Misleading. Ak only does it for a few weeks - not months and years - and they use stock indigenous to that watershed which should not introduce novel disease to a naive stock - unlike FFs.
PSF releases study that PRV virus from farmed Atlantic may cause disease in Chinook salmon
- Thread starter cohochinook
- Start date
Misleading. Ak only does it for a few weeks - not months and years - and they use stock indigenous to that watershed which should not introduce novel disease to a naive stock - unlike FFs.
california
Well-Known Member
The issue with ranching is less disease transmission and more numbers, while there was a belief that the north Pacific had unlimited carrying capacity, that is unlikely to be true, and the dumping of as many as 1.5 Billion ranched mostly aggressively feeding pink fry into the area (plus more from Russia) means direct competition for Chinook and young sockeye.
https://craigmedred.news/2018/04/27/evermore-salmon/
https://craigmedred.news/2018/04/27/evermore-salmon/
Birdsnest
Well-Known Member
I dont think its rational to excuse the salmon ranching scenario free of disease issues. It would be interesting to see some fish health records from a ranching operation. Remember when Washington's had its escapement. Everyone was freeking out about disease. I would say that biologically speaking the same thing is going on in alaska however its on purpose and in a far larger scale. Lets see some viral/disease records from the alaska salmon ranching and then talk about it. I under stand that posts following this will urgently try to make salmon farming look far worse but until I see some records from alaska I'm not sold on that idea.
california
Well-Known Member
There is no reason to believe any commercial operation raising pacific or Atlantic salmon under commercial conditions in high densities will not be subject to increased disease transmission regardless if the origin of that disease is local or from the North Atlantic. This is true of Atlantic salmon farms, AK salmon ranching operations, or commercial Govt hatcheries for Pacific species. I suppose one can make the argument that transmission among the captive population would increase as a function of how long the fish are kept in high densities, so if that is true Atlantic salmon farms could be expected to have the highest infection rates since they spend their entire lives in high density conditions ideal for transmission, followed by pacific hatchery coho, then chinook, and finally AK ranched fish that are mostly pinks or Chum and don't spend long in the facilities at high density. It is still rationale to be "freaking out" about disease from escaped mature Atlantic salmon as their infection rate is likely very high.
The other thing to consider is if salmon farms are infecting Pacific salmon with PRV, and if PRV is found in wild salmon, those same fish are returning to hatcheries and will become broodstock. Wouldn’t it make sense to test Federal hatchery fish for viral presence before juveniles are released?
Birdsnest
Well-Known Member
As I said before someone here without the info is going to try to make salmon farming look worse but I do not think that is a rational assumption. Releasing billions of salmon to mingle with all the other fish in the ocean is in posable worse. We are talking about viruses now. Not disease. Big difference.
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
You are thinking way to small.
5 Billion salmon plus.
Do you think Russia is as concerned about disease?
What government has done any testing to see the ability of the areas involved to actually handle this many fish?
5 Billion salmon plus.
Do you think Russia is as concerned about disease?
What government has done any testing to see the ability of the areas involved to actually handle this many fish?
california
Well-Known Member
I specifically say "if it is true" as neither the Alaskans or Canadian Government have much incentive to report on PRV rates in their facilities. I don't see how its not rationale that any communicable disease (including a virus) spreads through high density interaction more extensively. Why do you think there is a flu season for humans, because its cold? No, The virus exists all year, and is transmitted all year, but at much higher rates when winter weather, schools etc put us in higher densities and facilitate higher transmission rates. Why would it be different for fish.
IMO Alaska ranches are more damaging to pacific salmon stocks (esp Chinook) than Atlantic salmon farms not from viruses or parasites but from flooding the Gulf of Alaska with competing young fish. That being said the decline of wild Pacific salmon is multifactorial, and certainly the evidence points to farmed Atlantic salmon playing a role along with overfishing, loss of habitat, dams, agriculture water diversions, runoff, warming, our own hatchery operations etc etc.... Of those issues getting rid of Ocean net pens is one that is under the control of the BC government, and could be implemented relatively quickly which is why it gets attention. We can't easily get rid of dams, quickly grow back clearcut forests, or do anything about global warming.
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
lol Dave if SEP had to test its fish before it released them or transferred them. Their already tiny budget from 1996 would be even smaller.
I agree though there is a logic trail to follow.
