On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 17:06:37 -0700, Mike
wrote:

On 17 Sep, 01:38, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Mike wrote:
And this , which is the newest edition publicly available, as a direct
PDF download;

http://www.cefas.co.uk/publications/...s/ffn3_web.pdf

Let´s see what Kenny boy makes of "conflating" all that. If he bothers
to read it at all.

Perhaps you'd like to indicate which of those 102 pages is
supposed to convince me that the farm-raised rainbow trout
sitting on ice in the seafood section of my local grocery
store is full of poisons and toxins. Every list I can find
of safe to eat commercial fish in the US lists farm-raised
rainbow trout as among the safest.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Well now Kenny boy, at the risk of falling foul of another of your
stupid tactics, what we are discussing here is primarily European
stocked fish, because that is what I know about.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Apparently, you've morphed into a nappy-headed cause
Nazi homo ho, and like most cause Nazis, you know damned little about
your "cause"...

That is what the subject matter is, and your views on American
stocked or farmed fish, though doubtless interesting, if uninformed,
are not entirely relevant at the moment. No reason why one should
not include them specifically if people wish to.

Having said that, farmed salmonids from anywhere in the world all
suffer from the same problems, because they are all reared in the
same manner using the same feed, and with all the same attendant
problems. Even cursory research will prove that, even to your
satisfaction. There is no other way to do it.

I have no idea what lists you might be referring to, but whatever they
might be, they are in error, because fish which are fed on fishmeal,
and there is no alternative to fishmeal for salmonid farming,
regardless of whether it is for marine or freshwater farming,

Er, wrong, wrong, wrong, at least according to actual textbooks,
bo-o-o-o-r-r-r-ring papers and the like, as well as feed producers and
fish farmers...you know, people that actually know something about that
of which they are writing. For example, a look at Stickley (Encycl. of
Aqua., Wiley, 2000, pp 717, 773) or "Fishmeal and Fish oil Facts and
Figures", GAFTA, shows that fish meal is, at most, 62% of the feed
(fingerlings), with 50% being more the average. 30% is more the US
average for trout, with 45% (salmon) and 35% (trout) being the average
in Europe. In fact, wheat and/or soy products often make up more of
the feed than fish meal. And fresh or salt water does play a role in
protein requirements, and as such and currently, freshwater feed is even
lower in fish meal content. Moreover, there are several alternatives to
both fish meal and fish oil in current use and some of the folks cited
at sites you yourself have posted indicate that, well, lessee: "the use
of fishmeal...in aquaculture...would actually decrease between 2005 and
2010" (As a percent of total ingredients). Fishmeal percentage as an
ingredient is down from 2000, as is overall percentage usage by the
salmonid sector.

There are several ways to "farm" fish, (and BTW, fish farming is
aquaculture, but not all aquaculture is fish farming), they are not
"reared in the same manner," and they do not have "all the same
attendant problems."

And the EU uses more fishmeal for land livestock than for aquaculture
(2/3 to 1/3).

Finally, near as can be figured, what started your latest spew of
incorrect pompous bull**** was a guy in England posting a simple trip
report about a particular stocked lake in England (not Europe), to which
you have not returned since running away many years ago nor to which you
have any interest in returning, at least according to you. You then
posted a pantload in response to a question about fishing in England and
were very politely told you didn't know what the **** you were talking
about, again by someone who lives in England. IAC, the OP's lake isn't
a farmop and the management of the lake in question apparently doesn't
feed the stocked fish, pointing out on the website (but not the specific
page) you yourself posted that the naturally-occurring insect population
accounts for the rapid growth, and claims, basically, they are the
best-tasting fish in the UK or something.

accumulate more toxins than any other fish, most especially dioxins
and PCB´s . This is a direct result of feeding fishmeal,

No, it isn't.

and is also
independent and regardless of the drugs and chemicals which are used
in all intensive farming operations.

So, if I were you, I would look for some other information than that
on the lists you have found. Or, you can just believe what it says on
your lists, and continue poisoning yourself. It is no skin off my
nose.

If you wish to believe your lists, then there is little point in you
discussing the matter at all, now is there?

MC

Now go back to ****ing up TVs and cattle fencing, hanging out in train
stations, and writing the FBI...

R