Another new Disease for Farmed Salmon

remember all those fish finning in Alexandra Mortons video? a classic sign of diseased fish.
but the response from the fish farms, dfo and local governments?
"nothing to see here... move along"
 
Yup, the fish farm PR communications staff, spin doctors, and industry hacks on this forum will working very hard to downplay this - that is until it is too far gone to cover up, then they say oops were sorry, say they can't afford to clean up any mess they made and move their disease spreading polluting industry to some other unfortunate location.

The best hope for the future is on land fish farms were the negative impacts of fish farming can be better managed.
 
I have been reading with interest the posts (this thread and the related one) that have followed the release of this study. I am kind of disappointed at some of them, but at the same time not surprised. I get it - many here don't like fish farms and I realize this post will undoubtedly be framed as pro-salmon farming, but when narratives stray away from what was actually reported that doesn't serve the public very well. It certainly doesn’t assist with the creation of good policy. The report had some good findings that get lost when certain individuals take the opportunity to insert their own agenda. I am not sure if some had actually read the study or just read what Alexandra Morton had to say about the study. The following are just a few examples of the inaccuracies of Morton's claims and highlight the need for people on this forum to be skeptical of what she says even if they hold strongly held beliefs about the industry:

"Could the piscine reovirus be harmful in one ocean, and harmless in another as was commonly believed? The answer is no." - Alexandra Morton

If Morton had read the study as well as numerous other studies she would have found out to date that no causal relationship between PRV and HSMI has been established. In fact, the authors repeat this in more than one occasion in the study. The authors found a statistically significant correlation between PRV prevalence and load with occurrence and severity of HSMI lesions, but correlation is not synonymous with causation. Here is what the authors of the study stated in their discussion about a causal relationship (supporting references can be found in the report):

"A typical element of reported HSMI cases in Atlantic Salmon has been the concurrent presence of PRV. Despite the fact that, to date, HSMI has never been reproduced in the laboratory or reported at a farm-level in the absence of PRV, a causal relationship between PRV and HSMI has not been demonstrated." - Pg. 23

In fact, if one had read the study they would have encountered this important clarifier. Again, this isn't from me - this is from the authors of the study:

"Our farm level study was not designed to investigate causal relationships between any agent and histopathological lesions." - Pg. 24

Further in Morton's blog she posted this curious "finding" in the report:

"The paper reports that piscine reovirus infects the red blood cells of fish, where it lies in wait for the fish to experience some kind of stress, such as sea lice, handling, disease, warm water etc. at which point it is released and damages the salmon's heart and the muscles the run the length of the fish that are required to swim. This means that every time farm salmon are deloused, the stress of that can cause an outbreak where billions of viral particles will explode into the surrounding waters. What does this mean for wild salmon? Double jeopardy - lice then infection." - Alexandra Morton

Two plausible explanations for this come to mind - either Morton misread the study or she couldn't help but insert her own version of events, something the new US President seems to do a lot of lately like Obama wiretapping or 3 Million illegal voters. The authors never reported this finding. Where in the study do the authors claim to have demonstrated how PRV damages the salmon's heart and muscles? This doesn't necessarily mean that PRV doesn't do this, but there is no evidence to date to state this. Again, the authors never designed their study to find a causal relationship so how can Morton conclude this from this study? In the discussion, the authors of the study did speculate if PRV did have a role in the development of HSMI, but that should not be interpreted as a confirmation that it does.

