Atlantic salmon blood through an effluent pipe - directly into Brown’s Bay

[Birdsnest]

Ok. I guess since you did not address my last post you would agree with it some what. I have to guess because you clearly did not respond and have made a 90 degree turn here. You have also made a comment about a 'Mystery Virus" with a link to a paper. There is no information in that paper about a mystery virus and Im not sure where you are getting that from.

Could you provide some info on this mystery virus?

Did you read the paper. It clearly states that jaundice could not be repeated in the lab.

 

[GLG]

Gentlemen... it seems I'm not getting my point across. Browns Bay is on a salmon migration route and therefore we must protect wild salmon from any pathogen known or unknown. We must also protect farmed salmon from pathogens that flow out to other farms. We may disagree on what pathogen is most harmful to what species, that's fine. What we should not disagree on is protecting any of these fish from a practice that clearly can be avoided.
I don't have to convince you fellas that having a blood pipe with questionable material including pathogens is a bad idea. I suspect that any argument I try will not convince your steadfast support of this industry. That's fine and I except that. Lucky for the rest of us, that care about this coast, it seems that our current government agrees with me.

Province to improve environmental protections for coastal areas
The provincial government is moving to protect the environment and health of wild salmon by strengthening the requirements for fish processing and finfish aquaculture operations.

“Serious and widespread concerns about effluent from fish processing operations and finfish aquaculture practices have been raised, and the government is taking action,” said George Heyman, Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy. “British Columbians expect us to keep our water safe. We’ll do this by developing a comprehensive set of measures that will apply to the finfish aquaculture and fish processing industry along our coast. We will work with industry, First Nations and local communities to strengthen regulations and make sure any discharge into the water is safe and does not contaminate wild salmon.”

The ministry will immediately begin a review of fish processing plants to ensure waste materials produced from these operations do not affect wild salmon stocks. The purpose of the review is to ensure provincial regulations and permits governing waste discharge from fish processing are informed by the best available science and best practices in other jurisdictions, and fish processing discharge is free of contaminants and pathogens.

In addition, the ministry will immediately review whether treatments for sea lice are scientifically supported and are consistent with best practices in other jurisdictions. Results from this review will inform potential changes to the Integrated Pest Management Regulation, which regulates sea lice treatment.

“Our bottom line is to make sure that we protect our wild salmon and keep harmful substances from entering the marine environment as a result of these operations,” said Heyman.

Quick Facts:

• In British Columbia, the Waste Discharge Regulation under the Environmental Management Act enables the regulation of discharges from fish processing plants into the marine environment.
• There are approximately 35 waste discharge authorizations issued under the Environmental Management Act for fish processing plants in B.C.
• Discharge requirements in fish processing plant permits are site specific and depend on a number of factors, including:
  • the volumes and types of effluent produced; and
  • the receiving environment into which the discharge is released.
• The requirements are designed to ensure that the environment is protected and pollution does not occur.

https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2017ENV0075-002077

 

[Birdsnest]

So, no mystery virus? I didn't think so. lol

Gentlemen... it seems I'm not getting my point across. Browns Bay is on a salmon migration route and therefore we must protect wild salmon from any pathogen known or unknown. We must also protect farmed salmon from pathogens that flow out to other farms. We may disagree on what pathogen is most harmful to what species, that's fine. What we should not disagree on is protecting any of these fish from a practice that clearly can be avoided.
I don't have to convince you fellas that having a blood pipe with questionable material including pathogens is a bad idea. I suspect that any argument I try will not convince your steadfast support of this industry. That's fine and I except that. Lucky for the rest of us, that care about this coast, it seems that our current government agrees with me.

Province to improve environmental protections for coastal areas
The provincial government is moving to protect the environment and health of wild salmon by strengthening the requirements for fish processing and finfish aquaculture operations.

