taretråwlers week in week out scraping the sea bottom is a emotive issue for anyone who loves nature and the sea.
We know from reading the reports that the company concerned wants the seaweed beds clear of epiphytes and animals – we know from reading documents on the Thiamin issue that our seabirds are dying – we see them from time to time – their movement is slow and uncoordinated, their wings hang listlessly – often we find the same seabird a few days later – floating in the water dead –
After trawling huge mounds of seaweed are washed ashore – the stalks and stems are completely bare of animal and plant life. As trawling happens along the entire length of the Norwegian coast where there are viable seaweed beds we know this is everywhere. There must be vastly larger amounts of stalks littering the sea floor – and this we know from fishermen who catch them in their hooks.
This is an empty taretråwler – you can judge its size from the man standing on the back outlined in yellow.
This is what a fully laden one looks like.
Talking to other environmentalists many say the same thing – its like a mantra – you can even see it on the taretråwlers website – the quantity of seaweed remains constant. For many this is enough to walk away – for the politicians we have spoken to it certainly is enough.
For us though we read further – the scientific papers actually say things like ” observations indicate that diversity of flora and fauna will be reduced within the trawled area. The diversity will probably not recover until the mean age of the plants reach the mean age of the large kelp plants in untrawled kelp forest. Mean age increase with increasing latitude and is about 7 years in mid-Norway ” As harvesting occurs every 4th year this is not possible. The word PROBABLY means they don’t know.
this quote is from Rinde et al. 2006 – Effekter av taretråling
Those very simple words have a very STRONG MEANING – it means that the plants and animals normally living in the forests are not allowed to return.
THE FORESTS ARE DEPLETED
How can that not be an important issue??
If you look at the maps you will see that the areas trawled are along the entire length of the coast – they even have access to over 90 bird reserves.
Many of the species of animals in the forests cannot escape the trawlers so they die where the trawlers operate.
One variety of fish, the gentle sygnathids would not be able to escape – this family includes the Seahorse of which species the long nosed seahorse is found as far as North Norway – this is what the paper has to say about such animals “We have little knowledge of rare species in marine ecosystems, and cannot exclude that a high trawling intensity in areas suitable for rare, unidentified species with poor dispersal properties, may lead to reduced occurrence and a negative development of these.” Ie anything rare they may not know about will have a reduced population and even become extinct.
You cannot have much stronger words than those.
This article is about EFFECTIVE ENVIRONMENTALISM one of our successes is the prosecution of a taretråwler for fishing illegally. To date this is the only prosecution we are aware of – it seemed that our success only came after we taped a conversation with a senior police officer who felt it his duty to defend the boats no matter what.
More recently our activities have had several successes, but as they are still in the justice system it is not right to say anything other than the vehicle of one of our camera operators was attacked – unfortunately for the attacker he was filmed – we are not seeking to prosecute this but he should be aware that the film has been passed on to the appropriate authorities and we will prosecute if it happens again.
Smørholm is a little island tucked between land and kvitholmen just by the atlanterhavsveien.
This is where the local catch of seaweed is landed for processing and shipping. The trawlers come here to download – it is a busy place but i never quite realized how busy. So here is the website run by the proud harvesters.
http://www.kommunenvar.no/?div_id=54&pag_id=55&art_id=1180
A little snip
Essentially it says that they harvest around 500 tons per day – or 50,000 tons per year.
They say there is no bi catch – that is no animals in the plants – if that is correct then my assertion that the forests are empty is correct – they have successfully managed to remove animals and plants other than seaweed from the forests – it is not that difficult to imagine this as all papers on the matter say it takes 6 to 9 years for them to grow back and the harvesting is every 4 years or less. What they mean is that there are no lobsters in the catch. While that is not likely anyway we do have videos of fish dropping out of the catch as it is being moved to the macerator.
Our videos of the seaweed being washed ashore show no epiphytes on the stalks, they should be covered with animals, plants and eggs, they are not. No wonder our ecology is in trouble. It takes considerable research to define any major change in our environment – all our research institutes are owned by companies and or the state – we are certain that the state research organizations are reluctant to say or do anything that may compromise the activities of the harvesting companies further it is extremely unlikely that any company is going to do research that could compromise its business.
Back to captive regulation.
The Norwegian coast is a marvelous habitat, full of inlets and fjords – however the activities of business has begun to have a serious impact.
Our Marine Biologists are paid to research the impact of such industries as Seaweed trawling and fish farming. Without positive results those industries would be shut down, or would they??
One burning issue that is beginning to appear now is that of regulatory capture – that is where the regulators later become involved in the businesses they were supposed to regulate.
The worst example is Fukushima – the worlds worst nuclear disaster the effects of which will be felt all over the world as the cancer rates begin to rise. It appears that the regulators were all promised and got jobs in the nuclear industry – the promise of a top job and excellent pay may be enough – an article from the BBC outlining this
So it appears that many of the leaders in Norway’s seafood industry have the same kind of background – for instance the man responsible for taretråling on the Norwegian coast was a regulation enforcer for the fiskeriedirektoratet for nearly 12 years.
Does this mean that reports are being falsified or research not properly conducted???
Without any clear documented proof i would not like to say one way or the other but it is clear that there can be and is a conflict of interest.
I think an interesting demonstration of this of this is the ex fisheries minister Elisabeth Berg-Hansen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisbeth_Berg-Hansen
Essentially she is the deputy chairperson of the havsforskningsinstitut, one of the organizations charged with overseeing the state of our oceans.
She also according to the wiki article ( sits at the top of all the health advisory committees as well as all related research institutes)
Here is an article from the uk daily mail (you need to double click on the jpeg to read it) but essentially it says that an article in the American journal science suggested that farmed salmon from Scotland and Norway is so full of toxic chemicals that it should not be eaten more than once in 4 months – more frequently and it could lead to significant neurological damage and cancer. I dont think it can be plainer than that.
