PSF releases study that PRV virus from farmed Atlantic may cause disease in Chinook salmon

cohochinook

Well-Known Member
Just got this from the Pacific Salmon Foundation:

"Good morning!

We wanted to let you know that PSF has just put out a media release regarding an important new study that shows PRV (Piscine orthoreovirus) may cause disease in west coast Chinook salmon.

The results of this study are significant because they show– for the first time – strong evidence that the same strain of PRV that causes HSMI (Heart and Skeletal Muscle Inflammation) in Atlantic salmon is likely to cause disease in at least one species of Pacific salmon.

The study is part of our Strategic Salmon Health Initiative (SSHI) with DFO and Genome BC. Both the study and the release have been posted at www.psf.ca.
The SSHI is a key part of our commitment, first and foremost, to wild Pacific salmon. We look forward to working with government and industry to protect wild salmon!
If you have any questions or comments, please let us know."
 
I believe this is the first time the PSF has ever came out publicly with a claim that farms are harming wild salmon. I've seen Dr Riddell speak, I've attended many of their events, and from what I've seen, they're very careful not to talk negatively about the salmon farms - in the past - so for them to publish this study is HUGE. The findings must be very robust for them to stick their neck out, politically speaking.
 
I believe this is the first time the PSF has ever came out publicly with a claim that farms are harming wild salmon. I've seen Dr Riddell speak, I've attended many of their events, and from what I've seen, they're very careful not to talk negatively about the salmon farms - in the past - so for them to publish this study is HUGE. The findings must be very robust for them to stick their neck out, politically speaking.
I agree! This is the first time I've seen them do it too. It speaks volumes!
 
Surprise, surprise!

Mr. Riddell in his previous capacity for DFO has not been a particular opponent of net pen fish farms. That's why they kept a low profile on this topic so far. He may now regret some of his past decisions or at least he should.
 
Dr Riddell, like most scientists don't offer public opinions...they state the facts that's it...hopefully now, some actions will take place
 
Dr Riddell, like most scientists don't offer public opinions...they state the facts that's it...hopefully now, some actions will take place


Dr Riddell and PSF also doesn't study salmon productivity from the "bottom up" as advertised. Salmon begin their life in fresh water and there are four steps ignored by PSF. Starting at the real bottom is suitable chemistry, bacterial composition, micro invertebrates and then macro invertebrates in fresh water. Maybe I'm missing something and someone here could correct me but I cannot find any efforts that research these ecological steps on their web site???

Scientists claiming to study salmon productivity who will not include all factors do not have much credibility in my eyes. They appear more politically and socially driven then having a scientific mandate.
 
Reach out if possible to Dr Kristi Miller..no one in Canada knows more about salmon productivity and disease than her...easy to share news articles...not so easy to reach out and get the facts.... i think Fishmeyster with your intellect and dedication to overall improvements to fisheries and habitats you 2 would get a lot out of each other
 
I would suspect the PSF ENGO donors have a lot to do with that..
Both typical and unfortunate that the reaction to news against the effects of FFs - is to attempt to shoot the messenger. It is also ironic and shortsighted to single-out the PSF funders/donors/fundraising activities on a sportsfishing forum - as many funders are those "evil" sportsfishermen: https://www.psf.ca/tags/fundraising-initiatives
 
AA, It's a new low for this forum ..... attack PSF. They say if you live long enough you will see everything, I just didn't expect to see this. Shame
 
Both typical and unfortunate that the reaction to news against the effects of FFs - is to attempt to shoot the messenger. It is also ironic and shortsighted to single-out the PSF funders/donors/fundraising activities on a sportsfishing forum - as many funders are those "evil" sportsfishermen: https://www.psf.ca/tags/fundraising-initiatives

haha I almost only donate to the PSF. The PSF has been sitting on the results of these samples from 2015, in 2016-2017 they released a report though the Strategic health initiative. With the results of the same paper they just published.

https://www.researchgate.net/public..._disease_development_in_wild_migrating_salmon

The only difference between the two papers is one is mostly test results and the second now is an opinion based on the test results. I accept the findings of both reports.

The PSF could of easily put out this same stuff over a year ago if not longer. Groups like the SFI have recently publicly signed on anti fish farm campaigns, I think groups like this publicly announcing they were against fish farms certainly played a roll. I think the way it was released and the fact that there own press release states they wanted to get it out first is somewhat politically/donor motivated.

I am not saying the results of the report or the conclusions made are politically or donor motivated. If that's what you thought.
 
AA, It's a new low for this forum ..... attack PSF. They say if you live long enough you will see everything, I just didn't expect to see this. Shame

Well I am totally annoyed with PSF. I am a concerned citizen scientist who is also a considerable donator to PSF thru license sales. I see that they are missing something that going on in the environment to do with compromised chemistry. The ecological "flags" for the issues are everywhere in the environment being algae changes, varied decomposition characteristics and drastic changes of macroinvertebrate diversity. After many efforts to discuss this with them it falls on deft ears. They don't seem interested in the ecology that feeds wild salmon fry or the obvious chemistry changes that have altered the success of it. Anyways, I'm disappointed in them.