As for "classic signs of diseased fish", the authors of the study in more than one occasion in the paper drew particular attention about not solely basing a diagnosis of HSMI alone on observations such as: abnormal behaviour, clinical signs and increased mortality. HSMI may fit those observations, but they could be shared by other diseases. So, when Morton made her discoveries last summer from Paul and Pam’s sailboat and 10 minutes of GoPro video it could have been the gold mine she was looking for or perhaps not or somewhere in between. Additionally, the authors said that because PRV is seen in various concentrations, in farmed salmon with high lesion scores as well as at low levels in recovering farm salmon, it "is not used as a differential in the diagnosis of HSMI in Norway, but is often used in a confirmatory role" (Pg 26). So, the mere presence of PRV alone doesn't not necessarily mean the host fish has HSMI. This contradicts previous claims that those transferred Marine Harvest smolts were in fact diseased when released simply by going on the presence of PRV alone. Again, there is a difference between having a virus and having a disease and this study helped reaffirm that. The authors also reiterated recent challenge studies co-authored by Kyle Garver and the fact that PRV has been detected in most Pacific salmon species tested in Washington State and Alaska, not just BC. Lastly the authors didn’t rule out the potential role of sampling artefacts in their results, so people should keep an open mind and not jump to conclusions about impacts to wild salmon.

Many are likely blaming the government and fish farms for not finding this out sooner, but if you read pages 25 and 26 it provides very plausible explanations. This needs to be put into perspective. The study was able to closely follow the entire production cycle of 4 salmon farms in depth from 2013 to 2014. In that time frame the authors were collected a very large sample size of fish (dead, moribund, and apparently healthy) and conducted a whole host of assessments on them including histopathology, immunohistochemistry, molecular monitoring of 44 infectious agents, and on-site clinical data. The BioMark system can test many fish for 44 infectious agents at one time (reference literature about BioMark is in report). In constrast, a random sampling event of a few fish may be collected at a non-peak stage of HSMI and not be easily detected. I seriously doubt there is the budget to follow all farms the same way over an extended period of time….and if you did happen to find HSMI that way we would likely not be any closer to be able to make broad conclusions about impacts to wild salmon. However, we improve things by building on knowledge gained. Environmental stressors and fish husbandry practices appear to play a role in the development of HSMI. Perhaps these results can greatly assist in the early detection of outbreaks on farms and minimize impacts. Wild salmon in BC in Norway have not been found to have HSMI, but wild fish present a significant challenge in trying to obtain representative samples throughout their life cycle and when wild fish die they are not readily available to be sampled. It was an interesting study and I look forward to more from Fish Health Initiative.
 
Thanks for the careful attention to detail, Shuswap. I agree with many of your points.

However, I am more frustrated rather than surprised at how our regulators want to spend time and effort in arguing whether PRv causes or causes in part a condition called HMSI - rather than spending time on risk evaluation and mitigation. I think it is likely that PRV does (in part) cause HMSI - but that isn't (for me) the important point. The point is - it is bad. It is bad for the caged fish - but worse for me - we don't know how bad it is for wild stocks.

So I see this response from our regulators as yet another stalling and deflection tactic - while the impacts from open net cages and wild-cultured stock interactions go unaddressed and unresolved. It's the elephant in the room that DFO and CFIA and Marty seem to want to avoid at all costs - including invoking the Precautionary Principle.
 
Yea... remember that time when the Province and DFO assured us that HMSI was not present in BC....

Supermarket salmon test positive for virus found in Europe - Published Tuesday, Apr. 17, 2012
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ive-for-virus-found-in-europe/article4100831/

Melanie McNabb, a spokesperson for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, said in an e-mail that government researchers have not found any sign of HSMI in either wild or farmed B.C. salmon.

“Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Province of British Columbia have conducted an extensive monitoring and testing program over the years for diseases of concern in both wild and farmed fish; these efforts have revealed no signs of the presence of this disease in British Columbia. And no major mortalities have occurred at BC aquaculture facilities that would have led our fish health professionals to suspect the presence of this disease,” she stated.

Now they do admit that HMSI is here and it's been here since at least the time it was reported in 2012. At this rate maybe in our lifetime we will see them admit that PRv is the cause of HSMI.
 
This from the PSF website.... They are also having a talk in Vancouver on March 7 and I sure hope it's recorded as I would like to get more info.

Join us March 7th - What's Going on With Fraser #Salmon? With @PSF CEO Dr. Riddell - buy your tickets: http://ow.ly/5uzI3092AWI

HSMI Scientific Paper Reveals New Details
https://www.psf.ca/news-media/hsmi-scientific-paper-reveals-new-details

Last year, Heart and Skeletal Muscle Inflammation Disease (HSMI) was found at a salmon farm in British Columbia through the Strategic Salmon Health Initiative. The Initiative is a partnership between the Pacific Salmon Foundation, Genome BC and Fisheries and Oceans Canada to investigate the impact of disease on wild salmon stocks.