“Serious and widespread concerns about effluent from fish processing operations and finfish aquaculture practices have been raised, and the government is taking action,” said George Heyman, Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy. “British Columbians expect us to keep our water safe. We’ll do this by developing a comprehensive set of measures that will apply to the finfish aquaculture and fish processing industry along our coast. We will work with industry, First Nations and local communities to strengthen regulations and make sure any discharge into the water is safe and does not contaminate wild salmon.”

The ministry will immediately begin a review of fish processing plants to ensure waste materials produced from these operations do not affect wild salmon stocks. The purpose of the review is to ensure provincial regulations and permits governing waste discharge from fish processing are informed by the best available science and best practices in other jurisdictions, and fish processing discharge is free of contaminants and pathogens.

In addition, the ministry will immediately review whether treatments for sea lice are scientifically supported and are consistent with best practices in other jurisdictions. Results from this review will inform potential changes to the Integrated Pest Management Regulation, which regulates sea lice treatment.

“Our bottom line is to make sure that we protect our wild salmon and keep harmful substances from entering the marine environment as a result of these operations,” said Heyman.

Quick Facts:

• In British Columbia, the Waste Discharge Regulation under the Environmental Management Act enables the regulation of discharges from fish processing plants into the marine environment.
• There are approximately 35 waste discharge authorizations issued under the Environmental Management Act for fish processing plants in B.C.
• Discharge requirements in fish processing plant permits are site specific and depend on a number of factors, including:
  • the volumes and types of effluent produced; and
  • the receiving environment into which the discharge is released.
• The requirements are designed to ensure that the environment is protected and pollution does not occur.

https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2017ENV0075-002077

All your post says is there has been concerns raised about the situation. Fair enough however no where in the statement does the post state that there is fault or quantifiable evidence of harm. The result being there will be a review.
No fault
No fines
No nothing.

A review.

 

[GLG]

So, no mystery virus? I didn't think so. lol



All your post says is there has been concerns raised about the situation. Fair enough however no where in the statement does the post state that there is fault or quantifiable evidence of harm. The result being there will be a review.
No fault
No fines
No nothing.

A review.

I'm glad you agree that this is something that needs to be looked at. World class should mean something more than 3rd world standards.

It seems that DFO is also going to look at it and agrees with the rest of us in BC that care about salmon.
"The federal government said fish plant effluent falls under the provincial government’s jurisdiction. But Fisheries Minister Dominic LeBlanc was so alarmed by the video that he opted to launch a review."
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/feds-...s-show-fish-virus-in-b-c-bloodwater-1.3698627

 

[fogged in]

So, no mystery virus? I didn't think so. lol



All your post says is there has been concerns raised about the situation. Fair enough however no where in the statement does the post state that there is fault or quantifiable evidence of harm. The result being there will be a review.
No fault
No fines
No nothing.
A review.

Is that your prediction Birdsnest
A review with

No fault...(agreed)
No fines...(agreed)
No nothing...(no changes??I rather doubt it)
​

 

[Birdsnest]

I'm glad you agree that this is something that needs to be looked at. World class should mean something more than 3rd world standards.

It seems that DFO is also going to look at it and agrees with the rest of us in BC that care about salmon.
"The federal government said fish plant effluent falls under the provincial government’s jurisdiction. But Fisheries Minister Dominic LeBlanc was so alarmed by the video that he opted to launch a review."
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/feds-...s-show-fish-virus-in-b-c-bloodwater-1.3698627

I did not recently agree with you that it should be looked at but I have in the past along with my sentiments about releasing wild fish blood into rivers and oceans. Its the same thing and I wonder if this review is going to include those factors.

 

[GLG]

I did not recently agree with you that it should be looked at but I have in the past along with my sentiments about releasing wild fish blood into rivers and oceans. Its the same thing and I wonder if this review is going to include those factors.

I must have misunderstood when you said "fair enough". That's ok I'll try not to make that mistake again. I think the point is that there are only few processors that handle the 100's of thousands of farm fish each year. They concentrate those potential pathogens in a very bad spot for farmed as well as wild fish.

