% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Marine Harvest ASA Message Board

  • ejohnson47 Jun 15, 2011 10:29 AM Flag

    Sustainably-farmed seafood holds key to future global food security

    "The analysis has found that, from the 75 species-production systems reviewed, more production means more ecological impact, but compared to other forms of animal protein production such as livestock, aquaculture it is more efficient."

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • ejohnson47 Jun 21, 2011 2:27 PM Flag

      I think they were thinking profits. It is amazing that sustainable agriculture has been around since, well, since agriculture has been around, but is no longer widely practiced. I recall from grade school learning about how the land is ruined in third world countries where the forest is burned and then the land is farmed for a few years, unlike in modern countries where fertilizer is used. Ironically, if the fertilizer only contains potassium, phosphorus and nitrogen, the crops become void of other nutrients, and the land becomes really very depleted of all other nutrients. It is dead, allowing for more soil errosion into the creeks, rivers and shore.

      In the other extreme, where the goal is packing as many pigs, chickens, cattle, into a given area, then the overgrazed and trampled soil is washed away along with the waste into the creeks, rivers, and then shore, creating a breeding ground for diseases and toxic plants/animals.

      Since most of the food from the ocean comes from (came from) near the shore, this type of farming that destroys both the land and the ocean won't continue one way or another.

    • Yikes. What have we been thinking?
      Interesting that several nights ago there was a film on Nova or PBS regarding a farm which had been designed with contours, berms, trees, shrubs, grasses and directed water flows, which farm was able to contain and diffuse a good percentage of its waste and fertilizer runoff.
      I believe it was in Maryland and near the coast. The farm looked beautiful and appeared to be thriving.

    • ejohnson47 Jun 21, 2011 1:25 PM Flag

      That would have been a good place for it then, but not now. A ways further south in Chesapeake Bay more recently. From Wikipedia:

      "While the bay's salinity is ideal for oysters, and the oyster fishery was at one time the bay's most commercially viable,[30] the population has in the last fifty years been devastated. Maryland once had roughly 200,000 acres (810 km2) of oyster reefs. Today it has about 36,000.[30] It has been estimated that in pre-colonial times, oysters could filter the entirety of the Bay in about 3.3 days; by 1988 this time had increased to 325 days.[31] The harvest's gross value decreased 88% from 1982 to 2007.[32] One report suggested the Bay had fewer oysters in 2008 than 25 years earlier."

      Much of the damage is due to cattle and pigs.

      The area around Puget Sound has become very populated and isn't completely safe either. From a year ago:

      "Right now a 4-ounce portion of recreationally harvested shellfish from Jefferson County could kill the eater, health officials said."

      --important safety tip.

    • If shipping has slowed down greatly and shipping rates seems that would be of benefit to Marine Harvest.

    • ejohnson47 Jun 16, 2011 12:25 PM Flag

      You are right, it would be a great place to add, and a better than where it was higher. Had I waited, would have had more shares and more of a divy. Because this is a JF company, the divy will mainly depend on the how profitable the company is.

      IMO this drop in share price is way overdone, but below a dollar was way overdone also. Farmland is decreasing year after year everywhere, the oceans have been destroyed with mile wide nets, and the global population has been increasing. I don't understand this drop, but know that if anyone could consistently and accurately predict the market, they would have more money than JF in a couple of years.

    • youre correct, just gets a bit frustrating at times. If I had extra money now it would be a great place to add. As far as the divy, who knows what the future holds for that.

    • ejohnson47 Jun 16, 2011 10:59 AM Flag

      FRO isn't profitable, and any company in that business won't be for another year or two. Too many ships. I don't recall JF or anyone at Marine Harvest saying anything negative about future earnings, but the opposite. If you have noticed, the market has been a bit crazy lately. As long as this company is profitable, we will get a dividend - no matter what the stock sells for day to day. If the next years are like the last, the dividend will pay for the stock if you hold it for a few years. If you find any news stating that either the price of salmon or the harvest is tanking, please let us know. In that case it will take more than 3 years to get your investment back from the dividends.

      As far as not all of JF's companies being profitable all of the time, his billions say he is right more than he is wrong.

    • Thats a good question, and on very low volume. Is this another JF stock where divys mean nothing? Thats how FRO and GDOCF have gone, big divys and dropping pps. GLTA

    • I feel your pain, but also have to remember that the price on the pink sheets is not always indicative of the "real price" of MHG.OL do to the lower volume on the pink sheets. Also this might be a great time to buy as prices have not been this low since last September. That said they did have to restate the Q1 financials.

    • View More Messages