Sea Lice and Fish Farms

Wilds have always done better than hatchery. The flaw I see in hatcheries is they do not duplicate or attempt to duplicate wild reproductive conditions which is a direction I feel hatchery production needs to go and the best opportunity to dabble in this is on the smaller systems. There is a huge knowledge gap here.
 
Hi FM.... first off what does the "figure 600 smolts per spawner" mean? without looking up the data I would say that not many adults returned so the eggs to smolt was rather good and may have to do with the load capacity that this river has. Fewer competition for the fry that did make it from eggs. My thinking is that few adults spawned and the eggs survived (more than normal) to smolt then when they went to sea and returned as adults. That's how I would interpret that ratio. I will poke around and see if I can find escapement data for Black Creek. I'm not discounting all your ideas but you need to look at all the evidence and make sure you keep an open mind.

What I'm reporting is not new info as we have known this for years and it's not even controversial in the hatchery community. Another troubling trend is the wilds are doing better than the hatchery smolts. You would think that it would be reversed because the hatchery fish don't have to compete for food and we control the water volume.

Cheers, GLG
I have looked at all that evidence for the last twenty five years. I still see a greater variable in fresh water productivity than marine survival. This is something the authors dismisses and so do you. I have personally witnessed stream acidification all over the south coast in the same era. This is why your conclusions which are adopted from report summeries are different than mine. Just because water chemistry has been ignored by DFO, MOE, SEP, SF.... doesn't mean it isn't a huge factor. I will say it, that author is wrong! So is anyone who denies the acidification has happened and is a big player. Again it is the information that you don't see in all the reports that is sometimes most important.

I would post some rain chemistry reports and stream ecology information but it seems to just blow over everyone's head anyway. The contaminants that are released by stream acidification flow right into the estuary where in they would be effecting life there too. You are all apparently sold on the notion that fresh water chemistry is not a factor even though it has never been reported on. Maybe you should open you mind a little.

My take on hatchery fish having a lower survival rate is that they are trained from feeding to follow a shadow for food. That along with less experience avoiding predators equals dummies thrown to the ominous sea. That survival rate could be hugely increased with a different feeding technique and predator training practices. Present day smolts are partially domesticated and have lost some natural skills.

If you are wondering why the smolt health has improved recently it is explained by the recent rise in stream alkalinity. Stamp river now has more mayflies than I have seen in over twenty years. They are good fish food you know.
 
Wilds have always done better than hatchery. The flaw I see in hatcheries is they do not duplicate or attempt to duplicate wild reproductive conditions which is a direction I feel hatchery production needs to go and the best opportunity to dabble in this is on the smaller systems. There is a huge knowledge gap here.

Agreed with most of what you just said but I was looking at more long term ratio of hatchery smolts to adult. There has been a drop of the survival over the last 30 years. I seem to recall that from a seminar I attended a few (10) years back with Beamish telling us that we need to look at making changes but he was unsure of what to do. I was clear that BAU had stopped working and small hatcheries could play a roll through experimenting with their practices depending on their rivers.

Here is something a ran across while looking for the Black Creek escapement numbers..... go figure.....

Hear No Evil: Farmed Fish Found To Be Hard Of Hearing - April 28th 2016

http://www.science20.com/news_articles/hear_no_evil_farmed_fish_found_to_be_hard_of_hearing-171513

New research published today in the journal Scientific Reports has revealed for the first time that half of the world's farmed fish have hearing loss due to a deformity of the earbone.

Like humans, fish have ears which are essential for hearing and balance, so the findings are significant for the welfare of farmed fish as well as the survival of captive-bred fish released into the wild for conservation purposes.

The University of Melbourne-led study found that half of the world's most farmed marine fish, Atlantic salmon, have a deformity of the otolith or 'fish earbone', much like the inner ear of mammals. The deformity was found to be very uncommon in wild fish.

Lead author Ms Tormey Reimer said farmed fish are 10 times more likely to have the deformity than wild fish.

"The deformity occurs when the typical structure of calcium carbonate in the fish earbone is replaced with a different crystal form. The deformed earbones are larger, lighter and more brittle, and the way they perform within the ear changes," Ms Reimer said.

"The deformity occurs at an early age, most often when fish are in a hatchery, but its effects on hearing become increasingly more severe as the fish age.

"Our research suggests that fish afflicted with this deformity can lose up to 50% of their hearing sensitivity."

To test if the deformity was a global phenomenon, researchers from the University of Melbourne and the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research sampled salmon from the world's major salmon producing nations: Norway, Canada, Scotland, Chile and Australia.