Now this is quite interesting but there is far worse – one of the chemicals used in fish farming in Norway is called diflubenzuron,
This is apparently regularly used around the fish farms here, is what a Norwegian fish farmer has to say about it (double click on the image to read it)
Here is what the Canadian government has to say about Diflubenzuron It also says it should not be used near water or waterways – in Norway it is used in the sea – how can this be???
The eec also has something to say and its fuzzy as hell – not surprising really – however there are many other chemicals now in farmed salmon used by desperate salmon farmers, many are banned and considered dangerous by other countries but not Norway – could it be because we have powerful politicians directing our health and research institutions??
Apparently Miljøvernforbund felt this too and here is a little snip from the wiki article
(Again double click to read)
The really interesting part of the various articles is this – because the salmon are being fed animal material from other parts of the north sea many are full of pollutants already and thus are concentrated in the fish – heavy metals, pcbs and many other nasties.
Here is a last little snip about what is the result of this concentrated fish rearing.
Should we be worried about dead zones, after all they are growing and multiplying rapidly – naaah, it wont effect us for a while(of course when it does its another matter) no its the toxic algal blooms that should set the heart racing and worry the fish farmers – apparently the toxins become airborne under certain conditions – that means you’re actually breathing in a neurotoxin – from spray, mist or possibly even rain – so that essentially means you would get poisoned by going outside your home – can this be true???
This is from an American newspaper and gives you facts.
So now we have really dangerous chemicals being added to the feed and water of farmed salmon okayed by a lady who sits on all the important committees, was the state secretary for fisheries and runs the biggest fish farming business in Norway – well there is far more to come –
Here is a very interesting document/book, it is called FOOD FROM THE OCEAN – Norway’s opportunities. http://novus.mamutweb.com/Shop/Product/GrueAlm%C3%A5s-%28Eds%29-Food-from-the-Ocean/102623
I find the initial premise a little frightening – by the year 2050 Norway should be feeding the world – it talks about exploiting marine resources —-
“Norway can indeed take the global lead in demonstrating best practices in economically and environmentally sustainable ways ” (of aquaculture production.)
A Norwegian led initiative is the European Joint program initiative for research on healthy and productive oceans – this sounds a great idea and something very valuable to our ecosystems – but apparently it is for the coordination and a greater degree of cooperation between the various research communities in Europe – further it says there are major benefits to be gained from the sharing of equipment and data.
This sounds very laudable but it also means the lowering of the potential damage independent research can do to a carefully structured story. i.e. someone comes up with some research the results of which are contrary to your commercial interests you can do something about it.
This pdf document is quite interesting as it is a serious study of some of the chemicals used in salmon farming – it mentions pollution from copper and zinc under the salmon farms from the compounds used in anti fouling (i do know that some salmon farms have robots for cleaning the cages and nets and they are used continuously) But no mention of the cadmium found in crustacea near to Elisabeth Berg-Hansens farms nor the use of diflubenzuron,
CHEMICAL USE IN SALMON AQUACULTURE: A REVIEW OF CURRENT PRACTICES AND POSSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Here is the document in its entirety —–
On this website I have put links to documents demonstrating that all is not well with our seas – that all is defiantly not well with our leaders who are allowing some very desperate activities to take place – all in the interests of income – what I would dearly love is for someone to write to me and say – this document, or that document is wrong – INCORRECT – my conclusions are wrong – I want to be wrong – I would love to drop this campaigning as it does not earn me anything . I know this site is well read so I can only conclude that I am not wrong, that my information is correct.
The BBC has recently produced several reports on documents detailing the state of our oceans.
Reading them it is clear they are in real trouble with many of the issues I’ve already mentioned on our other website stopptt.no.
In them is there no mention of seaweed harvesting – so I got in contact with the scientists concerned – to my surprise I’ve been asked for information – here are eminent marine biologists who have just written major documents on the state of our oceans asking me for information on what seaweed does and how much is harvested worldwide.
This leads me to some interesting thoughts – how is it possible that this kind of information is not well known – there is no joined up research? In fact is it possible that this kind of information is owned by the corporations concerned?
What I have read shows that seaweed binds co2 – in fact a figure has been put on the worlds seaweed – it binds over 30 million tons. I have figures from the crown services document on seaweed cultivation that Laminaria hyperborea removes approximately 480 tons of nitrogen per 20 square kilometers – I have papers that reveal that seaweed in general removes many chemical substances, including TNT, 5 times faster than terrestrial plants – it is well known that every marine organism concentrates anything dissolved in the seas including heavy metal which is why it is so dangerous to eat fish from polluted areas, so why is this not in their calculations – why???
The most logical explanation is that if seaweeds role in maintaining our seas was revealed then they would be more valuable than any monetary value placed on them. This could lead to a moratorium of the activities of companies such as fmc biopolymers who after all belong to a corporation guilty of some of the most grievous pollution committed anywhere, whose greed is exemplified by world record fines for price fixing cartels – that is they conspired with other companies to fix prices of chemicals – that last sentence is probably the key.
Global warming is now not in question. The Philippines and other natural disasters are increasing as predicted.
Major scientists are warning us that our seas are dying. Can we afford in view of that to allow our seas and their ecology to be ravaged for a product that is mainly a food additive and by companies with such a dubious record when it is cultivated anyway?
Just a last little comment – I have just been watching a video about a man whose child was taken from him by the UK social services – his investigation shows that there is a huge money making business involved – with consultants getting huge fees, homes getting incredible sums for looking after these children – the ramifications go right into parliament, the press is being censored– if this can happen then what is a little fooling with statistics and figures to a big international company.