Aquaculture; improving????

NEW PSF SALMON RESEARCH INDICATES THAT PATHOGENS ARE 12 TIMES HIGHER NEAR FISH FARMS
Fraser River sockeye salmon more likely to carry Tenacibaculum maritimum near open-net salmon farms in the Discovery Islands.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 18, 2022
Vancouver, B.C. — New PSF research indicates that Fraser sockeye were much more likely to harbour the bacterial pathogen Tenacibaculum maritimum when swimming past Discovery Island salmon farms than at other points along the migratory route of these iconic fish. These findings align with past evidence that open-net Atlantic salmon farms off the coast of British Columbia are growing and amplifying pathogens that can harm wild Pacific salmon. In particular, this study provides new evidence that Tenacibaculum is transmitted to juvenile wild sockeye salmon. The study was peer reviewed and published in Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Canada’s leading fisheries science journal.
Using genetic detection methods, the study indicates a clear peak in Tenacibaculum maritimum around the Discovery Island farms. Evidence suggests relatively consistent, low exposure levels elsewhere along the sockeye migration route. However, the research estimates that exposure to Tenacibaculum peaks near farms in the Discovery Islands at more than 12 times the general background level.
The bacterial pathogen infects marine fish around the world, and can cause Tenacibaculosis, a disease commonly characterised by open sores and erosion of the fins. On Atlantic salmon farms in British Columbia, the bacterial infection can also cause mouth rot, which primarily affects the teeth and gums. Juvenile sockeye salmon migrate past numerous Atlantic salmon farms off the coast of B.C.
“Given the severity of associated disease in related species and the imperiled nature of Fraser River sockeye, our results reiterate the need for a more precautionary approach to managing interactions between farm and wild salmon,” says Dr. Andrew Bateman, primary author of the study and manager of Pacific Salmon Foundation’s Salmon Health Program.
“Disease is very rare to observe in wild fish, since predators tend to weed out weak individuals. The kind of genetic screening tools used in this study provide a window into patterns of exposure that we would otherwise not have.”The same salmon farms and sockeye populations that form the focus of this study were the focus of risk assessments by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) in response to the Canadian federal government’s Cohen Commission of Inquiry into the Decline of Sockeye Salmon in the Fraser River. DFO’s risk assessment for Tenacibaculum from Discovery Island farms found that the pathogen posed a “minimal risk” to Fraser River sockeye. However, DFO’s risk-assessment explicitly states that the conclusions should be reviewed and revised as new research information fills knowledge gaps. This newly published research directly addresses some of those knowledge gaps.
Together, this new evidence suggests that salmon farms can elevate levels of Tenacibaculum in the marine environment, and Fraser River sockeye picked up the pathogen as they swim close to active salmon farms in the Discovery Islands. The research also corroborates earlier studies showing elevated levels of this bacterial pathogen in the water columns around active salmon farms.
In 2020 after consultations with local First Nations, then fisheries-Minister Bernadette Jordan ordered salmon farms in the Discovery Islands to close. The federal court has since overturned that decision, suggesting that the current Minister of Fisheries, Joyce Murray, will need to remake a decision surrounding Discovery Island farms. These new findings support the argument that Discovery Island farms should remain closed for the protection of Fraser River sockeye.
“We strongly encourage the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada to hold firmly to the commitment of a 2025 transition away from open-pen-net salmon farming. As all licenses for remaining farms are set to expire in June 2022, any renewal of licenses that prolong this risk to wild salmon would be deeply concerning. Salmon face many challenges, and open-net salmon farms pose a serious risk to wild salmon, a risk that we can control,” says Michael Meneer, CEO and President of the Pacific Salmon Foundation.
This Pacific Salmon Foundation study was conducted in partnership with Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), the University of British Columbia and University of Toronto, and the Hakai Institute. Eight researchers contributed to this paper, with many more contributing samples from a decade of fieldwork. The study was funded by PSF, DFO, Genome BC, Hakai, and NSERC—Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
A complementary study will publish May 19 in the journal FACETS in which UBC’s Dr. Art Bass assessed dozens of pathogens in thousands of Chinook and Coho salmon sampled over a decade along the British Columbia coast using data generated by the Strategic Salmon Health Initiative. Look to UBC Newsroom for more information on this second publication.
###
For full details, please visit study published in Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences.
Collection locations for sockeye salmon (blue dots), along their northwestward migration after marine entry at the Fraser River mouth (black triangle), from which molecular detections of Tenacibaculum maritimum were analysed. Grey, labelled outlines indicate DFO’s Aquaculture Management Zones, and orange crosses show the locations of relevant open-net salmon farms (within zones 3-1 through 3-5). Black circle is centred on Discovery Islands, and black square indicates northern Johnston Strait. (Map data are from Environmen-tal Reporting BC via the bcmaps R package. Salmon farm locations are from DFO Aquaculture Management Division. Map projection is equirectangular.): Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences.
Copyright (C) 2022 Pacific Salmon Foundation. All rights reserved.
 