The team compared the structure of the otoliths from farmed and wild salmon. They also compared the hearing of the fish using a model that predicts what a fish can hear.

Regardless of the country where salmon were farmed, the deformity was much higher in farmed fish than wild fish.

"This study raises questions about the welfare of farmed animals and could explain why some conservation programs aren't working" said co-author Assoc. Prof. Tim Dempster from the School of Biosciences, University of Melbourne.

"Something about the farming process is causing the deformity. We now need to work out what is the root cause to help the global salmon industry produce fish with acceptable welfare standards."
Over two million tons of farmed salmon are produced every year, with more than a billion fish harvested.

"We estimate that roughly half of these fish have the earbone deformity, and thus have compromised hearing. We don't yet know exactly how this hearing loss affects their performance in farms.

However, producing farmed animals with deformities contravenes two of the "Five Freedoms" that forms the basis of legislation to ensure the welfare of farmed animals in many countries," added Ms Reimer.

Deformed earbones could also explain why many fish conservation programs aren't performing as expected.

Every year, billions of captive-bred juvenile salmon are released into rivers in North America, Asia and Europe to boost wild populations, but their survival is 10-20 times lower than that of wild salmon.

Hearing loss may prevent fish from detecting predators, and restrict their ability to navigate back to their home stream to breed.

Study co-author Prof Steve Swearer from the University of Melbourne said that the poor performance of restocked fish has been a long-standing mystery.

"We think that compromised hearing could be part of the problem. All native fish re-stocking programs should now assess if their fish have deformed earbones and what effect this has on their survival rates," Prof. Swearer said.

"If we don't change the way fish are produced for release, we may just be throwing money and resources into the sea."
 
[QUOTE
Is this a bash fish farm thread or is it for discussion about sea lice and fish farms? I am not defending farms I am questioning the science used to concluded farms as being such a contributing factor.
So what % of the problem would you say stream chemistry and invertebrate populations might play into this deficiency in adult salmon returns?[/QUOTE]

When you talk sea lice and fish farms, it's hard not to have it end up like bashing Fish Farms.
The evidence goes on and on and on and no one can dispute that Sea Lice from Fish farms impact our wild salmon.
Some runs more that others.
I will leave you and others to do the endless debating with little or no hope of resolution any time soon.
 
Last edited:
So AA, GLG and FI, you are all deviating from answering my question of: What importance do you think freshwater chemistry and invertebrate populations have to do with b.c. salmon populations?? I am wondering if any of you know anything about freshwater ecology and if I am totally wasting my efforts discussing this with you all?
 
Thanks for the opportunity to respond, Fishmyster.

The only person who can legitimately answer your question as to whether or not you are wasting your time posting on this forum - is you. I do encourage you to share what insights you have been able to learn - if that is what you want to do. Just keep in mind that scrutiny and challenge may be a response that is normal when debating science and impacts to fisheries resources - and in no way infers any personal attacks to you or your hypothesis - at least from me anyways.

I also think that impacts to salmon stocks can best be described as death by a thousand cuts - as accurately stated by GLG.

Both salt and fresh water quality is always important - but if you are proposing that dramatic changes in pH might be part of the reason for any stock declines - then one would look more closely at the freshwater - since ocean water is largely buffered by the bicarbonate system.

So, then - one would look at the species that would be most affected by changes in fresh water quality (likely NOT chum and pinks, so much - which could be more sensitive to sea lice loading from fish farms - as but one example of differences between physiologies and life history differences between species) - and look for the pH data to support that hypothesis. I think most people concerned about the future of salmon would appreciate any insights into their functioning that you - or anyone else can bring into the conversation. PH changes could certainly be a contributing factor.

Escapement data does have it's limitations and caveats - but is the best broad-scale data we have available to determine strength and direction of stock trajectories - while answers are seldom simple, and unrelated. Welcome to the field of salmon management!
 
Thanks for the opportunity to respond, Fishmyster.

The only person who can legitimately answer your question as to whether or not you are wasting your time posting on this forum - is you. I do encourage you to share what insights you have been able to learn - if that is what you want to do. Just keep in mind that scrutiny and challenge may be a response that is normal when debating science and impacts to fisheries resources - and in no way infers any personal attacks to you or your hypothesis - at least from me anyways.

I also think that impacts to salmon stocks can best be described as death by a thousand cuts - as accurately stated by GLG.