 

[Birdsnest]

Oh i see. Ya gotcha there. I missed that too. Anyway to be clear I agree that blood water and guts etc of any kind released into the environment should be reviewed/studied. I'm not however jumping on the science conclusions vie photo/video campaign! Thats just ridiculous.

 

[bones]

I wonder why test samples from the discharge turned up positive for PRv if as they claim they ensure pathogens are neutralized. Can you explain that Bones?

depends on how you kill or treat for viruses. always thought it was just done with UVC cathode lamps ie:G36T6V. the lamp life is 20,000 but effective life is only??? 8000. did they forget to change the lamps and thus allowing virus to pass by? only to get caught when doing routine or monthly water sampling.

hard to say....

 

[cuttlefish]

Water clarity and flow rate also need to be considered for disinfection by UVC.
Let's wait and see what the review turns up.

 

[Birdsnest]

Water clarity and flow rate also need to be considered for disinfection by UVC.
Let's wait and see what the review turns up.

I wonder if the test would just pick up segments of prv? Have the lab results been posted anywhere? Anyway, one drop of see water in any normal environment can contain a million viruses. Given this fact it is likely that any sample collected by a diver could be contaminated. Citizen science is great however it does not get to circumvent science.

 

[wildmanyeah]

Still does not change the fact the process to investigate this place has now been started. All we can do now is wait for the full report.

I’m sure we all expect this company to disinfect the blood and make sure it’s not impacting the environment.

There is obviously some bad apples in the industry and since lots of company’s out there made massive cuts in their operating budgets after the 2008 crash I’m sure some cut corners.

It’s important that we hold them to the highest standards while still allowing them to compete world wide.

Looks what Iceland’s doings, their massively increasing their production

http://icelandreview.com/news/2017/12/29/larger-fish-farms-licensed-west-fjords

Is there opportunity to put fish farms in fresh water lakes like in Australia.

I think it’s important that while we debate we don’t loose sight of what we all want for our wild salmon to do well.

Often people here make personal attacks that then lead to people debating against them just to try to get an upper hand or belittle them. That it stops being about the debate and more about winning the school yard battle.

Perhaps in 2018 we can try to debate the facts while also trying to improve our wild salmon population we should never loose sight on that.

 

[cuttlefish]

I wonder if the test would just pick up segments of prv? Have the lab results been posted anywhere? Anyway, one drop of see water in any normal environment can contain a million viruses. Given this fact it is likely that any sample collected by a diver could be contaminated. Citizen science is great however it does not get to circumvent science.

I don't know the answers to those questions. Pretty easy to verify the diver's results at the other (receiving) end of the discharge pipe methinks. Anyway, nice to know prelimiary findings being taken seriously and disinfection procedures are being reviewed.

 

[cuttlefish]

Still does not change the fact the process to investigate this place has now been started. All we can do now is wait for the full report.

I’m sure we all expect this company to disinfect the blood and make sure it’s not impacting the environment.

There is obviously some bad apples in the industry and since lots of company’s out there made massive cuts in their operating budgets after the 2008 crash I’m sure some cut corners.

It’s important that we hold them to the highest standards while still allowing them to compete world wide.

Looks what Iceland’s doings, their massively increasing their production

http://icelandreview.com/news/2017/12/29/larger-fish-farms-licensed-west-fjords

Is there opportunity to put fish farms in fresh water lakes like in Australia.

I think it’s important that while we debate we don’t loose sight of what we all want for our wild salmon to do well.

Often people here make personal attacks that then lead to people debating against them just to try to get an upper hand or belittle them. That it stops being about the debate and more about winning the school yard battle.

Perhaps in 2018 we can try to debate the facts while also trying to improve our wild salmon population we should never loose sight on that.