Always a difference of opinion.
From report, Consequently, ministers charged with making decisions on the future of salmon aquaculture should trust the scientific facts that were presented in the recent CSAS reports concerning an industrial food sector that offers Canadian food security, and that is increasingly being adopted by First Nations along B.C.’s enormous coastline. The CSAS process does not selectively ignore some of the available science, as a form of bias – which may not be true for other expressed opinions being presented to the fisheries standing committee.
 
From report, Consequently, ministers charged with making decisions on the future of salmon aquaculture should trust the scientific facts that were presented in the recent CSAS reports concerning an industrial food sector that offers Canadian food security, and that is increasingly being adopted by First Nations along B.C.’s enormous coastline. The CSAS process does not selectively ignore some of the available science, as a form of bias – which may not be true for other expressed opinions being presented to the fisheries standing committee.
A Few elected band members becomes "increasingly being adopted by First Nations along B.C.’s enormous coastline" while the vast majority of First Nations oppose Open Net Cage Fish Farms. Tell me that is not political spin give me a break. Time to move onto dry land or leave entirely.
 

Always a difference of opinion.


I would think and hope that all who signed and put their names and credentials (aa should be happy to see that was done) on this would know just a tad more than all us keyboard warriors about their chosen fields of expertise...
 
Not similar at all. Tony Farrell is the Connor McDavid of the fish physiology world; they just don't come more qualified.
Tony Farrell has been a long time supporter of Fish Farms.
I don't suppose it matters
"Dr Tony Farrell is a professor and Canada Research Chair for fish physiology, culture and conservation at the University of British Columbia. Farrell has previously gone on record stating he was ‘absolutely delighted‘ that the BC Salmon Farmers Association funds his research projects.
 
Tony Farrell has been a long time supporter of Fish Farms.
I don't suppose it matters
"Dr Tony Farrell is a professor and Canada Research Chair for fish physiology, culture and conservation at the University of British Columbia. Farrell has previously gone on record stating he was ‘absolutely delighted‘ that the BC Salmon Farmers Association funds his research projects.
Who should fund any research then ? ENGO groups , government , industry ?? You can potentially criticize any funding source.
 
Tony has both expertise and a paycheck from the industry as well thru the Center for Aquatic Heath Sciences. I believe he yet again embarrassed himself on the latest Chinook risk assessments The other scientists on the call - called him on his disingenuous statements and assertions, IMHO. He's pretty predictable tho, if nothing else. He claims he doesn't understand when someone publicly publishes data/science inconvenient to the open net-pen industry.

He couldn't seem to understand what an average was years back during a debate with North Coast MLA Gary Coons on Friday, September 11th, 2008 in the BC legislature when the province was in charge because it helped his employers:

A. Farrell: "I'm not aware of that information. I can't comment, but I will comment that I've never seen 0.3 of a louse. I've only ever seen one louse, but I've never seen part of a louse on a fish. I mean, I'm struggling with that."

So a guy with a PhD doesn't understand what an average is??? Give me a break! Ya I'm struggling too, Tony :)

PS dave - when it comes to wild/cultured stock interactions & disease dynamics - ya they come way more qualified, and way more honest, as well. And they were on the call and Tony looked really unprofessional, IMHO.
 
Tony has both expertise and a paycheck from the industry as well thru the Center for Aquatic Heath Sciences. I believe he yet again embarrassed himself on the latest Chinook risk assessments The other scientists on the call - called him on his disingenuous statements and assertions, IMHO. He's pretty predictable tho, if nothing else. He claims he doesn't understand when someone publicly publishes data/science inconvenient to the open net-pen industry.

He couldn't seem to understand what an average was years back during a debate with North Coast MLA Gary Coons on Friday, September 11th, 2008 in the BC legislature when the province was in charge because it helped his employers:

A. Farrell: "I'm not aware of that information. I can't comment, but I will comment that I've never seen 0.3 of a louse. I've only ever seen one louse, but I've never seen part of a louse on a fish. I mean, I'm struggling with that."

So a guy with a PhD doesn't understand what an average is??? Give me a break! Ya I'm struggling too, Tony :)

PS dave - when it comes to wild/cultured stock interactions & disease dynamics - ya they come way more qualified, and way more honest, as well. And they were on the call and Tony looked really unprofessional, IMHO.
Are you talking about something he said in 2008?
And, please tell me who is "way more qualified" in "disease dynamics" than Tony Farrell.
 
and thanks SF - I did see and appreciate they signed off on the letter. It also would have been professional to post their declarations of conflicts of interest - which is also commonly done wrt publishing.