I also think it would be very wise to test smolts before they go into a net pen in like sooke,vancouver ect. These fish are not subject to the natural selection in river by bull trout, birds and seal that pedratate on weak immune compromised fish. KM and associates proved that bull trout in the chilko system have a higher rate of IHNV sockeye smolts in their bellies.
The net pens are placed near river mouths where passing smolts that already survived the gauntlet in river could be infected by PRV.
ENGO will soon be pushing for everything to be 100% natural and hatcheries/net pens are definitely not part of that picture.
Pacific northwest humpback whale populations are increasing at a rate of 5-10% a year. Their diet consists of mainly krill and baitfish the same things salmon eat. If there was a limited supply of food it should be seen in the humpback whale population. Now I suppose there is a bit of evidence out their that humpback whales feed on salmon smolts. In which case these salmon ranching programs are now pivotal in providing an enhance humpback whale population.
"Researchers believe there are more than 21,000 humpbacks in the eastern North Pacific, up from about 1,600 when whale hunting was banned in 1966, and as many as 85,000 worldwide. In the spring of 2015, after a five-year review, NOAA Fisheries proposed to delist most populations of humpbacks."
Anyone want to do a rough estimate on what an extra 19,000 humpback whales eat??? "An average-sized humpback whale will eat 4,400-5,500 pounds (2000-2500 kg) of plankton, krill and small, schooling fish each day during the feeding season in cold waters (about 120 days). They eat twice a day. "
Please explain to me and others how Alaska only does this for a few weeks? Your saying they release and grow to market in a few weeks, not months and years? Please explain how ranching 260mil every year is different?
Fishmyster
Well-Known Member
Fishing, Thank for engaging in this conversation and bringing an important factor to light. When you say "If I feed my fish every 5 days and then they start dying do I need a degree to figure out maybe I wasn't feeding them enough?" This is where you are identifying my issue with PSF! If my fish are dying even though I am feeding them the first thing to do is test the water quality!!! Suitable chemistry is crucial for success in aquaculture. Factors like alkalinity and pH are crucial for successful micro biology like nitrifying bacteria to function correctly. Without this throwing more food will only pollute the water and kill your fish faster by ammonia toxicity. Lack of following the basics in aquaculture is the biggest oversight with the modern day politically driven scientists.
Just because the whole world is believing ff's are a major cause of the salmon crash I choose to believe my own eyes and the science of chemistry which far better explains the ecological changes of base level ecology going on in our waters. It's too bad that PSF doesn't research ecology from the bottom up as advertised or they would see this too.
You must not know me as if you did you would understand how much time and effort I spend in the field and how sincere I am in exposing the real issues that have happened in the environment. In the real world of salmon ecology, "not internet world", water chemistry has altered base level and supporting ecology that compromised salmon populations from the bottom up. In my years of province wide field observations I've witnessed lack of decomposition, vanishing invertebrate populations and changing algae species which are all major factors of supporting ecology for salmon. While PSF is focused on diseases they are neglecting to investigate the causes of weak immune systems in salmon like starvation, low levels of calcium/magnesium, and heavy metal toxicity all which are factors linked to acidic rain. Something I am confused with is why these modern day scientists are not researching the water source, [rain chemistry], which feeds all streams salmon start their life in??? must be too busy in the lab researching diseases.
It does look like the popular choice solicited via internet is to ban open sea ff's and it is probably will happen. I feel that to disrupt a great industry that employs many to please the internet based science groups is stupidity. I guess I just got to accept this is the world we live in.
I can tell you that the natural conditions have changed!!! One by one streams are now repairing from the past low rain pH era that has happened. Reguardless of removing ff's or not we are going to see a marked improvements in salmon populations! It will just take a bit more time for some areas to respond from the increase of soil alkalinity and the stabilization of chemistry in freshwater that is now starting to happen.
I'll ask you "fishing" what experience do you have in the field of aquatic ecology? I would like to compare experiences and notes.
Stoisy
Active Member
Fishmyster, do you have data to back up these observations? If there is associated data then you could provide this tobsome of these "internet scientists" to begin analyses and determine if these changes are truly having impacts? However, if FW conditions are improving, as you've stated, above ..."I can tell you that the natural conditions have changed!!! One by one streams are now repairing from the past low rain pH era that has happened."... then this is an issue that requires no investigation as it appears to be improving (by your observations).