While the basic information about the HSMI findings have been published, there are details included in a recently published scientific paper that were not part of previous media coverage. These include:

  • a perspective on why this was not diagnosed previously;
  • the fact that the sequence of the virus is the same as found on migratory fish on the west coast of Vancouver island;
  • the fact that the disease was found on up to 90% of the sampled population and remained on the farm for almost a full year; and
  • the fact that there have been diseases with some elements in common with HSMI described in Pacific salmon in Norway, Chile, and recently Japan.
The scientific paper can be downloaded here.
 
agentaqua said:
Thanks for the careful attention to detail, Shuswap. I agree with many of your points.

However, I am more frustrated rather than surprised at how our regulators want to spend time and effort in arguing whether PRv causes or causes in part a condition called HMSI - rather than spending time on risk evaluation and mitigation. I think it is likely that PRV does (in part) cause HMSI - but that isn't (for me) the important point. The point is - it is bad. It is bad for the caged fish - but worse for me - we don't know how bad it is for wild stocks.

So I see this response from our regulators as yet another stalling and deflection tactic - while the impacts from open net cages and wild-cultured stock interactions go unaddressed and unresolved. It's the elephant in the room that DFO and CFIA and Marty seem to want to avoid at all costs - including invoking the Precautionary Principle.
Click to expand...

Well, we were taken down this path in part (not all) by critics like Morton, so I am not sure I would pin this all on regulators. Calls for more testing (including independent) and surveillance echoed all over the place. This all goes back to the Cohen Report where Justice Cohen had identified gaps in our knowledge in his recommendations. The public, stakeholders and environmentalists demanded action on these recommendations....even some folks that directly work with salmon. There was a strong belief during the inquiry that infectious diseases play a role in mortality. The role of disease agents in mortality has gaps. Additionally, there was specific concerns with outmigrating juvenile salmon and early marine survival. One of the big issues is that most of this type of work done to date has been done with cultured fish in hatcheries and salmon aquaculture and not as much with wild fish.

We sort of need to fill in these gaps in knowledge which includes pathogens and infectious diseases in order to best direct and inform the sort of risk evaluation and mitigation that you are looking for, in my opinion. The Strategic Salmon Health Initiative is well positioned to help addressed these and the findings from it will hopefully assist in creating better policy.

You stated "it's bad", but what does that really mean and what metric does one use to say how bad it is? If look at the study the authors say in their discussion that the mortality data suggested that farm-wide during that peak of HSMI was not usually high. They go on to make reference to Norway where HSMI doesn't always result in increased mortality, production impacts or clinical signs of disease (pg 22). Obviously, fish farmers don't want to see disease outbreaks, but if you read about this particular disease in this study it's not so obvious and doesn't result in mortality which would be highly out of the ordinary. However, severity could very well be linked to marine conditions like future toxic algal blooms and warm water blobs (however the impacts of the recent blob is not entirely clear), so it very well could be as "bad" if we experience these marine conditions in the future. But then again, environmental stressors can be factors with other diseases also, not just HSMI.
 
