Viruses in present bc salmon farms

I have visited a private salmon hatchery a couple times to learn a bit about their operation. I must say they are very professional in comparison to SEP programs. Fish containment areas are monitored 24/7 by ph meter/loggers. Chemistry is closely monitored and adjusted if necessary to ensure high productivity. Similar attention to chemistry is applied at hot house vegetable farms. This is the kind of practices professionals use. They have to be successful or they would not stay in business.
If our salmon streams were monitored in a similar we would be a lot farther ahead in understanding where all the salmon have gone.
 
Hanne Merethe Haatveit, Øystein Wessel, Turhan Markussen, Morten Lund, Bernd Thiede, Ingvild Berg Nyman, Stine Braaen, Maria Krudtaa Dahle, and Espen Rimstad. 2017. Viral Protein Kinetics of Piscine Orthoreovirus Infection in Atlantic Salmon Blood Cells. Viruses: 2017, 9, 49; doi:10.3390/v9030049 http://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/9/3/49/htm

"findings indicate that PRV causes an acute infection of blood cells lasting 1–2 weeks, before it subsides into persistence"

"The study of molecular mechanisms linked to PRV infection has been limited by the lack of susceptible cell lines."

"Considering the emerging occurrence of HSMI, PRV exhibits a considerable risk for the aquaculture industry"

"The salmon does not appear to be able to eliminate PRV."
 
Good question, FI. ISAv is a "reportable" disease - under federal CFIA jurisdiction. Therefore, it has to be tested for using one of CFIA's "approved" labs - using the problematic PCR/cell culture testing protocol along w CFIA's arbitrary number of PCR cycles in determination between a "weak" positive verses a "false" positive (post #77, this thread, page 4: http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/index.php?posts/821997/ ). I don't think Marty's lab is CFIA-approved for ISAv testing.

However, he is a link in the chain that could lead to CFIA testing - or not. He instead looks at "histopathology" for the likely cause - and would send samples off to the CFIA-approved lab - but only of he thought it might be ISAv. If the prov fish vet says it isn't ISA - it isn't. If he says it isn't and doesn't test - it isn't. If they have all the clinical signs and CFIA doesn't test using RNA & PCR - it isn't. If it "isn't", then it goes unreported. In the farm fish health database, there are over 1100 fish with clinical signs of ISA - but the government can state that "no ISA has ever been found in BC". In the case of the River's Inlet samples - if the frozen samples get tested and they don’t show ISA at that time - the government can state that "no ISA has ever been found in BC" even though they reused frozen samples.
 
I seem to recall it went something like this....

The Canadian lab that revealed the first evidence of an infectious virus in British Columbia salmon has been stripped of its international credentials.

Dr. Kibenge has said federal government officials attacked the credibility of his lab since he reported two positive tests for the ISA virus in salmon samples from the west coast – a finding that could lead to export restrictions on B.C. salmon, crippling the fish farm industry.
 
so then there is proof? or is it still a belief? curious.

"She said the work she and others did visiting salmon farms this summer was necessary to draw attention to what she believes is a threat to wild salmon."
Can only find proof if you test for it. On the other hand if you never look for it.....
 
O ok, so there are 10millon viruses in sea water. From the salmon initiative plan, after 18,000 samples processed no reportable pathogens found in BC salmon.
First diagnosis of HSMI in Atlantic salmon in BC (in one of 4 farms)sampled as part of project.

seems they are looking for it..... 2017 science paper, currently in review
it keeps being tested and yet no real results
 
O ok, so there are 10millon viruses in sea water...
I keep hearing this old tired, misleading, deflective, carefully-scripted PR response from the industry. It's kinda like saying to a guy with AIDS - Don't worry! Be Happy! There's millions of viruses in the ocean! Big smile! Gaaagg...
 