Recent population productivity declines have been associated with decreased marine productivity and survival rates. Sockeye populations pre-1990s had marine survival rates of ~10%. Since then they have plummeted to ~1% (Similar patterns for Chinook and Coho survival). So for the PSF to be focusing their efforts on the marine environment, and specifically, novel viruses now present there, bottom-up regulation of food webs, predator-prey interactions of juveniles and adults, run timing and association of early marine survival rates etc... seems to make more sense than studying the FW environment that have not experienced the stark declines in productivity. And which are improving as you have suggested. Why waste the money when we know the conditions are stable or improving, when it could be directed to understanding what's happening in the marine environment?
Recent population productivity declines have been associated with decreased marine productivity and survival rates. Sockeye populations pre-1990s had marine survival rates of ~10%. Since then they have plummeted to ~1% (Similar patterns for Chinook and Coho survival). So for the PSF to be focusing their efforts on the marine environment, and specifically, novel viruses now present there, bottom-up regulation of food webs, predator-prey interactions of juveniles and adults, run timing and association of early marine survival rates etc... seems to make more sense than studying the FW environment that have not experienced the stark declines in productivity. And which are improving as you have suggested. Why waste the money when we know the conditions are stable or improving, when it could be directed to understanding what's happening in the marine environment?
cuttlefish
Well-Known Member
Here's a link to Alaska's regs and proceedures along with the name and address of the author; http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/od-ds/...s-mer-mar-rpt-pac-dfo-mpo-aquaculture-eng.csv
Perhaps you could request viral/disease records from him. Please share any fish health data he may provide.
fogged in
Well-Known Member
A few quotes over the years for you to consider…
"It has been very difficult for scientists to do proper research on farmed fish in Canada. Fish farm records are considered confidential which means they are not available to scientists or the public. The farmed fish samples used in the Department of Wild Salmon’s research had to be taken, primarily, from supermarkets."
"the virus was imported to B.C. out of Norway, by way of the fish farming industry. Samples taken from the European virus and the B.C. virus show enough similarities to assume that they are from the same strain. Ninety-eight percent of the Pacific salmon fish farms in B.C. are Norwegian-owned."
"Dr. Kibenge from the lab for fish viruses at the Atlantic Veterinary College at the University of Prince Edward Island “have found PRV in nearly 97% of the farmed salmon tested in B.C. supermarkets.” Since these findings the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has attacked the credibility of Dr. Kibenge's research, suggesting his international certification be revoked."
"Dr. Marty, the Fish Farm vet said he never tested Fish Farm salmon for PRV because is did not exist on the Coast and then tested for it and claimed to be the first to discover PRV."
And now the Fish Farm guys want to test BC hatcheries and rivers to see if the wild salmon have PRV!!
Oh yes, then there is the Fish Farm claim PRV is harmless to Wild Salmon.
It’s kinda like Trump…who are YOU GOING TO BELIEVE
Last edited:
trophywife
Crew Member
lice
Fishmyster
Well-Known Member
Hi Stoisy. Yes I do have much associated data to back my observations. Look back in the archives of this forum to the acid rain thread and Thompson collapse thread. I have tried to post more but most of the files will not load in to this site. Files must be to large. For some of my observations there are no available studies to display because there has been so little science done recently into local chemistry and how it has effected ecology. I have had to fill in the blanks based with past studies, water quality reports, present day water quality test results and long term ecological changes that I have been witnessing. I cannot display the studies that have not been done on this neglected topic. This why is am trying to get the local scientist to broaden their focus into this field.
You mention loss of marine survival rates an it makes more sense to study the marine environment. Well fw chemistry effects do not end at the tidal boundary as most might think. The Salish sea is a vast mixing zone where pH changes and natural precipitation of elements occurs. Is this not the area of great losses for out migrating sockeye smolts? Does PSF consider this factor? Where do they draw the fw/marine/brackish water?
IMO fw conditions are improving. Rain pH of last weeks rainfall was 5.7. Steam invertebrate populations continue to growing in my locality! Does this mean we should turn our back on fw ecology? I don’t think so. It is valuable information for stock assessment and productivity predictions. What do you know about your local stream ecology? I’m s it improving in your local streams? Should you not look into your local stream rather than take my word for it? Let me know what you find? I would like to compare observations.
PSF has done some good work. It does bother me though that my obligated donations thru licence sales are being used to target ff’s and link disease to the ff’s. I feel if they are going to neglect chemistry science and target ff’s then I would rather my donations be redirected to another science provider who will do chemistry studies.
Similar threads