Both salt and fresh water quality is always important - but if you are proposing that dramatic changes in pH might be part of the reason for any stock declines - then one would look more closely at the freshwater - since ocean water is largely buffered by the bicarbonate system.

So, then - one would look at the species that would be most affected by changes in fresh water quality (likely NOT chum and pinks, so much - which could be more sensitive to sea lice loading from fish farms - as but one example of differences between physiologies and life history differences between species) - and look for the pH data to support that hypothesis. I think most people concerned about the future of salmon would appreciate any insights into their functioning that you - or anyone else can bring into the conversation. PH changes could certainly be a contributing factor.

Escapement data does have it's limitations and caveats - but is the best broad-scale data we have available to determine strength and direction of stock trajectories - while answers are seldom simple, and unrelated. Welcome to the field of salmon management!


The species which is most effected by fresh water is steelhead. We all know what state those populations have become. I have found the supporting rain and stream ph samples records along with conducting my own water samples. I have also witnessed coast wide ecological shifts that eliminate invertebrate life, remove then change algae species and leave starving fish behind. This along with examining stock enumeration, adult-smolt ratios, any fishery report I could find, invertebrate assessments and snorkeling annually for 40 years. The best fit scientific explanation for the loss in fish populations is acid rain and the effects there after. I posted some of the supporting data on another thread but not much response. back then. Thankfully rain ph has risen and food webs are improving. so it all doesn't really matter anymore until the rain ph drops again.

I have been trying to get this out there. I have now sent letters to many important people. Not much response. I was hoping to find smart people here who could help get the ecology awareness era started. In stead of just counting fish and giving conclusions maybe look a little deeper into the ecosystems and microbiology. Todays fishery practices would be similar to a hospital that doesn't do blood work!
 
So AA, GLG and FI, you are all deviating from answering my question of: What importance do you think freshwater chemistry and invertebrate populations have to do with b.c. salmon populations?? I am wondering if any of you know anything about freshwater ecology and if I am totally wasting my efforts discussing this with you all?

Hey Fishmyster
I think you need to start a new thread....this thread is for SEA LICE and FISH FARMS
You seem to be more interested in freshwater chemistry.
Try posting your thoughts under a new thread and perhaps you will waste less time?
 
I guess we could start a new thread - if this one goes sideways too much. Still like to hear from Fishmyster. Could be important.
 
Hey guys. Before we start a new thread lets review the sea lice supporting data that you had brought forward to me.
The graph in the last report has two lines on it. One line shown smolt-to-adult ratio. This line is indicating variable from 19%-2% in ocean survival. That is a variable of 9 fold from best to worst years.
Now lets look at the other line. It's the blue one. That line indicates the adult-to-smolt or freshwater survival is varying from over 600 smolts per adult down to such a low number it is hard to read. Lets give the benefit of doubt to call that low number 10. This indicates a variable of at least 60 fold from year to year in fresh water! Does it not?
So without reading the authors words please explain how a 60 fold variable survival rate in fresh water effects populations less than a 9 fold variable in the marine survival?
 
I agree with FM that his post aren't to out of line. What he has done is pointed out that none(that I am aware of) of the studies looking at sea lice and fish farms have ever taken into consideration the heath of the out migrating smolts and fry or system(river) conditions that may effect the out migrating salmon. Not only has he done this but he is backing it up with some correlations. I don't care where the thread is he has my attention. I don't think his/he focus is the salmon farms I believe it is the survival and science of wild and hatchery salmon. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
 
"My take on hatchery fish having a lower survival rate is that they are trained from feeding to follow a shadow for food. That along with less experience avoiding predators equals dummies thrown to the ominous sea. That survival rate could be hugely increased with a different feeding technique and predator training practices. Present day smolts are partially domesticated and have lost some natural skills."

I like this view, makes sense.
 
I think the 1st thing that should be recognized is that the discussion is about coho on the WCVI. There should be some obvious stated and acknowledged caveats about any/all assumptions - reflecting both location and life histories from the generated data.

For - example - as previously mentioned - pinks and chum would be expected to not be as affected by any assumed pH freshwater spikes (since those species only use fw habitats for egg-rearing) - while those same species would be expected to be MORE susceptible to marine impacts like sea lice loading from open net-pens - due to their small size at emergence.

So - using the smolt survival data from s.20, p. 92-95 http://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/365564.pdf would be an inappropriate metric to compare potential impacts to wild stocks from fish farms.