Last edited:
shuswap said:
Well, we were taken down this path in part (not all) by critics like Morton, so I am not sure I would pin this all on regulators.
Click to expand...
What "path" are you referring to Shuswap? More testing? More accountability? Not seeing how any of that is a bad thing.
shuswap said:
The role of disease agents in mortality has gaps. Additionally, there was specific concerns with outmigrating juvenile salmon and early marine survival. One of the big issues is that most of this type of work done to date has been done with cultured fish in hatcheries and salmon aquaculture and not as much with wild fish.
Click to expand...
BINGO! And who's fault is it that we are in this predicament? Lets be honest here - The regulators/government because of political interference from the industry.
shuswap said:
We sort of need to fill in these gaps in knowledge which includes pathogens and infectious diseases in order to best direct and inform the sort of risk evaluation and mitigation that you are looking for, in my opinion. The Strategic Salmon Health Initiative is well positioned to help addressed these and the findings from it will hopefully assist in creating better policy.
Click to expand...
Absolutely! And this option is denied by covering-up fish health data fron the farms. That starts with Gary Marty's office - and continues up the line through DFO to CFIA.
shuswap said:
You stated "it's bad", but what does that really mean and what metric does one use to say how bad it is?
Click to expand...
Reference above response. If we could do real-time sampling for wild salmonids around an outbreak - we could assess the epidemiology, virulence and other factors needed to assess impacts to wild stocks. Marty, DFO and CFIA deny access to those crucial pieces of data (location and real-time reporting) because the fish farm lawyers have scared them into submission IMHO. Wild stocks have both PRv and ISAv. It'll take a few years to sort out how bad it really is - but it's shutting the barn doors after the open net-cage technology, political interference and the failure of regulators have set those ponies loose.
 
Let's be sure not to fall into the "trump trap" of following the shiny red ball where ever it bounces and realize a few basic things:

1) The samples found to have HSMI disease were taken in 2013-2014
2) The fish farming industry and fed/prov gov't were very adamant that NO diseases are present in BC fish farms.... right up until they were forced to admit it as this study came out
3) If the industry or gov't really wanted to know about and publish disease on farms they could have very easily done this. They choose to either be willfully blind OR to withhold this information until an NGO stepped up and did the work.

Very sad situation that our gov't are working to protect the fish farming industry over the health and welfare of the public they are supposed to serve. All too common in today's 'big money in politics' world however.

Get these infested farms out of the ocean until they can prove they are having ZERO negative effect on wild salmon or the environment... and given what we know that is gonna be a long shot for the industry to prove.
 
I do appreciate SSHI's work to date as well as the publication of the results of that researsch. I also thank Justice Bruce Cohen for his recommendations that I believe led to the research. There is still much work to do before Sept. 30, 2020.

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/cohen/report-rapport-eng.htm#r1
Recommendation 18 - If at any time between now and September 30, 2020, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans determines that net-pen salmon farms in the Discovery Islands (fish health sub-zone 3-2) pose more than a minimal risk of serious harm to the health of migrating Fraser River sockeye salmon, he or she should promptly order that those salmon farms cease operations.
This recommendation has been implemented. Scientific research is being conducted and a disease risk assessment process is underway and will be completed by 2020. If scientific research indicates that net-pen salmon farms in the Discovery Islands pose more than a minimal risk of serious harm to the health of migrating Fraser River sockeye salmon, salmon farms in the Discovery Islands will be required to cease operations.

The results of the risk assessment may indicate that further research is required to support Ministerial decisions. Additional funding may be required depending on what further research is needed.

Recommendation 19 - On September 30, 2020, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans should prohibit net-pen salmon farming in the Discovery Islands (fish health sub-zone 3-2) unless he or she is satisfied that such farms pose at most a minimal risk of serious harm to the health of migrating Fraser River sockeye salmon. The Minister’s decision should summarize the information relied on and include detailed reasons. The decision should be published on the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ website.
This recommendation has not been implemented as the timeline on this recommendation is September 2020; however, scientific research is being conducted to address the question raised. See also response to Recommendation 18.

Recommendation 20 – To inform the decision under Recommendation 19, the Minister and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans should take the following steps:
  • conduct the research and analyses recommended in Recommendation 68 and publish the results of this research;
  • assess any relationships between salmon farming variables compiled in the fish health database and Fraser River sockeye health or productivity.
This recommendation has been implemented and new science funding has been provided to augment work in this area. DFO has ongoing research programs that are examining interactions of wild salmon (primarily sockeye, coho and chinook) with salmon farms in the Discovery Island Area. Migration routes, residency time, and the condition and health of juvenile salmon are being assessed. This work is being done in collaboration with external groups such as the Pacific Salmon Foundation and British Columbia Salmon Farmers Association. DFO will continue to develop a more formal assessment of disease risks, particularly novel and endemic diseases working with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and domestic and international experts.