So to help with that - here is some easily accessible conflicts as an example:

Crawford from UPEI - one of the authors on that paper - has had some of his projects funded by the British Columbia Salmon Farmers Association. And in one of Crawford's papers (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0044848619325803?via=ihub) he states on p.2:

"In the cases of sea lice counts on Scottish salmon farms (Baillie et al., 2009) and wild pink juvenile salmon in BC, Canada (Jones and Hargreaves, 2009), a linear relationship was shown to exist between abundance and prevalence when prevalence was relatively low (approximately ≤50%) (Heuch et al., 2011). A similar result was demonstrated for a much larger number of wild juvenile samples in BC, Canada (Patanasatienkul et al., 2013), where a linear relationship was seen to hold for values of up to approximately 60% prevalence."

So lice burdens in wild juvies fluctuate in conjunction with adjacent farm burdens in non-CSAS published reports published by the same authors - but not in the CSAS reports.

Yet in the letter the authors claim:

"While the CSAS process is about as good as it gets when it comes to assembling available experts and facts"

"about" - truly.

Yet other UPEI researchers did NOT sign the letter like:

Molly Kibenge​


even tho the letter talks about Piscine orthoreovirus directly. Why not?

Maybe she wasn't asked even?

Or how about:

Frederick Kibenge​

Who's lab was stripped of credentials in Jul. 03 2013 after reporting he had found ISAv in River's sockeye?

While Dr. Larry Hammell (another signer to the letter) - received $2.3 million in Jun 11, 2008 by the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI) funding to study Disease Models to Address Aquatic Food Animal Health Surveillance and Management. (see: http://welcome.upei.ca/news/node/3308)

But this is "about as good as it gets " folks - nothing to see here - move along....
 
and thanks SF - I did see and appreciate they signed off on the letter. It also would have been professional to post their declarations of conflicts of interest - which is also commonly done wrt publishing.

So to help with that - here is some easily accessible conflicts as an example:

Crawford from UPEI - one of the authors on that paper - has had some of his projects funded by the British Columbia Salmon Farmers Association. And in one of Crawford's papers (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0044848619325803?via=ihub) he states on p.2:

"In the cases of sea lice counts on Scottish salmon farms (Baillie et al., 2009) and wild pink juvenile salmon in BC, Canada (Jones and Hargreaves, 2009), a linear relationship was shown to exist between abundance and prevalence when prevalence was relatively low (approximately ≤50%) (Heuch et al., 2011). A similar result was demonstrated for a much larger number of wild juvenile samples in BC, Canada (Patanasatienkul et al., 2013), where a linear relationship was seen to hold for values of up to approximately 60% prevalence."

So lice burdens in wild juvies fluctuate in conjunction with adjacent farm burdens in non-CSAS published reports published by the same authors - but not in the CSAS reports.

Yet in the letter the authors claim:

"While the CSAS process is about as good as it gets when it comes to assembling available experts and facts"

"about" - truly.

Yet other UPEI researchers did NOT sign the letter like:

Molly Kibenge​


even tho the letter talks about Piscine orthoreovirus directly. Why not?

Maybe she wasn't asked even?

Or how about:

Frederick Kibenge​

Who's lab was stripped of credentials in Jul. 03 2013 after reporting he had found ISAv in River's sockeye?

While Dr. Larry Hammell (another signer to the letter) - received $2.3 million in Jun 11, 2008 by the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI) funding to study Disease Models to Address Aquatic Food Animal Health Surveillance and Management. (see: http://welcome.upei.ca/news/node/3308)

But this is "about as good as it gets " folks - nothing to see here - move along....

I guess words used like
" maybe and might or could" should be highlighted also that are used in your arguments aa..
 
Are you talking about something he said in 2008?
And, please tell me who is "way more qualified" in "disease dynamics" than Tony Farrell.
Dave - don't you read the science? You should know the answers to that question as well as I do. Tony is an expert on physiology - not disease dynamics. That sure is apparent. But for the benefit of others reading:

DiCicco, Miller, Bateman, Mordecai, Connors, Shea, Kibenge, Krkošek, Bass, Johansen, Bjørn, Nylund as but a few examples of lead authors including dozens of other associated researchers. Pretty much everyone not employed by the industry - and a few whom are in Norway (not Canada).

Expand your horizons, Dave. Only a click away.

Much has already been posted previously on this thread and this forum. See:







 
Dave - don't you read the science? You should know the answers to that question as well as I do. Tony is an expert on physiology - not disease dynamics. That sure is apparent. But for the benefit of others reading:

DiCicco, Miller, Bateman, Mordecai, Connors, Shea, Kibenge, Krkošek, Bass, Johansen, Bjørn, Nylund as but a few examples of lead authors including dozens of other associated researchers. Pretty much everyone not employed by the industry - and a few whom are in Norway (not Canada).

Expand your horizons, Dave. Only a click away.

Much has already been posted previously on this thread and this forum. See:







I should expand my horizons? You should remove the tin foil hat; not everything and everyone is involved in conspiracies or fudges data if their funding source doesn't agree with yours. But thankyou for admitting the man is an expert.
 
Back
Top