In addition, the statement from the author(s) is very illustrative: "...juvenile Coho Salmon growth has generally been higher in even years than odd years since 2001, and this pattern continued in 2015 (Figure 20-1). An odd-even year pattern is also apparent in the residuals of the smolt survival and PDO, SST, and NPGO relationships, with higher survival observed in even years (Figure 20-2). The underlying mechanism generating this pattern is unclear at this point. In "marine" waters of southern British Columbia, juvenile Pink Salmon are typically most abundant in even years (Beamish et al. 2008, Irvine et al. 2014).

However, they rarely occur "off" WCVI during summer, and are only present in moderate numbers during fall in even years.
"

Unfortunately the authors did not provide a description of the methodology to go along with their observations/assumptions. Both the Frosti and the Ricker use trawl nets that are ~20m depth - and likely wouldn't be able to trawl in waters shallower than 30m or so. Those little pink and chum juvies spend some weeks to months in the nearshore at like 2-3m depths before the Frosti or the Ricker can intercept them. This is the most important period to look for these impacts - and in not following the juvies through the early residence - any data generated by the DFO trawling does not take into account survivor bias - as previously mentioned.

So - this methodology in inappropriate to use to look for potential and realized impacts to juvenile salmon from fish farm operations.
 
To answer your questions more directly, fishmyster - were you referring to Figure 46-2 on page 211 from: Zimmerman, M.S.,Irvine, J.R.,O’Neill, M., Anderson, J.H., Greene, C.M., Weinheimer, J., Trudel,M., and Rawson,K. 2015. Spatial and temporal patterns in smolt survival of wild and hatchery coho salmon in the Salish Sea. Marine and Coastal Fisheries7(1):116-134, DOI: 10.1080/19425120.2015.1012246

Although I don't have the exact references (and %ages) at my fingertips - I believe that the coho populations need ~+5% marine survival for slow growth - and at something like 2% they are hanging-on by their fins - if not spiraling down into oblivion.

I see on that graph, in the late 1980s - the ocean survival rates took a serious plunge and stayed down. Occasionally - for some years - so did the smolts per spawner ratio.

Keep in mind - many things would affect that smolts per spawner ratio - besides any changes directly attributable to any pH changes - things like:
1/ scouring due to flood events, that remove and crush incubating eggs,
2/ prespawn mortality due to numerous factors and not limited to latent diseases getting turned-on at spawning - including both endemic and those new and introduced diseases from fish farms,
3/ predators like seals, birds, resident fish,
4/ warm water events, etc.

So - I wouldn't use low smolts per spawner ratio as a indication of low pH effects. Too many other impacts could also affect that ratio.

As the authors state: "In conclusion, decreasing smolt survivals are chiefly responsible for declining returns of Coho Salmon to Salish Sea streams. Factors operating within rather than outside the Salish Sea appear to be responsible for these declines. Hugely variable freshwater survivals affect adult returns but there is little evidence that they are the major reason for declining Coho Salmon returns to the Salish Sea."
 
You might not appreciate the effects of ph and alkalinity in freshwater but every book on stream ecology does. All four points you mention that are more likely the causes of low adult to smolt ratios are pure speculation. Fact is the whole assumption spawner escapement can accurately assess out migrating smolts is total hog wash. Just look at the blue line on the chart page 211. You underlined LITTLE EVEDINCE. well if you turn your back on studying chemistry and invertebrate composition then of course there would be no evidence! As you state "these are the tools we have". Well then the present tools used are effective as turning a Robertson screw with a crescent wrench.

I am convinced you do not care to understand the ecological changes that have been going on in out fresh waters. You are blind from seeing.
 
Hi guy's .... the key here is the smolt to adult ratio trend and what that is telling us. This study http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19425120.2015.1012246 is telling us that it is going down hill over time here in the SoG and not on the outside of the Vancouver Island, Washington Coast and Central BC Coast. Those places are stable compared to SoG. We all know that from year to year the survival in the rivers can vary one heck of a lot due to a host of reasons. We also know that the adult returns can vary from year to year for a host of reasons. That's why it is important to find a way to reduce the noise (variability) so we can see what is going on. That is what the smolt to adult ratio does. Next you plot that over time (30ish years) and it tells us what the trend is. The study that I linked to and the summary of the study that I also posted (State of the Ocean) is clear.
http://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/365564.pdf page 209.
We have a problem with smolt survival in the early part of ocean entry. This is not a controversial finding in the science community. In fact we are in the middle of trying to find the cause with the current http://marinesurvivalproject.com/ and yes they are also studying the fresh water part of the salmon life cycle.