I agree with your sentiments towards the review, the debates on here as well as towards wild salmon recovery efforts.
As fas as Iceland and Australia go, those are different parts of the world just as are Norway (https://www.fishfarmingexpert.com/news/closed-cage-smolt-experiment-pays-off/),
and Scotland (https://www.fishfarmingexpert.com/news/new-lice-bath-100-effective-and-pollution-free/) with different issues, rules and regulations.
Happy a Happy New Year!

 

[agentaqua]

I think these great questions on how to identify, rate and subsequently mitigate disease risks – really identifies the very noticeable and currently unfulfilled gaps in due diligence & supporting regulation wrt mitigating disease risks to wild stocks in Canada – and especially on the West Coast.

As far as I am concerned there has only been some effort on protecting “trade” through OIE-related import risk assessment – but unfortunately no transfer of that assessment & regulation onto a site-by-site domestic environmental assessment process.

Instead we are led to believe from the unfortunately combined team of promoters and regulators - that the promoted but indefensible siting criteria - instead of actual science-based risk assessment methodologies such as agent-based modelling - is good enough since we don't want any industry lawyers suing the government in case they get their leases cancelled, or get put through approval processes where the status quo is changed. Industry has successfully dictated their terms of reference for operations thus far.

So our regulators know about disease risk mitigation, and recognize the need to protect trade – but that does not translate into disease risk assessment and mitigation, and the need to protect our wild stocks. It is a complete failure of due diligence and fiduciary duty IMHO. The lawyers at Justice recognize this untenable legal position, IMHO – and the PR firms and communication branches of the DFO, CFIA, and BCSFA all work to hide that failure.

For example, in the OIE Aquatic Animal Health Code and the EU Directive 2006/88, disease risks are classified based on several criteria (OIE 2015e; European Council 2006):

(24) The slaughter and processing of aquaculture animals which are subject to disease control measures may spread the disease, inter alia as a result of the discharge of effluents containing pathogens from processing plants. It is therefore necessary for the Member States to have access to processing establishments that have been duly authorised to undertake such slaughter and processing without jeopardising the health status of farmed and wild aquatic animals, including in respect of the discharge of effluents.


Member States shall ensure that any water exchanges during transport are carried out at places and under conditions which do not jeopardise the health status of:


(a) the aquaculture animals being transported;

(b)any aquatic animals at the place of water exchange; and

(c) aquatic animals at the place of destination.


Risk levels


A high-risk farm or mollusc farming area is a farm or mollusc farming area which:


(a) has a high risk of spreading diseases to or contracting diseases from other farms or wild stocks;

(b) operates under farming conditions which could increase the risk of disease outbreaks (high biomass, low water quality), taking into account the species present;

(c) sells live aquatic animals for further farming or restocking.


Types of health surveillance


Criteria for listing diseases


A. Exotic diseases shall meet the following criteria laid down in point 1 and either point 2 or 3.


1. The disease is exotic to the Community, i.e. the disease is not established in Community aquaculture, and the pathogen is not known to be present in Community waters.


2. It has potential for significant economic impact if introduced into the Community, either by production losses in Community aquaculture or by restricting the potential for trade in aquaculture animals and products thereof.


3. It has potential for detrimental environmental impact if introduced into the Community, to wild aquatic animal populations of species, which are an asset worth protecting by Community law or international provisions.

European Council. 2006. Council Directive 2006/88/EC of 24 October 2006 on animal health requirements for aquaculture animals and products thereof, and on the prevention and control of certain diseases in aquatic animals. Official Journal of the European Union (OJ L) 328:14–56. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32006L0088.

OIE (World Organization for Animal Health). 2015e. Import risk analysis. In Aquatic animal health code, Chapter 2.1. Paris: OIE. http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Health_standards/aahc/2010/chapitre_import_risk_analysis.pdf.