I was just up boating in Knight inlet checking out a few rivers. Some more environmental flags up there if anyone looks for them. Interestingly the area has heavy rust staining up and down both sides of the inlet. I have seen this before in areas with sunken machinery but the rust is always most noticeable at the source of the deposited equipment and fades away over short distance. The shores of Knight inlet has staining indicating massive amounts of precipitated iron. Some things I ask myself is where did this all come from? How did it get there? What other heavy metals are precipitated there with the iron? In the streams there were no invertebrates to be found! The marine shoreline had very little life like mussels, starfish or barnacles! I am curious of how all this deposited iron and whatever else there is effecting the base level ecology??

Dr Riddell, I believe used to work for DFO. There is past science done in the late 1980's by DFO, [Samis and Sullivan], on acid rain and rain chemistry indicating streams are acidifying. Rain chemistry reports at environment indicate acid rain continued long after the Samis and Sullivan report. Why would Dr Riddell not research the past chemistry work done by DFO and consider the effects it has on Salmon productivity? I assure you that if they ever do they will not be so mystified as to why so many salmon stocks have collapsed.

On the topic of diseases. If Kristy Miller or Riddell get to read this I am curious as to what is the sickness called when salmon are living in water deficient in calcium and magnesium? How about the condition juvenile salmon get after episodic exposure to heavy metals? There is all kinds of evidence of both water conditions historically present in B.C and coastal waters! Why are they not applying the science of chemistry to salmon studies??
 
"The study suggests that the virus — also referred to as piscine reovirus — affects the blood of Chinook differently than it does Atlantic salmon, causing cellular death as opposed to tissue inflammation."


Well does it or doesnt it?
 
rust is iron, fishmyster. Iron is essential to plankton production (in chloroplasts) - and we probably remember the Haida Gwaii iron seeding "experiment" a few years back that tried and maybe succeeded to help w plankton production.

That vein of iron-containing rocks (good observations, FM!) also runs into Oweekeno Lake - and I believe may contribute to it that lakes productivity. Oweekeno USED TO be the 3rd largest producer of sockeye after the Fraser and the Skeena. I say USED To because it took quite a hit in the early 90s - and hasn't recovered.

Incidentally, or maybe not - Oweeneno Lake sockeye stocks and resident trout tested positive for PRv and ISAv, as did Cultus Lake (ISAv) - both took quite a hit....
 
rust is iron, fishmyster. Iron is essential to plankton production (in chloroplasts) - and we probably remember the Haida Gwaii iron seeding "experiment" a few years back that tried and maybe succeeded to help w plankton production.

That vein of iron-containing rocks (good observations, FM!) also runs into Oweekeno Lake - and I believe may contribute to it that lakes productivity. Oweekeno USED TO be the 3rd largest producer of sockeye after the Fraser and the Skeena. I say USED To because it took quite a hit in the early 90s - and hasn't recovered.

Incidentally, or maybe not - Oweeneno Lake sockeye stocks and resident trout tested positive for PRv and ISAv, as did Cultus Lake (ISAv) - both took quite a hit....

I am well aware that rust is iron. The rust staining is what makes it visible. Even if it is essential to plankton it probably isn’t good in such concentrations. I’m curious as to why the concentrations are so high in the ocean environment there but not much in the streams? Also wondering what other concentrations or other metals like aluminum, not visible, is there? Aren’t you curious?
 
..Even if it is essential to plankton it probably isn’t good in such concentrations. I’m curious as to why the concentrations are so high in the ocean environment there but not much in the streams? Also wondering what other concentrations or other metals like aluminum, not visible, is there? Aren’t you curious?
So you have info that iron concentrations are higher in the ocean verses FW? And that high iron concentrations are "isn't good"? I'd be interesting in reading about that....

You may find these articles of some interest:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4169402/
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2016.01223/full
 
Last edited:
I was just up boating in Knight inlet checking out a few rivers. Some more environmental flags up there if anyone looks for them. Interestingly the area has heavy rust staining up and down both sides of the inlet. I have seen this before in areas with sunken machinery but the rust is always most noticeable at the source of the deposited equipment and fades away over short distance. The shores of Knight inlet has staining indicating massive amounts of precipitated iron. Some things I ask myself is where did this all come from? How did it get there? What other heavy metals are precipitated there with the iron? In the streams there were no invertebrates to be found! The marine shoreline had very little life like mussels, starfish or barnacles! I am curious of how all this deposited iron and whatever else there is effecting the base level ecology??

Here is your answer. spoiler alert is natural and a very good thing I would add.
http://aris.empr.gov.bc.ca/ArisReports/32099.PDF
 
Back
Top