Before I go down the road that the only factor is fresh water survival then someone needs to explain how the smolt to adult ratio trend differ between the SoG/ Salish Sea and outside of the Vancouver Island, Washington Coast and Central BC Coast. You would think that the fresh water environment would be shared with similar conditions.

Here is a link to PSF and the Salish Sea Marine Survival Project, it's a couple of years old but still valid.
 
I read thru the site and watched the video. Not much mention about freshwater chemistry or invertebrates. There is also no mention of the acid rain that showered down on us for twenty five years. I'm not sure if they know acid rain moves metals in freshwater and the metals would precipitate out into the sailish sea as the water mixed and ph changed. Did I miss it all or was it there somewhere? Seems that somehow rain chemistry still flies under the radar!

I have sent an email to Mr Riddell but have seen no response.
 
I can see that you are passionate about your observations and hypothesis, Fishmyaster. That's great! Obviously, you also own your own feelings about the intentions and beliefs of others, as well - and we can agree to disagree about valid those assumptions may be. I own my own feelings and intent. All I can do is tell you I obviously do care about fish and factors that affect fish - or I wouldn't put the time in on this forum posting with you and others. Thank you for your efforts in continuing this dialogue.

I would also put out that if you get a response that differs from your conclusions - that doesn't mean that the person proposing an alternative answer necessarily disagrees with your observations - but instead is helping you target where data needs to be generated. Debate and research is what science is all about - and you are much stronger with a team of critical support than w/o it. Research teams debate each other consistently - and it is normally both welcome and professional. It is part of the process in focusing on how to grapple with answering a question.

From the data we have readily available - it appears that ocean survival is the single largest variable affecting most salmon stocks that we have escapement data for. That doesn't mean that pH and associated water quality changes are not having an effect - especially on those species that utilize freshwater extensively. Unfortunately, we have even more limited data on stock trajectories on those species such as steelhead (as you mentioned), and resident trout/char.

So: "What to do about that?" - is the next question that pops-up in my head - I am assuming it does likewise in your head.

I would try to organize a paired watershed study - hopefully in 2 areas not too far apart (logistics) - where so-called "sensitive" verses "resistant" watershed biota are studied. "Sensitive" and "resistant" to pH changes or acidification, that is - and looking at pH, benthic inverts and fish - over a couple years at least - including intensive sampling before and after any expected large scale pH spikes - such as would be expected at snow melt.

There are some funding sources and researchers and support out there. Does putting the legwork into organizing such a study - something that you would be interested in Fishmyster?
 
I am way ahead of you in studying this subject. I have been witnessing the changes in ecology for the last 40 years. I have grown up with creeks in my back yard and captured all local species for my aquarium hobby. There is no need for a paired watershed study as my observations include the whole coast of streams. I just spent two years sampling streams for ph and alkalinity and comparing the results with past water sample records. This information is also cross referenced with past/present invertebrate and algae trends. It is also cross referenced with stock status records. I have already done my homework.
Not sure if you read the stuff I posted but acid rain has retreated. We are going into a high stream productivity era that I predicted two years ago when the algae changed in our streams again. You have posted studies about the importance of salmon carcasses for nutrient. Well those carcasses were not decomposing correctly in most watersheds for many years. I don't think you fully understand what a game changer the newly accelerated decomposition trend is! Kind of late to start a fresh stream/rain ph study now unless I want to know rivers rebound from acid rain.
You keep claiming "from the data we have readily available-it appears that ocean survival is the single most affecting factor". I call ********. Have a look at the blue line on the chart pg.211. You do have data that indicated a far greater variable in freshwater productivity but refuse to acknowledge it. Just because there is LITTLE EVEDINCE indicating freshwater issues doesn't mean there is none. Turning you back to that little bit of evidence is not very scientific. Sad to say but this the biggest oversight that fisheries management has had over the years.
I have watched algae and food webs get wash away during winter high water events to leave a algae free stream void of invertebrates with starving fish behind. My stream water sampling. stream buffering and rain chemistry studies already prove to me what has been happening. It is unfortunate that none of our fisheries scientists have paid any attention to the rain chemistry changes or ecology changes in fresh water for the last thirty years. I can assure you from my studies and experience that there are far greater forces at work effecting salmon stocks than fish farms. You just need to have an open mind to accept it.
If you know of anyone with local scientific importance and who can think out of the box please send them my way. There is some very important information about the crash in our fish stocks I would like to share with them.
 
Back
Top