 

[agentaqua]

Article 2.1.4. OIE (World Organization for Animal Health). 2015. Aquatic animal health code:

Risk assessment steps

1. Entry assessment
Entry assessment consists of describing the biological pathway(s) necessary for an importation activity to introduce a pathogenic agent into a particular environment, and estimating the probability of that complete process occurring either qualitatively (in words) or quantitatively (as a numerical estimate). The entry assessment describes the probability of the entry of each of the hazards (the pathogenic agents) or under each specified set of conditions with respect to amounts and timing, and how these might change as a result of various actions, events or measures. Examples of the kind of inputs that may be required in the entry assessment are:

a) Biological factors
– Species, strain or genotype, and age of aquatic animal
– Strain of agent
– Tissue sites of infection and/or contamination
– Vaccination, testing, treatment and quarantine.
b) Country factors
– Incidence or prevalence
– Evaluation of Aquatic Animal Health Services, surveillance and control programmes, and zoning and compartmentalisation systems of the exporting country.
c) Commodity factors
– Whether the commodity is alive or dead
– Quantity of commodity to be imported
– Ease of contamination
– Effect of the various processing methods on the pathogenic agent in the commodity
– Effect of storage and transport on the pathogenic agent in the commodity.
If the entry assessment demonstrates no significant risk, the risk assessment does not need to continue.

2. Exposure assessment
Exposure assessment consists of describing the biological pathway(s) necessary for exposure of animals and humans in the importing country to the hazards (in this case the pathogenic agents) from a given risk source, and estimating the probability of these exposure(s) occurring, either qualitatively (in words) or quantitatively (as a numerical estimate). The probability of exposure to the identified hazards is estimated for specified exposure conditions with respect to amounts, timing, frequency, duration of exposure, routes of exposure, and the number, species and other characteristics of the animal and human populations exposed. Examples of the kind of inputs that may be required in the exposure assessment are:

a) Biological factors
– Properties of the agent (e.g. virulence, pathogenicity and survival parameters)
– Genotype of host.
b) Country factors
– Presence of potential vectors or intermediate hosts
– Aquatic animal demographics (e.g. presence of known susceptible and carrier species, distribution)
– Human and terrestrial animal demographics (e.g. possibility of scavengers, presence of piscivorous birds)
– Customs and cultural practices
– Geographical and environmental characteristics (e.g. hydrographic data, temperature ranges, water courses).
c) Commodity factors
– Whether the commodity is alive or dead
– Quantity of commodity to be imported
– Intended use of the imported aquatic animals or products (e.g. domestic consumption, restocking, incorporation in or use as aquaculture feed or bait)
– Waste disposal practices.
If the exposure assessment demonstrates no significant risk, the risk assessment may conclude at this step.

3. Consequence assessment
Consequence assessment consists of describing the relationship between specified exposures to a biological agent and the consequences of those exposures. A causal process should exist by which exposures produce adverse health or environmental consequences, which may in turn lead to socio-economic consequences. The consequence assessment describes the potential consequences of a given exposure and estimates the probability of them occurring. This estimate may be either qualitative (in words) or quantitative (a numerical estimate). Examples of consequences include:

a) Direct consequences
– Aquatic animal infection, disease, production losses and facility closures
– Public health consequences.
b) Indirect consequences
– Surveillance and control costs
– Compensation costs
– Potential trade losses
– Adverse, and possibly irreversible, consequences to the environment.

4. Risk estimation
Risk estimation consists of integrating the results of the entry assessment, exposure assessment, and consequence assessment to produce overall measures of risks associated with the hazards identified at the outset. Thus risk estimation takes into account the whole of the risk pathway from hazard identified to unwanted outcome. For a quantitative assessment, the final outputs may include:

– The various populations of aquatic animals and/or estimated numbers of aquaculture establishments or people likely to experience health impacts of various degrees of severity over time
– Probability distributions, confidence intervals, and other means for expressing the uncertainties in these estimates
– Portrayal of the variance of all model inputs
– A sensitivity analysis to rank the inputs as to their contribution to the variance of the risk estimation output
– Analysis of the dependence and correlation between model inputs.