Results from this work have been presented at public and scientific meetings, and data reports from the first two years have been published. Formal peer-reviewed publications are planned. Samples from research programs have also been provided to the Strategic Salmon Health Initiative.

Results from these programs will continue to inform management of industry, as well as provide critical information to support Fisheries and Oceans Canada formal fish disease risk assessment.

Recommendation 68 – The Department of Fisheries and Oceans should undertake or commission research into the health of Fraser River sockeye salmon, including the following issues:
  • determining, in conjunction with the research proposed in Recommendations 64 and 65, what pathogens are encountered by Fraser River sockeye salmon along their entire migratory route, and the cumulative effects of these pathogens on Fraser River sockeye salmon;
  • the hypothesis that diseases are transmitted from farmed salmon to wild sockeye;
  • the hypothesis that diseases are transmitted from salmonid enhancement facility salmon to wild sockeye; and
  • the thresholds of sea lice infection and resilience in sockeye and the patterns of sea lice distribution and infection on juvenile sockeye.
While some work has been done that aligns with this recommendation and additional science funding has been provided to further work in this area, it is viewed as not implemented because additional resources would be required to continue and expand this work to fully address the recommendation.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada is engaged in a number of initiatives that are assisting to determine what pathogens are encountered by Fraser River sockeye salmon along their entire migratory route, and the cumulative effects of these pathogens on Fraser River sockeye salmon.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada is funding or co-funding several projects that are examining the health status of Fraser River sockeye salmon. DFO provides co-funding and other support for the Strategic Salmon Health Initiative which is examining sockeye salmon collected along their migratory route for the presence of 45 microbes. The Program for Aquaculture Regulatory Research (PARR) and Aquaculture Collaborative Research Development Program are supporting sockeye health assessments as part of ongoing studies into juvenile sockeye migratory behavior and interactions with salmon farms. DFO provided funding under the Genomic Research and Development Initiative (GRDI) and PARR programs to support research that has examined the impact of co-infections on the ability of sockeye salmon to respond to subsequent infection with pathogens. The Strategic Salmon Health Initiative plans to combine microbe data with microarray studies from the Genome BC funded FishManOmics project, and biomarkers identified in the GRDI-funded Genomic Research and Development Initiative Fit Chips project to determine the linkages between microbe detection and genes associated with specific stressors. The effects of pathogens on predation rates of sockeye salmon by Auklets is also being examined by the Strategic Salmon Health Initiative.

As well, a DFO Science Task Team is specifically evaluating the risk to Fraser River sockeye from pathogens transferred from Atlantic salmon fish farms. Ongoing research is being conducted in wild/farmed fish health interactions, particularly in the BC context.

The clock is ticking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GLG
As good as the SSHI is - they have been working on farmed salmon in QCS and JS. The potential and realized impacts to wild salmon vis-a-vis introduction of a novel disease would be in a far larger geographic context.
 
cuttlefish said:
New research paper linking PRV to HSMI
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0183781
Click to expand...

And we wonder why our wild salmon stocks are rapidly disappearing since the introduction of these cesspool open net pen atlantic salmon factories... Where's Dave and the other usual supporters to call this Fake news...? nothing to see here... carry on....
When will those in charge of what's left of our natural resources wake up and get there heads out of the sand? Complete BS...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Whole in the Water
Concerns about herring kills at B.C. fish farms
Replies
26
Views
2K
Fishing?
F
SVIAC
IMPORTANT: Feb. 27 Fisheries Town Hall Mtg. in Langford
Replies
13
Views
2K
PEETZcanada
PEETZcanada
Whole in the Water
Salmon at increased risk of exposure to harmful bacteria near B.C. fish farms
Replies
4
Views
595
agentaqua
A
Aquaholic
New dry rub for salmon
Replies
0
Views
319
Aquaholic
Aquaholic
Deepaaaar
Alaska salmon harvest 2023
Replies
3
Views
898
Deepaaaar
Deepaaaar
Back
Top