Last edited:
O ok, so there are 10millon viruses in sea water. From the salmon initiative plan, after 18,000 samples processed no reportable pathogens found in BC salmon.
First diagnosis of HSMI in Atlantic salmon in BC (in one of 4 farms)sampled as part of project.

seems they are looking for it..... 2017 science paper, currently in review
it keeps being tested and yet no real results
I wonder how they get the samples from the Fish Farms. Do the researchers obtain them personally or are they supplied by the Fish Farms? In other words if I were to collect say six fish to study I would get 2 healthy looking fish and 4 that seem unhealthy for the study. Couldn't find any process for this in the report. http://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/365010.pdf
 
How
I keep hearing this old tired, misleading, deflective, carefully-scripted PR response from the industry. It's kinda like saying to a guy with AIDS - Don't worry! Be Happy! There's millions of viruses in the ocean! Big smile! Gaaagg...
How is it old and tiring and misleading???
It's from the salish sea study and taken from there 2017 field report. Lmao..... Deflection??? Where???
 
How
How is it old and tiring and misleading???
It's from the salish sea study and taken from there 2017 field report. Lmao..... Deflection??? Where???
I already quoted your post - and the misleading, and tiring PR response (post # 110)
 
I wonder how they get the samples from the Fish Farms. Do the researchers obtain them personally or are they supplied by the Fish Farms? In other words if I were to collect say six fish to study I would get 2 healthy looking fish and 4 that seem unhealthy for the study. Couldn't find any process for this in the report. http://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/365010.pdf
My understanding: they do what they can with the samples they get or can get economically - but I wouldn't call it actually a bone fide surveillance focused on determining disease freedom in the environment.

The reason(s) are that the fish are collected as part of other projects/activities (smolt trawling, broodstock, commercial deliveries, etc.) and each collection method would have it's biases wrt finding diseases.

As far as latent diseases - they are turned-on at times of stress for the host (as the immune threshold is lowered) - and as long as you can follow the life history stages - particularly through those stress periods - you stand a good chance of finding disease organisms - assuming your preservation and lab methods are appropriate.

If CFIA/DFO are getting their juvenile samples using their current methodology - they completely miss the early marine entrants period - the period of high stress on entrance into salt water and acclimation to osmotic stress - and most of the time they interact with fish farms.

Then there is an assumption that the preservation and lab protocols are correct and effective - which is similarly untrue - particularly for ISAv.
 
I already quoted your post - and the misleading, and tiring PR response (post # 110)
Talk about deflection, ill ask again...... How is information from a study done in 2017 old? It's not even out for pubic view yet..... How can you say its old????
 
Talk about deflection, ill ask again...... How is information from a study done in 2017 old? It's not even out for pubic view yet..... How can you say its old????
I am unsure if you are even reading what you type - let alone what I post.

Are you now claiming that the 2017 salish sea study (assuming you mean the PSF studies) claims that there are "there are 10millon viruses in sea water"... presumably as response to and a reason not to develop an understanding the effects of disease vectors in wild salmon? Because if you are reading the PSF work - rather than the newsletter of the BCSFA - maybe you can give that reference?
 
Lol, I said 10million viruses.
The next sentence says: from the salmon initiative plan.......

Where did you get lost?

No reference sorry wait for the lead scientist to release her paper. I had the fortune to watch the power point and sure are alot of scientists work very hard on where did the salmon go? Looks like most research is bottom up, not your top down approach. What are you going to complain about in 2018 when they tie all this information together? Fish farms are not being mentioned.........
 
Lol, I said 10million viruses.
The next sentence says: from the salmon initiative plan.......

Fish farms are not being mentioned.........
I wonder why Fish Farms are not mentioned? Could it be because they are a contributing sponsor?
 
I wonder why Fish Farms are not mentioned? Could it be because they are a contributing sponsor?
Well, bones claims that he is "waiting for the lead scientist to release her paper". Guess we will just have to make due with Kristi Miller's work in the meantime - assuming of course that whatever researcher bones is claiming will invalidate Kristi's work. Maybe I'll try holding my breath on this one...
 
Kristy IS the lead scientist for the part of the SSHI dealing with viruses and pathogens in wild, hatchery and farmed salmon. I would suggest that @bones be careful what he wishes for as the current findings are certainly NOT supportive of the claim that fish farms have no impact on wild salmon. I look forward to the official reports/findings coming out shortly and I'm sure they will be shared here once they are publicly available.

Well, bones claims that he is "waiting for the lead scientist to release her paper". Guess we will just have to make due with Kristi Miller's work in the meantime - assuming of course that whatever researcher bones is claiming will invalidate Kristi's work. Maybe I'll try holding my breath on this one...
 
Back
Top